Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
• The reader is supplying a universal statement that should be obeyed always. I do not think the matter is quite so simple.
• Preserving some areas of land may be more expensive than preserving other areas of equal area. A cost benefit analysis must be run to determine benefits vs. costs.
• Preserving some areas of land may provide jobs near areas which have high unemployment or reduce pollution in areas which have high industrial output. Other factors for land preservation need to be considered.
• Preserving wilderness that is accessible to many people is preferable so that people are able to enjoy the preserved wilderness, through hiking or camping in it. However, areas which are not remote could be better candidates for public recreational reasons.
• Wilderness accessible to only a few people are typically preserved anyway. Although there are some political figures who suggest that wilderness should be exploited partially because few people are affected -- GW Bush and drilling in the Artic Wildlife Preserve.
• Also need to consider how the preservation decision will benefit specific species of wildlife.
———————————————
"In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field."
• Author's viewpoint goes too far. In some fields of an endeavor it is possible to make a significant contribution without being strongly influenced by past achievements.
• One example is art and music. These are fields which depend highly on creative talent. Too much knowledge about past achievements and artistic theory encourages conformity.
• In classical music (without words) and art, there