Sorry to clog the e-mail - but this is a propos to John's comments on
change, and his belief in climax that seems to underlie many of his
comments.
From Drury 1998 Chance and Change: ecology for conservationists (p193)
"Notions of balance tend to separate humans from nature. This attitude
implies that humans and their habitats are not natural because they have
consistently created imbalances. Environmentalists continually assert that
humans and their technoilogical society have destroyed nature. They argue
that before humans appeared on the scence, all was peaceful and harmonious.
This is a distorted , unsubstantiated view. I believe that the dichotomy
between human-influenced systems and "natural" systems is not realistic or
helpful and that it leads to an unjustified pessimism among
environmentalists.
The separaton of humans from nature has many additional implications. Not
only does it prevent us from achieving our desired goals in conservation....
but on a more philosophical level, it relieves us of any responsibility for
nature. We are not part of nature; we just use it, or "protect" it by
keeping people apart from nature preserves."
I tend to agree. A highly utilitarian "resourcism" is encouraged and given
succour by strong "balance of nature"-based "preservationism". I know
forestry companies that don't think they need worry about the environment or
society over and above their legal commitment becasue that is all done "over
there". They don't think they are part of the environment, and the
preservationists whose ideal is a people-less landscape where nature can
achieve some zen balance keep reinforcing that perspective.
CP
|