I think a good word instead of love would be respect. People have
a respect for nature and that is why we protect it.
Another thing Hargrove said in his ESA talk was that we need to
teach values as part of our public education. It is not a surprise
that it is such a contentious issue, since we are basically uneducated
as a society on how to value things like nature. He might have a
point, and I encourage you to read some of his literature on this
subject. I am just a casual observer, so I can't authoritatively
weigh in with my point of view. However, I think it is an important
discussion to have.
Jonathan
On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Silvert wrote:
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
