Forgive me, but does this article say anything about the "why" of conservation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4744052.stm
Surely, if the species we see on the world around us (including ourselves) arose by natural selection, with the ultimate reality of death and extinction as the creative driving force of the process of the generation of complexity, then to defy that process and preserve dying species is perverse. What right do we have to interfere?
If, on the other hand, we were made and appointed to care for a world that then fell into death and decay through our fault, then we have a responsibility to defy the destructive process of decay that we see all around and to preserve species when we can.
p.s. just noticed that perverse and preserve are anagrams of each other...
Surely, if the species we see on the world around us (including ourselves) arose by natural selection, with the ultimate reality of death and extinction as the creative driving force of the process of the generation of complexity, then to defy that process and preserve dying species is perverse. What right do we have to interfere?
If, on the other hand, we were made and appointed to care for a world that then fell into death and decay through our fault, then we have a responsibility to defy the destructive process of decay that we see all around and to preserve species when we can.
p.s. just noticed that perverse and preserve are anagrams of each other...
Comments