As for humans being part of the ecosystem, they currently are in ANWR. Yet they are in small enough numbers, living sustainably with nature, that they do no harm. Oil development is an activity that runs the risk of greatly interferring with nature, especially in the extremely fragile tundra. The risk in this case is much greater than the potential reward, thus should be avoided, especially since alternatives do exist.
This is a tautologically true statement, yes. You are saying that "Those who don't value ANWR don't value ANWR." I agree.
The thing is, you do "value" ANWR (in the sense that you find it necessary to keep humans OFF of it). I am sincerely asking you why. Seems to me this is a fair question; if you "value" ANWR in this sense, you ought to be able to explain why.
On the other hand, Manhattan has little value to me. Yet I don't make the claim Manhattan has no value, because I realize others value it.
Let's be more specific. We are not talking about whether you, or I, generically "value" a place. We are talking about whether you, or I, should have the power/authority/right to keep humans off of a certain place.
The reason you can't/don't try to keep humans off of Manhattan is not Because You Don't Value It (however true this may be). It's because you don't own it; that land is not yours to begin with, so your opinion of whether you "value" Manhattan is really irrelevant, frankly.
But in the case of ANWR, I'll admit that your (and my) opinion is relevant, because after all it is federally-protected land. Now some may and will quibble that it "shouldn't" be federally protected land in the first place, that Alaskans should have the right to decide for themselves. Personally I am sympathetic to that view, but it's beside the point; the fact that we can agree upon is that for all practical purposes the use of ANWR is something that "we" (the American public) will decide.
Which brings us back to square one. You have correctly identified in me a certain lack of "value" for ANWR, in the sense that I don't find it necessary to keep humans OFF of it. (In a different sense altogether, of course, I do "value" ANWR - it's got oil underneath it!) And here you are, you "value" it so much that you want humans to stay OFF of it. I am sincerely asking you why, and why I should be converted to your view of "value" in this sense.
To say that I should merely "respect" the view of those who do "value" ANWR so much, and not ask questions about it, is to somehow stifle an honest intellectual curiosity about the subject. Isn't it a fair question?
ANWR is a rare ecosystem that is still mostly intact,
Begging the question. How can an ecosystem "not be intact"? Every place on the planet has an "ecosystem", whatever it is. And whatever that "ecosystem" is, it is, by definition, "intact". There is no objective or scientific means by which one could look at an ecosystem (which every place possesses, by definition) and blithely declare, "this ecosystem is not intact".
where most of nature still is able to interact as they have done millenia.
Ok this clarifies things (somewhat). By "intact", you mean something very specific and non-obvious. You mean, An ecosystem which looks much the same as it has for millenia.
Thank you for the clarifying detail. Because now, you see, instead of being able to appeal to/rely on emotional words such as "pristine" and "intact ecosystem" (which are designed to win over the listener without any thought whatever), you are now in a position where you ought to really defend the statement, "It's good for humans to stay off land which looks much the same as it has for millenia" - because that it what you are actually saying.
So, I'll ask you: Why is it good, or necessary, or desirable for humans to stay off of land which looks much the same as it has for millenia?
Just as a precious gem is valued because of its rarity, so is ANWR.
"Rarity" is a dubious thing to claim about ANWR. Are there no other frozen tundras in the world?
As for humans being part of the ecosystem, they currently are in ANWR. Yet they are in small enough numbers, living sustainably with nature, that they do no harm.
More question-begging. Define "sustainably" and "harm". If humans are living there and not dying off, I would think they are living "sustainably". But by this definition, humans are living "sustainably" in Manhattan as well. This cannot be what you mean.
Similarly, it's not immediately obvious (without further clarification) how a human (part of the ecosystem) "harms" that ecosystem. If a human excretes onto the ground, does he "harm" that ground? Is a human who exhales carbon dioxide "harming" the air? So many questions. Can you clarify?
Oil development is an activity that runs the risk of greatly interferring with nature,
Again - if humans are part of nature, how can they "interfere with" it?
I guess you are defining "nature" so as to exclude humans. But why do that? We are back at square one again.
The risk in this case is much greater than the potential reward, thus should be avoided,
Well we can certainly agree that if the risk is greater than the reward, it should be avoided. The problem is that this question depends crucially on how you are defining, and measuring, "risk" and "reward".
I trust that you have done the necessary extensive statistical calculations to back up your assertion that risk > reward?
Or not? If not, then doesn't it just boil down to your pseudo-religious feeling for Land Which Has Not Changed Much In Millenia?
But why should I "respect" such a feeling, and be required to obey it? I am seeking rational reasons here.