Bill, Your succinct reply in the second sentence of your post: "[Through conservation] All we are really trying to do is make life better for more people for longer." was precisely in-line with my thesis. And that is that the underlying ethos of conservation is selfish. But I don't believe that many on this list serve would take such an anthropocentric stance. The justification that I have more frequently heard (and the one I keep telling myself) is that we conserve to sustain the health of the living organism that is ALL LIFE ON EARTH.
I believe your response may be the more 'natural' one. We do it for ourselves because that is our and every other living organisms genetic imperative - to multiply and sustain. This becomes exceedingly difficult for us to do in a crowded, degraded environment. The other argument - we do it for the sake of all living organisms - is on its surface altruistic, and indeed uniquely human. But again posed with the question: why protect the Earth's living organism? I envision the response being either 1. So that all living creatures can coexist peacefully or 2. Because each living creature has value and there is a sanctity to existence. The first response, I believe, is at its root selfish. In the end, we really want all living creatures to coexist so that humans do not get wiped out. The second response is religious in nature. The idea of extinction is appalling to us because of its finality. Our existence is all we have and precisely what we share with each living organism, to willfully take that away from another creature is inherently repulsive. But as I keep asking, Bill (and I may have learned this from my 2 year old, though I think I was never satisfied with the answers I ever received myself - and no doubt why I became a scientist) Why? I believe the answer would go something like this: Willfully causing extinction is repulsive because we are all the same organism. We evolved from the same genetic material and we have differentiated into a complex and intricately woven mosaic of branches. To willfully cause an extinction is like cutting off your own arm, you will likely live but you will never be the same. This makes intuitive sense to me but within the context of all time seems less important. Unlike an actual severed arm, replaced with a scar, when a branch of the tree of life is broken off it is replaced by ever diverging and converging neighboring branches. And when we look at this tree through the lens of all time we see that its original roots have died but it still live on, we see branches constantly breaking off and constantly growing, we see us humans as one especially truculent branch banging into all the others and shaking the tree. But no matter how hard we shake it, it will keep growing. We are in the crown of this tree and the view is wonderful, from this vantage that is all we can see and the view is humbling, beautiful, and indeed sacred. Yet we are myopic and our view, though beautiful, is limited. The crown of the tree will always be there, with or without us. What value is its current form versus its previous or its future manifestations? The value we put upon it is ours to place. Amen. On 3/27/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can justify a lot with this kind of argument. Why practice medicine, > we > are all going to die anyway? All we are really trying to do is make life > better for more people for longer. > > The effort to do this has of course led to some anomalous practices. > Legislation designed to protect every single species on earth has created > many enemies of conservation, without doing much good. In a totally > rational > world issues of conservation and extinction could be worked on by > committees > of ecologists, politicians, NGOs and so on, with predictable results -- > save > the great whales and polar bears, let some nematodes and cave-dweling fish > go. That won't happen. > > About 4 years ago I wrote a paper > (http://bill.silvert.org/pdf/Biodiversity.pdf) about the politics of > biodiversity conservation in which I argued the importance of informing > the > public that "the lowly earthworm has as much importance (actually more) as > beautiful egrets and cuddly pandas." The paper was never published -- it > was > rejected as unscientific -- and I think that scientists are unwilling to > venture into the realm of making political choices about the fate of > species. However I think we need to find a middle ground between the > idealistic belief that we need to conserve everything and provide absolute > protection for the environment, and the cynical fatalism of Dylan Ahearn. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dylan Ahearn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: gas shmass > > > > And on another note - and I am sure this has been addressed on this > > message > > board before - so what if the climate changes? It has happened before, > it > > will happen again. A great extinction will occur; it has happened > before, > > it will happen again. Really it is the old geologist paradigm. We are > a > > brief chapter in this earth's history (at this rate very brief). In the > > end > > we will not have mattered and really how many species we have taken down > > with us will not have mattered. The root of the conservation argument > has > > a > > idealogical (religious?) basis. And that is that there is value in what > > is > > presently here on earth. So much value that we bemoan each extinction > (a > > VERY common event through time) and each spoiled view (again, ephemeral > > with > > or without us). And why is this value attached? Because we put it > there > > as > > INDIVIDUALS, not even as a species. Joe-blow doesn't care about the > > fairie > > shrimp, I do (who is right and why?). In the end it is selfish, we > > appreciate biologic diversity because we will thrive in those > > environments, > > we appreciate good views because they make us smile. First and > foremost, > > the native american looked 7 generations ahead so that their descendents > > would thrive, not so that the resources they used would remian > > unspoiled. The earth and life upon it do not care about this > > self-reflecting > > species. We would be pompous to think that we could destroy all life on > > Earth. We could take out 90% (maybe) and then 500 million years later > > your > > back in action. Imagine the views then, breath taking I am sure. >
