Why wilderness? That's a question that any person or group committed to preserving wild places hears often.

Our first instinct is to reach for statistics and studies on the importance of wilderness characteristics such as climate control or biodiversity. Potential "hard" benefits are not difficult to come by, from plant compounds that may hold cures for diseases to genetic characteristics that could make our food crops hardier or higher yielding. And you don't have to do much more than glance at a Canadian stock-market table to realize how much of this country's prosperity has been built on resource extraction from wild areas.

In fact, a recent study estimated that everyday ecosystem services such as clean air, clean water, climate control, flood protection, erosion control, soil fertility, nutrient recycling, etc., are worth "at least $33 trillion a year" — close to the entire world's annual conventional Gross Domestic Product.

So what happens to our prosperity when the last cod is caught or the last white pine harvested? It wasn't supposed to ever happen, particularly with "renewable" resources such as forests. Today, however, the cod have virtually disappeared and less than one percent of the old-growth pine forests that once blanketed northeastern North America remain.

So, why wilderness?

If we let our remaining wilderness areas go the way of the decimated Atlantic cod stocks, what will the impact be on us? Probably the biggest, from an economic point of view, is that we will have wiped out our margin for error. If we don't fully understand the impacts of industrial forestry on ecosystems, for example, if we've made a single miscalculation that could result in the failure of those systems, we will have nowhere else to turn. Gone with them will be any chance to learn more about the complex interrelationships at work in ecosystems, and how these interdependent webs keep natural areas healthy and in balance.

But that still doesn't completely answer our question, because the values of wilderness simply don't lend themselves to calculation by cash register. It's been suggested, for example, that the Canadian character is defined more by our ability to survive and adapt to a harsh environment than it is by any individual traits. Maybe the real message is that — at our best — we have taken the time to learn from nature.

Certainly, the power of wilderness has a strong hold on most Canadians. Even those who rarely venture beyond urban boundaries often see their home as a place defined by cold lakes, big trees and granite outcrops. For millions of others, wilderness is relaxing, restorative and a reason for slugging it out on the job until vacation time rolls around once again.

But put aside our need for wild places and the need for wilderness remains. What we're left to recognize is that this is an issue of fundamental justice — wild lands and their inhabitants have the right to exist irrespective of their
usefulness to us. We have no right and no mandate to act as their destroyers.

For further details, check out these related pages:

• Planning for Prosperity, a document on how Ontario can protect 15-20% of the land, maintain wood flow to mills and create 8,000 new jobs 
• Q&A, which features frequently asked questions (and answers) about protected areas, wilderness and jobs