Lou, My reference was to the fact that you implied my *assertion* was false, something apart from my beliefs. I did not say that the reductionist, materialist view necessarily makes conservation more difficult, but rather that it too easily accommodates the justification of apathetic or wanton destruction of nature. I also did not say that such a view should be rejected but attempted to imply that its ramifications and limitations should be acknowledged. I'm sorry if I was unclear about that. To state that the world we know is nothing more than molecules, randomness and environment over time is naturally devoid of any objective ethical or moral standard. That is why I do not see such a view as helpful to the cause of conservation, which is after all a value judgment. Likewise, Darwinian evolution has nothing to say about the *value* of nature from the human perspective. You say "beautiful forms of life" and that is a sentiment I am certain I share with you. How does the materialist objectively defend a concept like beauty? What does this have to do with evolution per se? Conservation can be amply defended using other principles and reasoning. Yes, people in developing countries can be made to understand nature in more sophisticated ways. But these ways are based on ideas alien to their own culture, otherwise they would already be incorporated into that culture, no? My experience in such places is that local inhabitants are gobsmacked when they see foreigners getting excited about wildflowers and collecting and photographing them. They simply cannot believe that anyone would take such an interest in natural history unless the organism is useful or commercially valuable. That is a different value judgment that may or may not assist conservation efforts. Dylan