Subject:
For moderation - RE: Pop-ecology and two views of obfuscation
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:45:34 +1200
From:
"Chris Perley" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Jim Lewis wrote : (in reply to my obfuscation)
> >I consider myself on the Leopoldian side, and have tried to
> focus my efforts
> >on belonging to the land community, rather than forcing the land
> to adapt to
> >the human community. I find Robert Costanza's idea that "if we
> are ever to
> >find workable long-term solutions to our environmental problems,
> we need a
> >completely new conception of the relationship between economics
> and ecology,
> >one that regards the economic subsystem as a part of the learger
> ecological
> >life-support system" to be right on the mark. Now all we need are people
> >who don't automatically say "that's impossible" but get to work to find a
> >way to make it happen.
> >
> >I'm not sure if that makes me a "preservationist" or not, but it
> certainly
> >does make me one who thinks business as usual, and "fixing"
> solutions via a
> >PR firm rather than actual work, won't do.
Chris Perley here: I don't have any problems with this snip from the bottom
of your "obfuscation" post. In fact, it accords with some of the things
some of us have been saying: i.e. - focus on solutions - and don't leave
humans out of the equation. It doesn't sound preservationist to me - yet
the ripostes you posted above this final statement appeared to be in
contradiction with this view. I also have a lot of sympathy with
ecological economic. But note that ecological economics involves HUMANS.
Your comment about needing "people who don't automatically say "that's
impossible" but get to work to find a way to make it happen" is also
something a number of us have been arguing for. This is not preservationism
Jim (as I understand it). But so often it IS "preservationism" that is
closed to any involvement between humans and trees or animals (or
whatever) - believing humans to involve ecological harm all the time. When
someone suggests an ecologically sensitive management of a forest there are
always those who will be opposed because it doesn't accord with their
"beliefs". And those who support the initiative are termed environmental
traitors, anti-environmentalists and industry apologists.
So who are the people saying "that's impossible"?
Chris P
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|