I’ll have to look at this but unless I’m mistaking the source, I’m assuming rewilding half the earth comes from EO Wilson’s Half Earth proposal. It is a deeply problematic idea.

When it was published, Wilson’s book was criticized for disenfranchising millions of people, many of whom have no agency or influence to decide these things. It’s akin to forcing Native Americans or Maasai off of newly created National Parks. It’s a great way to anger local communities who often are using the earth sustainably (wtf does it mean to re-wild an area that has been balanced by human societies?), and also make sure people on the other half never gain much of an appreciation for nature since they are forbidden from that land.

Because then you have an idea that it’s fine to go hog on the other half, destroying endemic fauna and massive resource extraction. Many animals migrate great distances, so what happens when they migrate into our territory?

Recent evidence of Wilson’s frequent and warm correspondence with race scientists only backs this up. When I see the idea of Half Earth proposed, I have to ask which or who’s half?

Do we really think we’re going to abandon highly productive places New York harbor, also a major hub for bird migration a former biodiversity hot spot? Or are we giving the Sahara to the wild half and keeping all the good stuff.

Sorry for being little Lisa Simpson - Hexbear’s answer to a question no one asked, but here are some readings for those interested.

Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001228

Article on EO Wilson’s letters https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/online/the-last-refuge-of-scoundrels/