After listening to the first of three lectures from week
3 revolving around the evolution of ecological thought during the post-war
period, I was struck with a few questions (ok maybe just one question so far):
In contrasting the wilderness ethics of the late 19th
century and early 20th century and contemporary ecological thinking,
I was wondering if wilderness ethics is holding us back from the necessary
paradigm shift required to ensure a sustainable future? Wilderness ethics while wonderful for the
preservation and conservation of natural habitats in its time, and well
intended, is so entrenched in the way environmental issues are framed
presently. It allows for the separation of
humans and their surrounding environment, and the notion that unconstrained
development can occur in certain places, so long as we keep the environment
safe in other places. This line of
thinking is what has led to fractured and disjointed ecosystems.
this is such a good question, and it hurts my heart a little, because i LOVE the wilderness (the idea of it, and the physical reality of it). the only thing i can say in its defense is that large animals need large areas of land, and they are often carnivores that don't mix well with humans. conserving them may be a part of the wilderness preservation ethic, but setting aside large tracts of land is the best way to do it. keeping carnivores around helps to keep other species numbers normalized as well. also there is an argument for having migration pathways, wilderness zones that flow continuously from north to south across borders. these are all scientific reasons and have little bearing on the ethical, moral or paradigm question, though.
ReplyDelete