Hello folks,

Chris P. said:
> To preserve used to mean to keep in some particular state.  Therefore it
is
> fine to say I want to preserve "integrity", when that integrity involves
> processes, dynamism, change and the presence of humans as realities within
> ecosystems.

Ray here:
The preservation of the process is the way I understand preservation.  And
75-100 years ago or more, that *might* have included humans.  But it seems
to me that about that time in the NA continent, humans became so
overpowering that they shifted the balance of the process away from Mother
Nature and gave the balance to technology/human population growth.  Humans
have always been natural part of the ecological evolution but their
population growth and increased use of technology has changed the
fundamental nature of ecological process to technological process - a
different state.  Our question may be: do we want to provide *some* place
for the continuation of the ecological process or do we want to convert
ecological to technological process exacerbated by the overpowering
dominance of human expansion and energy use.  This brings into play the need
to examine the different world views of the several interests and the
consequences of following those differences for the nature, kind, of humans
we might become.  Do we like any of those pictures?   What are the
implications of the several pictures?

It seems to me that we talk past each other until we move from the ELF/Wise
Use, etc., toward the foundations on which those particular views rest.

And John F, Chris, Steve B., Jim, etc. as I have said before, I think that
the way you are currently phrasing your questions do not lead toward a
rational examination of the fundamental issues for environmental ethics.

Well, my point of view as of today! :-)

Ray