Name changes in Massonia

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:19:33 PST

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.


More information about the pbs mailing list