I find it notably interesting not only for the argument, but particularly because I find the argument, from my brief review, relates to the religious view that puts humans in the steward role.
I fell that just banning sections as 'off limits' confused responsibility with abdication of responsibility.
In Ontario, for instance, huge parts of the north are set aside, and that seems to act as justification for opening important bird areas in the south to industrial wind turbine development despite the known threat to protected species.
If the starting point were cohabitation, the end points would be different... as they should.
Conservation in the Anthropocene | Climate Etc.:
"Conservationists need to work with development, not condemn it as leading to the end of nature. In truth, nature’s resilience has been overlooked, its fragility “grossly overstated.” Areas blasted by nuclear radiation are bio-diverse. Forest cover is rising in the Northern Hemisphere even as it declines globally.
These are ‘heretical words’ from Peter Kareiva, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. Karieva has written a provocative article for the Breakthrough Institute entitled Conservation in the Athropocene .... From the summary:
“By its own measures, conservation is failing. Biodiversity on Earth continues its rapid decline. We continue to lose forests in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. There are so few wild tigers and apes that they will be lost forever if current trends continue. Simply put, we are losing many more special places and species than we’re saving.”"