I though Kareivas idea of the necessity of humans in nature conservancy is an interesting idea and not one that is mentioned. Often it seems like the conservationists and preservationists point most of the blame at humans. Instead the author argues that by balancing the basic human needs of water, food, livlihoods, security and health. But for The Nature Conservany, this is the endgame, but argues that there will be room for wilderness after this is met.

To me, it seemed like the article made a lot of heavy assumptions that might not be true or possible without serious changes to our behavior. They offered some small scale examples of successful ecological conservation efforts but seem to only get more difficult if the population continues to increase.