Ah, that bit there - maintaining a wilderness. I don't think it's just pedantry to claim that if it's maintained then it's not wilderness.
It seems the semantics may be getting in the way here. You are proposing to have to maintain the planet at a certain level of technology which is different from setting aside areas to remain wilderness and maintain that designation in what way?
It seems more like a blind spot in the way people think and talk about this.
I think that until fairly recently you could claim that there are still wild places on Earth, uncontrolled by humans. Now the aim is to climate control the whole biosphere via CO2 control.
Not really. The only controls proposed are the human emissions of carbon.
I don't see how this can be avoided, as long as we affect the atmosphere our actions are distributed globally.
Our presence globally affects all ecosystems in some fashion.
Nor do I think that, as long as it is in our power, we would allow any natural warming or cooling to break human defined bounds. We're due for an ice age sooner or later, and can we say that we will simply let it happen without trying some geoengineering ?
Possibly. Or we may be due for a super volcano eruption. Ir we may have a large space body impact coming. Or even a natural pandemic. All of which would change the face of the planet in one way or another.
That's why I think we've seen the last of wilderness on Earth unless it is taken out of our control by something we can't handle like a major catastrophe.
Possibly, but you have already claimed there is no wilderness left because of the CO2 control, so the point should be moot.