Jim Tantillo wrote:

> 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 [of] 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 hominum argument/labelling.

And Steven Bissell wrote:

 > I would like Ted to explain his use of "preservation." I'm not sure if I
  >understand why he feels preservation per se is ethical (or unethical for that
  >matter). It seems a rather neutral term to me, but as I say, I don't know
  >how Ted is using the term. By the way, if you're new to the list, Ted,
  >Welcome!

Dear Jim, Steve Bissell and others:
Sorry for not replying to the above posts sooner.  I only joined this group in the
second week of July and was surprised at the volume of traffic. Then I went on
vacation. So, when I returned near the end of the month, you can visualize the
stuff (just from this listserve alone) in my Inbox!  And, in the meantime, my large
vegetable and flower gardens needed critical attention. And, hey, it's the middle
of summer!! But I could not refrain from zeroing in on that offensive term
"unethical preservation," which, frankly, I thought to be an impossible and
dangerous notion for this day and age --  more on this below. But one item at a
time....

First:  "Opined?"  As far as I know, this is the only listserve where people opine
to/at each other. As I have never used this interesting word in my many years of
writing and editing, out came the trusty old Webster which says: "hold or express
an opinion; think; suppose; now usually humorous."  I was a bit puzzled why a few
of you on this (philosophy/ethics) listserve have been "opining" and thought that
"opine" might be a word used in philosophy circles where, perhaps, humorous
opinions are more prevalent, or even the rule? My suspicions were not confirmed,
however, when I could not find this word in my 1009 page Oxford Philosophy
dictionary.  I have never run into "opined" in biology or ecology. However, this
did not prevent me from adding it to my working vocabulary, and hope to have some
fun with it in future conversations -- especially serious ones....  ; - ).  But it
seems to me that unless someone's post is mere or pure opinion (i.e. nothing else
-- such as facts, observations, reflections, insights, knowledge, etc., etc.) the
term "opined" is much too restricted in meaning to be used when referring to these,
often complex, posts, not all of which even contain opinions. Myself, I prefer the
word "wrote" (which my mail system auto-inserts anyhow). So, let's stop opining.

Second:  Jim T. asks that I explain my use of the term "preservation."  I have used
the word frequently and do not have a problem with the term, both generically and
specifically. I exclude from the discussion below the (also legitimate) use of the
term when we talk about the  preservation of specimens, cultural artifacts, foods
including GM crops, seeds, cultivated varieties, domesticated animals, micro-biotic
cultures, etc. etc.).

But here goes.... Probably, we would all agree that in its simplest/purest form
"preservation"  refers to the preservation of Nature, or the protection or
retention of the normal or natural world of this planet in whole or in part. When
humans arrived on the scene, the Earth's ecosystems were already in a perfectly
"preserved" condition; humans had no hand in this.  And we would not behold or
value Nature today, if it had not evolved without human thought processes
beforehand.  Also, the "preservation" (of Nature) could be credibly applied to the
(slightly human-modified) natural ecosystems around the planet in which humans as a
species lived for the past few million years.  "Preservation" can also be used
right alongside the term "restoration" as for instance, "Nature restoration" or
"species restoration" or "habitat restoration" in cases where we are no longer
dealing with essentially natural systems or habitats and when we are referring to
restoring damaged/degraded/ polluted ecosystems, threatened species and the like.
Thus, we are working to "preserve" these natural or partially natural ecosystems
and species in order that they survive into the future and/or self-restore
themselves -- as natural ecosystems are wont to do when basically left alone. Of
course, aggressive alien species can throw a monkey wrench into a natural or near
natural ecosystem, but that is another story.  There is always a reason for
preservation -- as there is for destruction by agriculture, war, urbanization,
pollution, over-population, etc. .  To me, the "preservation of Nature" simply
means working to retain or restore small or large pieces of the ancient,
time-tested, inconceivably stable "norms of Earth" which some refer to as Gaia.  We
can say that preservation applies to all organisms "preserved" in places that
humans call nature sanctuaries, ecological areas and a wide range of "protected
areas." As well, "preservation" also applies to protecting or preventing the
destruction of species that are living in entirely human dominated landscapes and
an example would be that everyone on this listserve believes in the preservation of
the Eastern or Western Bluebird, the Skylark, etc.   In summary, "preservation"
refers to setting aside/allocating  areas where ecosystems and their organisms can
exist without significant human interference or the act of helping to preserve
pieces of Nature in human dominated/zapped landscapes or seas.   With preservation
people essentially mark off an area or spot and leave it alone except for
observation and perhaps some recreational use. Or, where they work to save an kind
of organism from extirpation/extinction  The above is hardly anything new to anyone
on this list, I am sure.  End of definition text.

What is new, however, is the term "unethical preservation" which comes not from
ecology or science but from the social justice/social ecology people who act on the
strange belief that people are more important than the natural systems of the
planet. No one has ever produced a shred of evidence that humans are more important
or valuable than the world which sustains the evolved systems and organisms,
including ourselves, a world that "knows" how to keep things in balance so that
evolution and harmony can go on.  Yet, there is this dangerous and blind ideology
out there and the offensive notion that in some (social) circumstances,
preservation can be "unethical." I believe that that kind of belief is a form of
treason against things more important than people. And not that people are not
important in their own right.

In today's world (with our 6 billion and counting 80 million more *every single
year*), it is an axiom  that *all* preservation of Nature is ethical. All
*restoration* (of Nature) is supremely ethical.  For how can it be otherwise? The
reason is that destruction, degradation, conversion, sale, pollution, extinction,
of the Earth's normal sustaining systems is being carried out at such a
geologically unprecedented scale and rapid rate. A new, polluted, dangerous,
unstable  world is replacing the norm. Those who claim the term "unethical
preservation" has some legitimacy are in fact working to further destroy the
ancient norms of Earth. Such destruction has got to be a sin, a crime of the worst
magnitude.  Again, how can it be otherwise, considering the undeniable value of the
evolved Ecosphere.  If there is a wholly unethical "ism" out there it has got to be
human*ism* which is a human species-myopic inarcissistic ideology that assumes that
humans are more important than the Earth and the systems which produced us.
Humanism is a treacherous and even treasonous belief.

    Let's remember again that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, half its expected
life-span, and that humans appeared in the last "few seconds" of geological time on
a planet that, as noted, "evolved without human thought." Another fundamental
reason for preservation/restoration of Earth's natural/normal ecosystems is that
they still have at least a couple of billion years to evolve and bring forth
intelligence (of which there's bugger-all here at present, as some of you may have
picked up from that delightful Monty Python "Universe Song." ). Such real
intelligence would hardly have a species destroying it's only known home and it
would not necessarily be human. By knocking Nature/Ecosphere preservation, people
are foreclosing that possibility not only by extirpating genetic material but
through the profligate use of non-renewable Earth-materials. All the stuff we dig
out from underground--hydrocarbons, heavy metals, unstable nuclear minerals--poison
Earth's living surface and reduces its future fitness for organic development. We
are turning time and evolution back to the Precambrian, when acid rain peppered
down on radioactive rocks and only bacteria could survive. The arrogance of any one
species believing that the planet (and solar system, and indeed the universe) was
made for it and its use alone, believing there is no limit to its fecundity,
believing that it can pollute and destroy without limit, believing that it is
sufficiently enlightened to play God with all creation, should boggle any
intelligent mind.
____________

    Sorry that I was unaware that all those postings on the subject of "sustainable
development" were dealing with (or supposed to have been dealing with) a specific
article. After my post, the existence of the article was brought to my attention.
So, I checked back in the Inbox and there is that posting by  a "Steve" whose full
name and address does not seem to appear anywhere.  Just to refresh your memory
here is his message:

________________________
Interesting article on Sustainable Development

http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/wp9642a.pdf

"An Operational Model of Sustainable Development:  Some Thoughts on
Getting the Incentives for Public Policy Right"

ABSTRACT: As background for addressing agricultural policy and sustainable
development issues, we address in this paper some general issues we
believe it important to consider in developing a broad and consistent
conceptual framework for the analysis of sustainability. The objective of
this paper is to propose a comprehensive conceptual framework for bringing
sustainability issues into practical public policy formulation. A "people
first" view is proposed: one that assumes that the ultimate purpose of
natural resources and the economic system is first the well-being of mankind.
________________________________

Note the last (arrogant) sentence.  In response, let me offer a quote from one of
Dr. J. Stan Rowe's recent posts (many of his writings are on my web site at
<www.ecospherics.net>. With his permission, here is the quote:
______________

"But the problems humanity has created by divorcing itself from Earth/Nature can't
be fixed by smart investments in environment or by carbon taxes.  ... the real
motives, the real springs of action, lie deep in our culture, in the interlocking
set of myths that traditionally tell us who we are, how important we are, and what
we ought to value the most. These myths that make it so hard to change directions
cluster around such  idiotic ideas as homocentrism (backed by most world religions
and philosophies), the central importance of the individual person, private
property rights, progress-as-growth, the saving power of science/technology, the
inferiority of women, rationality as a better guide to human action than
aesthetics, the importance of soul-salvation, etc., etc.
         Arne Naess and the Deep Ecologists combat many of these fallacious myths
and have had a considerable impact on the fringes of Western society. They have
tried to get people to see that species other than Homo sapiens sapiens also have
inherent value. The next most important step, it seem to me, is to extend these
benevolent thoughts to the planet Earth itself, for it is the source and sustainer
of all the organic and inorganic forms we directly know. An Earth-before-people
philosophy might in time evolve into a universal, saving world religion."

END of the Rowe quote.
_______________________________

Now to continue:

Jim "opined:"

> 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."

In all my many years as an ecologist/environmentalist, I have never met a person or
learned of an environmental organization that is actively working for the
preservation of Nature without their having some pretty powerful reasons for doing
so. People can, after all, actually see what is happening to the planet and its
systems and they are fearful about the future. That is the only type of
"preservationism" I have ever known. The allegedly "bad" kind of preservationism
simply does not exist (it's a fictional notion) because people can see what is
happening to the Earth, its systems and its species, and are motivated to join the
preservationist movements out there.

> 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.

Well put. I myself do hold such views, but I hold them only for ecologically based
reasons. I have been following what has been happening to the Earth and its systems
and think it is past time to halt the destruction and reverse the trends. Hence
preservation, preservationism, etc. But, there are ecological reasons -- which is
not the case with the organized religions where people *want* to believe in the
supernatural because it gives them comfort, makes them feel better and/or offers an
after life. On the point of whether "Nature knows best" versus "Reason will
prevail" there are billions of years of evidence that Nature does indeed knows best
(as described above), and there is some hundreds or thousands of years of brutal
evidence that Reason is not prevailing.

> 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*.

I wish I had time to read the above books. Maybe during the coming winter. But I
have so many others here waiting in line. Just starting to read "Complexity at the
Edge of Chaos" by Roger Lewin.  which deals with complexity theory and the notion
of the self-organization of matter, and have finished "The Universe Story" by
Swimme and Berry. (In the latter, the unfolding Universe makes a dreadful mistake
in the last chapter when it creates a species which is trashing its own home in
such devastating ways.

> 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.

Hey, thanks Jim.  Possibly you are right in the light of Chris's narrow and
ideologically founded definition of preservation*ism*. As noted in my first post
(and discussed further above) this term is another example of anti-environmental
hate literature. But, again, I want to reiterate that unlike religions and
quasi-religions, preservationism has an ecological/scientific basis -- ecocentrists
see the imperative need to preserve/restore the Earth's normal systems.

Note:  My apologies for the length of this post. Enviroethics is a great listserve.
>From now on I hope to keep my posts brief -- as requested by David Pearson, list
owner.

Cheers to all,
Ted
--
Ted Mosquin, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D.
Box 279, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada
http://www.ecospherics.net (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)
Tel: (613)267-4899;   Fax: (613)264-8469




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