Ted Mosquin opined:
>There was another excellent oxymoron introduced in this group a couple of days
>ago by Chris Perley, namely "unethical preservationism." One can make a strong
>ecologically based case that the preservation is Nature is the highest form of
>ethics. To me, terms such as "unethical preservationism" is part of the
>general
>body of anti-environmental hate literature. Another term for your lexicon of
>examples of ad homenum argument/labelling.
>Ted
>
>--
>Ted Mosquin, Lanark, Ontario, Canada.
><http://www.ecospherics.net> (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)
Hi Ted, and hi everyone,
Perhaps Ted has come into the conversation late, but I think he rather
misses the point of Perley's distinction between "ethical" and "unethical"
preservationism. Chris is certainly *not* suggesting that preservation as
such is "unethical." "Preservation-*ism*," on the other hand, can be
either good or bad. Preservationism as such can take many different forms,
and in its more extreme manifestations can and *should* be morally
evaluated just like any other "ism."
As an aside, in my dictionary the suffix "-ism" can carry religious,
ideological, and/or cultic overtones: "3 a : doctrine : theory : cult
<Buddh-ism>" (MW 10th Coll.). *Preservationism* thus can refer not only
to the well meaning and well intended spirit of preserving the natural
world that we all undoubtedly share, but also to the more rigidly (even
slavishly) held doctrines of particular individuals and of particular
organized "preservationist" groups. In the latter case, some of these
groups could be accurately described as holding particularly ossified and
cultish beliefs, e.g. those relating to normatively laden preservationist
ideas such as "the purity of nature," "Nature knows best", and "the best
'management' is 'hands off' management," to name but a few examples.
This I take it is the point of Perley's making a fine *distinction* between
different forms of preservationism. Preservationism *can* stand in the way
of accomplishing the environmental good, a point that has been touched on
in our recent discussions of Stephen Budiansky's book and a point that
Perley himself has amply illustrated with his examples of forest management
(or "non-management") in New Zealand. I might add that this is a point
that is also well made in Michael Pollan's excellent book, *Second Nature:
A Gardener's Education*.
And so I think Ted's moral summum bonum ("the preservation [of] Nature is
the highest form of ethics") is not to the point. Chris is speaking of
preservation*ism*, i.e. as a social movement(s) or even as a
quasi-religion. The simple act of "preservation" that Ted focuses on, in
contrast, is something entirely different.
Jim T.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|