Is ideology inescapable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is ideology inescapable?". Your opponent's style: Slavoj Žižek

My resolve is that The United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land. This is because it would increase biodiversity in the land and restore food chains.

*adjusts shirt, sniffs* My God, this is pure ideological fantasy! You speak of "rewilding" as if nature exists outside ideology, but this is precisely the most ideological move of all - the fantasy that we can return to some pristine, pre-ideological state of nature.But look at this absurd contradiction! You want to "restore food chains" through rewilding, but most authors find rewilding harms farming, which is threatened by abandonment and damages by wildlife [1]. The very biodiversity you celebrate comes at the cost of destroying actual human food production! This is ideology par excellence - the romantic fantasy that we can somehow step outside the social order and return to pure nature. But there is no "outside" to ideology! Your rewilding project costs $2,500-$6,000 USD per hectare, with rewilding 2.9 billion hectares potentially costing over $10 trillion [1] - this massive expenditure is itself an ideological choice about how society should allocate resources. And what happens when your "natural" paradise meets reality? The Dutch Oostvaardersplassen experiment - your model rewilding project - was terminated in 2018 as a consequence of repeated public outcries against massive crashes of herbivore populations, with more than 60 percent of the grazers having to be shot [1]. So much for letting nature "restore itself"! You cannot escape the fundamental ideological question: whose vision of nature counts? The urban environmentalists who romanticize wilderness, or the farmers whose livelihoods your rewilding destroys? Your "biodiversity" is just another word for class warfare disguised as ecology.