Subject: 
             For moderation - Re: Unethical preservationism: the ivory ban
       Date: 
             Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:09:16 -0400
       From: 
             Ted Mosquin <[log in to unmask]>
         To: 
             [log in to unmask]
 References: 
             1




Jim Tantillo wrote:

> Ted wrote in response to Chris Perley:
> >My response to several emails on this topic was not about the meaning of the
> >preservation of Nature as such but about the use of anti-environmental
> >propaganda terms such as "unethical preservationism."  So far, you have not made
>
> >a convincing case that there is even such a thing as "unethical"
> >preservationism.

Jim Tantillo further wrote:

> I think a convincing case can be made that the ivory ban represents a
> pretty clear example of "unethical" preservationism (or protectionism, pick
> your favorite term).

Ted here..
Reading about the ivory ban and its malign effects on both elephants and on people
who used to "harvest" them for their ivory, I was reminded of Botkin's treatment of
the same subject in "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-first
Century" (Oxford U. Press, 1990).  Botkin conceded that before Europeans colonized
Africa and cut it up into nations, elephants must have achieved some kind of
"natural" constancy in population, but now it is impossible and "human actions are
required to create (and maintain) a balance." In other words, when elephants are
confined by fenced fields and national boundaries they will reproduce, eat out
their habitat, and die unless humans figure out the carrying capacity of their
limited range and fit the numbers to it by periodically slaughtering the excess. So
if preservation of local elephant herds is the goal, that's the only way to ensure
it - at least for the time being. Now if some members of the WWF and other such
organizations actually knew that, yet went for the ivory ban just to get members
and raise money, then they were unethical. I wouldn't call it a case of "unethical
preservation" but rather "unethical fund-raising"--an instance of unethical people
playing on the valid preservation sentiment of an uneducated public.

Ethics always posits a value system, and to ecocentric ethicists the central value
is Earth with its ecosystems and all their contents including people. All have
intrinsic values but humans are not to be privileged over everything else. In other
words, we don't have the God-given right to destroy ecosystems and their
organic/inorganic contents. So the over-riding concern, the ethical imperative is
"to preserve all the parts" in Leopold's words. When people sincerely act toward
that goal, even if they are mistaken in the means (as reported in the ivory ban) it
seems to me that they are acting ethically. If insincere, they're unethical. In the
latter case, calling it "unethical preservation" doesn't seem reasonable since
preservation of the Earth and its naturally evolved systems is the primary ethical
stance of those of the ecocentric persuasion. Of course, the humanists/
anthropocentrists will label it "unethical preservation" because in their
value/ethic belief it harms the economic livelihood of people.

Most of Jim T's response deals with conservation, defined near the end by Bonner
(in its original meaning) as the careful and planned use of resources on grounds of
utility, as opposed to preservation meaning "let it be" on evolutionary, esthetic
and ethical grounds. I guess one has to admit that in a messed up and grossly
overpopulated world it is sometimes necessary to achieve what preservation you can
by conservation (the doctrine of sustainable utilization).

So, on the basis of the above, the term "unethical preservation" remains an example
of an oxymoron.

Cheers to all,
Ted
--
Ted & Linda Mosquin, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada
http://www.ecospherics.net (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%