In the abstract cited, the author (Hargrove) states that the Endangered
Species Act is supposed to promote "aesthetic, ecological, educational,
historical, recreational, and scientific value" in order to inhibit
"economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and
Conservation." There isn't a lot of ecology in this statement (is ecological
value different from scientific value?). Aesthetic and recreational values
attract money and pollitical support, but they don't guarantee the
maintenance of a global ecosystem.
Consider the earthworm, which I think most of us would agree is incredibly
important. What are its aesthetic, educational and historical values? Aside
from its use as bait, does it have a lot of recreational value? And yet it
is a vulnerable species, as the native North American earthworms were wiped
out during the ice age.
I am afraid that JB's refernce tends to support my argument that ecological
conservation needs reason more than love.
Also, in response to several other postings abut the importance of passion
in science, I do not think that passion should be confused with love. One
can get really passionate about worms, but I don't know many people who love
them. To put this in another context, I was a civil rights worker during the
1960s and like virtually all of the other whites in the movement I was
pretty passionate about the work we were doing. But although our opponents
generally referred to us as "nigger-lovers", there was little evidence that
the blacks and whites who were working together had any especial love for
each other, or even became good friends. The passion came from a sense that
we were doing something really important, and not that we were helping
people we loved. In ecology I think that much the same holds true. We are
fighting for a sustainable future, not simply to protect organisms that we
love.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Blythe" <[email protected]>
To: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts
At the last Ecology conference, I saw a talk by a prominent philosopher
who suggested that aesthetics is the only rational basis of
environmentalism. Excuse me if I am misquoting him, but if I understand
his argument, it seems very rational to me if not scientific.
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2008/techprogram/P9360.HTM
