Hi everyone,

My thanks to David Pearson for the blessedly brief period of list
moderation he provided.

Now down to enviro-business.


>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.

Ted, Ted, Ted.  <grin>  "I wouldn't call it a case of 'unethical
preservation' but rather 'unethical fund-raising'" . . . .

I hate to mix-and-match material from different threads, but isn't this
distinction you're now making a bit like playing "Pop-ecology goes the
weasel?"    :-)

After all, what Chris Perley (long ago) was saying when he began this
thread was that certain forms of "hands-off" or non-utilization based
preservationism were unethical in the sense that they hurt the environment.
Utilizing ivory BAD; preserving elephants GOOD.   Here is a fairly
straightforward and clear case where appealing to the public's
preservationist sympathies--in exactly Chris's sense of the term
"preservationist"--hurt the environment, in this case, elephants and
habitat.  All of which was clearly foreseeable before the ban was put into
effect.

Forget the fund-raising for a minute (which is also partly aimed at
Maria-Stella's current fascination with public relations).  This is still a
case of "unethical preservationism," which is what this particular thread
has been focused on ever since it started: that is to say,
preservation-"ism" that hurts the environment.  And Chris makes the point,
which I think is abundantly reinforced by Raymond Bonner, that this type of
preservation-"ism" is unethical precisely because the harm to the
environment is:
(a) foreseeable,
(b) avoidable, and
(c) attributable to "environmentalists."

This is what I thought we were talking about under the "unethical
preservationism" thread.

Now, the moral principle at stake here is "epistemic responsibility," or
the old-fashioned idea that people *ought* to know better.  What Chris has
focused on is the fact that so many so-called "environmentalists" seem
incapable of understanding what Chris has labeled a more "sophisticated"
approach to ecology and environmental management.  The Bonner article uses
exactly that same term to describe what the ignorant dolts <that's
semi-ironically sarcastic> who apparently make up the membership of the
World Wildlife Fund and other conservation organizations also seem
incapable of understanding.  To wit:

>Bonner:   "In spite of its longtime commitment to the principle of
>sustainable utilization, however, the World Wildlife Fund in Washington was
>concerned that the concept was 'not understood by the vast majority' of its
>members.  'Most of these members are more traditionally oriented toward
>species 'preservation,' and there is little understanding of the
>complexities of conservation in Africa in the 1980s,' two senior
>conservationists in Washington wrote in a 1988 memo.  Failure to endorse a
>ban, they added, would have 'a seriously detrimental effect on our
>membership.'  As Russell Train, the group's chairman, told me [Bonner] in
>1991: 'We're trying to bring our members along on utilization, but our
>development people, the fund-raisers, are very nervous because there is no
>question that the great majority of our membership are animal lovers and
>have difficulty making the evolution to a more sophisticated understanding
>of conservation.' "

Now, while it is one thing to absolve people of culpability for simple
*ignorance* as we sometimes do, it is quite another thing entirely to
exonerate people from all blame for their mistaken, misguided, and/or
dogmatically maintained views.  Environmentalists are not immune from this
criticism: they have an "epistemic responsibility" for their beliefs as
well.  And that includes their preservationist views.

As an aside, one philosopher who has developed a systematic treatment of
the idea of "epistemic responsibility" is Lorraine Code, in her aptly
titled book, *Epistemic Responsibility* (Hanover, NH: University Press of
New England, 1987).

[snip]

Ted has concluded:
>
>So, on the basis of the above, the term "unethical preservation" remains
>an example
>of an oxymoron.

Just to clarify something--no one here has been talking about the term,
"unethical preservation."  The discussion has been about "unethical
preservation-ism."  see
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-07/0439.html

There IS a difference.  We wouldn't want to get started on another round of
"Pop-ecology goes the weasel," now would we?  :-)

Jim

p.s.  I was a bit dismayed to see the problem with the line wrapping on my
most recent moderated post about the ivory ban (in response to
Maria-Stella).  Presumably I'm not the only one who received it in a
chopped-up form.  If anyone likes, I can send you the cleaner original
version (much easier to read) if you email me offlist.
JT


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