Letters.

This is a comment from my excellent friend Elizabeth regarding the article on conservation:

She said...

I love it, Max. It's funny, too, because I remember having an argument with you about this a few years ago and I've been curious ever since (quite seriously) to understand your point. What I'm getting from this is that in terms of conservation biology, you're in favor of limiting human impacts in wild areas and you're against the general idea of invasive species (for example) and the view of ecosystems as static. Conservation often involves too much human intervention... because preserving the natural order basically means getting out of the way. tack on to that the fact that we continue to view ourselves as being outside of the natural order, which is the way of thinking that has gotten us into the messes we're in. Sorry, just trying to process your argument.

I think that ultimately the view of conservation depends on a very personal philosophy (which inevitably ends up forming the philosophical basis for the actions of organizations, societies, and governments on the whole) about the role of humans on this earth and our responsibility to the planet and all its species. We're sentient beings that make one hell of an impact and we should know better than to take everything for ourselves and destroy everything in our path, and we should try to right the wrongs we've committed to the best of our abilities (si o no?). right and wrong are value-based and highly relative distinctions. So... what are you suggesting should be done (or not done)? (so many "shoulds," what a troublesome word.) What are the implications of your argument? You should send this to a magazine and try to get it published, in my opinion

I said...

Elizabeth- 

I like your style.  I think you've got the gist of my argument down pretty damn well.  As for your thoughts, your absolutely right in saying that personal philosophy dictates the definition and importance of conservation on the individual level.  The world is ours to exploit.  Takers and leavers.  All that.  From a biological perspective, however, the philosophical range narrows substantially.  The omniscient being gifting the world to us falls away as implausible.  The idea that the planet can't survive without us disappears as ridiculous.  We're on the same team on this one as far as the overlying concepts are concerned, and I think my views pertaining to our most intelligent and positive course of action boil down to a change in the target of conservation.

If, instead of attempting to conserve ecosystems as snapshots in time, we focused our energies on conserving the natural progression that leads to endless forms most beautiful, I know the ecological rebound we so short-sidedly attempt to ignite would happen.  We need to conserve evolution.  As for limiting our impact, you are, of course, right on.  As the bullies on this playground, we have the duty to regulate ourselves.  If we don't, some math club geek is going to kick our proverbial ass.  That metaphor might have gotten away from me.

What I'm saying is that we are rendering our planet unfit for OUR survival.  On the way to our doom, we are responsible for a shitload of collateral damage.  However, as soon as we are out of the picture, which is looking more and more plausible every time we make a decision, life will again thrive and radiate.  Just not human life.  Will there be suffering?  Yes.  Will there be sadness?  Definitely.  Will we rely on technology to save our asses?  Count on it.  Will technology save our asses?  In a word, 011001010010.  That's binary for no (its not binary for no, but the joke wasn't worth me learning binary).  So to me, our only chance is to take some HUGE steps back.  From everything.  It won't work.

My theory as to what will actually happen, is that we humas will experience outrageous population growth.  Like, carrying capacity be damned, J-curve kind of growth.  Duh.  That's already happening.  This will be followed by famine, disease, unrest, and eventually massive, we'll call them "decreases" in human population.  Then, if we're ready, we can give it another shot.

Do you remember the old song 'In the Year 2525' by Zager and Evans?  ...if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may thrive.  See you there...

love, Max