Josh Donlan has joined Shifting Baselines. If you don’t know who Donlan is, read Re-wilding North America. A few months ago I suggested that biologists who argue against mass extinction on basically aesthetic or normative grounds need to remember that these are distinct from consequentialist homocentric and professional rationales (i.e., we must preserve for medical research and we must preserve so we can study evolution).
I think Donlan does a good job being up front about his normative biases. I tend to share those beliefs and the values which inform those beliefs. I know that some might balk at the title and find the associations negative; but I think we need to get real here. Religion is many things, and no one can deny the emotional power and consequential nature of anything for which people are willing to die for, and to kill for. Political movements, even environmental movements, can emerge and develop in the same manner, for example, Earth First!. I don’t agree with the terrorism of Earth First!, or the anti-humanism of Deep Ecology. I do put people first, but in this case the people who I identify which are those who are moved and drawn to the awesome power of ancient forests, majestic escarpments and the raw energy of great beasts. I think E. O. Wilson goes too far in terms of the Biophilia hypothesis; there are people who just don’t grok nature. There are good and honest people who disagree with me in terms of these priorities, that’s fine by me. If I can’t make a consequentialist argument there won’t be any possible convincing. At that point we’re talking animal conflict here and a clash of values that will only be resolved by the democratic process. No point in arguing or discussing, just feed the infidels to the animals and let god sort it out.
Comments are closed.