Logic Times

Conservation vs. Environmentalism

Posted by Aslan, 1/14/05, 11:46pm. Comments (5)

(Printer Friendly Format)

For years now, conservatives have exposed extreme environmentalists for what they truly are: an improbable collaboration between anti-capitalists and secular nature worshipers. These people are sometimes whacky…

"My own epiphany, the one that led me down the path of veganism and ultimately to a position of animal consciousness, happened 25 years ago in a White Castle fast food restaurant (talk about profane spaces!) in Chicago as I was biting into a double cheeseburger. As I usually ordered just a single cheeseburger, the double was so excessive, so over the top, so absolutely dripping with gore and vile, that I was completely nauseated. For the first time in my carnivorous life I made a concrete connection between the processed slop in my hands and the bones, tissues, muscles, tendons, blood, and life of an animal."  Steven Best (here).

…sometimes comical…

"We are here to protest this company's participation in the willful and wanton murder of innocent creatures," said protest leader Tristan Michaels. He gripped a small plastic object in his hand and held it up in front of the cameras. "This Implement of Death is being created in this very facility as we speak!" he shouted indignantly. The cameras zoomed in on the offending flyswatter.

"How would you like it if people murdered you every day just for fun?" Michaels intoned passionately. "If people crushed your body to a bloody pulp, smearing your intestines across the wall and letting your severed head fall to the floor to be trampled underfoot, just because you annoy them? This is happening every day in America, and it has to stop!"  (Animal Rights Protest Turns Ugly)

…occasionally very dangerous…

…and conservatives have performed an invaluable service by marginalizing their extreme views.  Unfortunately, there has been a heavy cost: conservatives are widely regarded as the environment's worst enemy, a condition that is largely self-inflicted.  When one knocks down an idea in the public forum, something takes its place, and in this case conservative opposition to environmentalism has been transmuted into conservative opposition to the environment.

This is tragic, especially when one appreciates that conservation is inherently a conservative issue (it is no coincidence that these words have the same Latin root: com- + servare -  to keep, guard). We have squandered a rich heritage of conservation and failed to make clear the strong theological basis for environmental protection.  In the process, conservatives have alienated younger voters who oppose right-of-center political candidates based solely upon this undeserved stereotype.

Environmental Heritage

What then is this unique conservative heritage? Republican Theodore Roosevelt is the central political figure in the history of conservation in the United States.  

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying that 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1916

Yet the twenty-sixth President of the United States distanced himself from today's extremists with his understanding of the balance between conservation and development.

"Conservation means development as much as it does protection..."

And what did this Republican achieve?

National Forests created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Luquillo (Puerto Rico) January 17, 1903

2. White River (Colorado) May 21, 1904

3. Sevier (Utah) January 17, 1906

4. Wichita (Oklahoma) May 29, 1906

5. Lolo (Montana) November 6, 1906

6. Caribou (Idaho and Wyoming) January 15, 1907

7. Colville (Washington) March 1, 1907

8. Las Animas (Colorado and New Mexico) March 1, 1907

9. Wenaha (Oregon and Washington) March 1, 1907

10. Olympic (Washington) March 2, 1907

11. Manti (Utah) April 25, 1907

12. Manzano (New Mexico) April 16, 1908

13. Kansas (Kansas) May 15, 1908

14. Minnesota (Minnesota) May 23, 1908

15. Pocatello (Idaho and Utah) July 1, 1908

16. Cache (Idaho and Utah) July 1, 1908

17. Whitman (Oregon) July 1, 1908

18. Malheur (Oregon) July 1, 1908

19. Umatilla (Oregon) July 1, 1908

20. Columbia (Washington) July 1, 1908

21. Rainier (Washington) July 1, 1908

22. Washington (Washington) July 1, 1908

23. Chelan (Washington) July 1, 1908

24. Snoqualmie (Washington) July 1, 1908

25. Wenatchee (Washington) July 1, 1908

26. Fillmore (Utah) July I ,1908

27. Nebo (Utah) July 1, 1908

28. Lewis and Clark (Montana) July I ,1908

29. Blackfeet (Montana) July 1, 1908

30. Flathead (Montana) July 1, 1908

31. Kootenai (Montana) July 1, 1908

32. Routt (Colorado) July 1, 1908

33. Cabinet (Montana) July I ,1908

34. Hayden (Colorado and Wyoming) July 1,1908

35. Challis (Idaho) July I ,1908

36. Salmon (Idaho) July 1, 1908

37. Clearwater (Idaho) July 1, 1908

38. Coeur d'Alene (Idaho) July 1, 1908

39. Pend d'Orielle (Idaho) July 1, 1908

40. Kaniksu (Idaho and Washington) July 1, 1908

41. Angeles (California) July 1,1908

42. San Luis (California) July 1, 1908

43. Jemez (New Mexico) July 1, 1908

44. Sundance (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

45. Santa Barbara (California) July I ,1908

46. Weiser (Idaho) July 1, 1908

47. Nez Perce (Idaho) July 1, 1908

48. Idaho (Idaho) July 1, 1908

49. Payette (Idaho) July 1, 1908

50. Boise (Idaho) July 1, 1908

51. Sawtooth (Idaho) July 1, 1908

52. Lemhi (Idaho) July 1, 1908

53. Siuslaw (Oregon) July 1, 1908

54. Cheyenne (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

55. Medicine Bow (Colorado) July 1, 1908

56. Cascade (Oregon) July 1, 1908

57. Oregon (Oregon) July 1,1908

58. Umpqua (Oregon) July 1,1908

59. Siskiyou (Oregon) July 1, 1908

60. Crater (California and Oregon) July 1, 1908

61. Beartooth (Montana) July 1, 1908

62. Holy Cross (Colorado) July 1, 1908

63. Targhee (Idaho and Wyoming) July 1, 1908

64. Teton (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

65. Wyoming (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

66. Bonneville (Wyoming) July I ,1908

67. Absaroka (Montana) July 1, 1908

68. Beaverhead (Montana) July 1,1908

69. Madison (Montana) July 1, 1908

70. Gallatin (Montana) July 1, 1908

71. Deerlodge (Montana) July 1, 1908

72. Helena (Montana) July 1, 1908

73. Missoula (Montana) July 1, 1908

74. Bitterroot (Idaho and Montana) July 1, 1908

75. Ashley (Utah and Wyoming) July 1, 1908

76. Uncompahgre (Colorado) July 1, 1908

77. San Juan (Colorado) July 1, 1908

78. Rio Grande (Colorado) July 1, 1908

79. Pike (Colorado) July 1, 1908

80. Montezuma (Colorado) July 1, 1908

81. Leadville (Colorado) July 1, 1908

82. Gunnison (Colorado) July 1, 1908

83. Cochetopa (Colorado) July 1, 1908

84. Arapaho (Colorado) July 1, 1908

85. Battlement (Colorado) July 1, 1908

86. Shoshone (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

87. Uinta (Utah) July 1, 1908

88. Crook (Arizona) July 1, 1908

89. Coconino (Arizona) July 1, 1908

90. Inyo (California) July 1, 1908

91. Stanislaus (California) July 1, 1908

92. Sierra (California) July 1, 1908

93. Chiricahua (Arizona and New Mexico) July 1, 1908

94. Coronado (Arizona) July 1, 1908

95. Garces (Arizona) July 1, 1908

96. Monterey (California) July 1, 1908

97. San Isabel (Colorado) July 1, 1908

98. Minidoka (Idaho and Utah) July 1, 1908

99. Jefferson (Montana) July 1, 1908

100. Custer (Montana) July 1,1908

101. Nebraska (Nebraska) July 1, 1908

102. Wallowa (Oregon) July 1, 1908

103. Fishlake (Utah) July 1, 1908

104. La Salle (Utah) July 1, 1908

105. Wasatch (Utah) July 1, 1908

106. Powell (Utah) July 1, 1908

107. Bighorn (Wyoming) July 1, 1908

108. Kaibab (Arizona) July 1,1908

109. Deschutes (Oregon) July 14, 1908

110. Fremont (Oregon) July 14, 1908

111. Ocala (Florida) Nov. 24, 1908

112. Dakota (North Dakota) Nov. 24, 1908

113. Choctawhatchee (Florida) Nov. 27, 1908

114. Humboldt (Nevada) January 20, 1909

115. Moapa (Nevada) January 21, 1909

116. Cleveland (California) January 26, 1909

117. Pecos (New Mexico) January 28, 1909

118. Prescott (Arizona) February 1, 1909

119. Calaveras Bigtree (California) February 8, 1909

120. Tonto (Arizona) February 10, 1909

121. Marquette (Michigan) February 10, 1909

122. Nevada (Nevada) February 10, 1909

123. Dixie (Arizona and Utah) February 10, 1909

124. Michigan (Michigan) February 11, 1909

125. Klamath (California and Oregon) February 13, 1909

126. Superior (Minnesota) February 13, 1909

127. Gila (New Mexico) February 15, 1909

128. Black Hills (S. Dakota and Wyoming) February 15, 1909

129.Sioux (Montana and South Dakota) February 15, 1909

130. Tongass (Alaska) February 16, 1909

131. Toiyabe (Nevada) February 20, 1909

132. Datil (New Mexico) February 23, 1909

133. Chugach (Alaska) February 23, 1909

134. Modoc (California) February 25, 1909

135. Ozark (Arkansas) February 25, 1909

136. California (California) February 25, 1909

137. Arkansas (Arkansas) February 27, 1909

138. Mono March 2, 1909 (California and Nevada)

139. Sitgreaves (Arizona) March 2, 1909

140. Lincoln (New Mexico) March 2, 1909

141. Shasta (California) March 2, 1909

142. Alamo (New Mexico) March 2, 1909

143. Carson (New Mexico) March 2, 1909

144. Zuni (Arizona and New Mexico) March 2, 1909

145. Trinity (California) March 2, 1909

146. Apache (Arizona) March 2, 1909

147. Lassen (California) March 2, 1909

148. Plumas (California) March 2, 1909

149. Tahoe (California) March 2, 1909

150. Sequoia (California) March 2, 1909

Federal Bird Reservations created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Pelican Island (Florida) March 14, 1903, Enlarged January 26, 1909

2. Breton Island (Louisiana) October 4, 1904

3. Stump Lake (N. Dakota) March 9, 1905

4. Siskiwit Islands (Michigan) October 10, 1905

5. Huron Islands (Michigan) October 10, 1905

6. Passage Key (Florida) October 10, 1905

7. Indian Key (Florida) February 10, 1906

8. Tern Islands (Louisiana) August 8, 1907

9. Shell Keys (Louisiana) August 17, 1907

10. Three Arch Rocks (Oregon) October 14, 1907

11. Flattery Rocks (Washington) Oct. 23, 1907

12. Copalis Rock (Washington) October 23, 1907

13. Quillayute Needles (Washington) October 23, 1907

14. East Tirnbalier Island (Louisiana) December 7, 1907

15. Mosquito Inlet (Florida) February 24, 1908

16. Tortugas Keys (Florida) April 6, 1908

17. Key West (Florida) August 8, 1908

18. Klamath Lake (Oregon and California) August 8, 1908

19. Lake Malheur (Oregon) August 18, 1908

20. Chase Lake (North Dakota) August 28, 1908

21. Pine Island (Florida) Sept. 15, 1908

22. Matlacha Pass (Florida) Sept. 26, 1908

23. Palma Sole (Florida) Sept. 26, 1908

24. Island Bay (Florida) October 23, 1908

25. Loch-Katrine (Wyoming) October 26, 1908

26. Hawaiian Islands February 3, 1909

27. Salt River (Arizona) February 25, 1909

28. East Park (California) February 25, 1909

29. Deer Flat (Idaho) February 25, 1909

30. Willow Creek (Montana) February 25, 1909

31. Carlsbad (New Mexico) February 25, 1909

32. Rio Grande (New Mexico) February 25, 1909

33. Cold Springs (Oregon) February 25, 1909

34. Belle Fourche (South Dakota) Feb. 25, 1909

35. Strawberry Valley (Utah) February 25, 1909

36. Keechelus (Washington) February 25, 1909

37. Kachess (Washington) February 25, 1909

38. Clealum (Washington) February 25, 1909

39. Bumping Lake (Washington) Feb. 25, 1909

40. Conconuily (Washington) February 25, 1909

41. Pathfinder (Wyoming) February 25, 1909

42. Shoshone (Wyoming) February 25, 1909

43. Minidoka (Idaho) February 25, 1909

44. Tuxedni (Alaska) February 27, 1909

45. Saint Lazaria (Alaska) February 27, 1909

46. Yukon Delta (Alaska) February 27, 1909

47. Culebra (Puerto Rico) February 27, 1909

48. Farallon (California) February 27, 1909

49. Behring (Bering) Sea (Alaska) Feb 27, 1909

50. Pribilof (Alaska) February 27, 1909

51. Bogoslof (Alaska) March 2, 1909

National Game Preserves created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Wichita Forest, Okalahoma - June 2, 1905, Land added May 29, 1906

2. Grand Canyon, Arizona - June 23, 1908

3. Fire Island, Alaska - February 27, 1909.

4. National Bison Range, Montana - March 4, 1909

National Parks created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Crater Lake National Park, Oregon (1902).

2. Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota (1903).

3. Sullys Hill, North Dakota (1904).

4. Platt National Park, Oklahoma (1906).

5. Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado (1906).

National Monuments created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Devils Tower, Wyoming, September 24, 1906.

2. El Morro, New Mexico, December 8, 1906.

3. Montezuma Castle, Arizona, December 8, 1906.

4. Petrified Forest, Arizona, December 8, 1906.

5. Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, March 11, 1907.

6. Lassen Peak,, California, May 6, 1907.

7. Cinder Cone, California, May 6, 1907.

8. Gila Cliff Dwellings, New Mexico, November 16, 1907.

9. Tonto, Arizona, December 19, 1907.

10. Muir Woods, California, January 9, 1908.

11. Grand Canyon, Arizona, January 11, 1908.

12. Pinnacles, California, January 16, 1908.

13. Jewel Cave, South Dakota, February 7, 1908.

14. Natural Bridges, Utah, April 16, 1908.

15. Lewis & Clark, Montana, May 11, 1908.

16. Tumaeacori, Arizona, September 15, 1908.

17. Wheeler, Colorado, December 7, 1908.

18. Mount Olympus, Washington, March 2, 1909.

Reclaimation Projects created by Theodore Roosevelt

1. Milk River (Montana) March 14, 1903

2. Newlands (Nevada) March 14, 1903

3. North Platte (Nebraska and Wyoming) March 14, 1903

4. Salt River (Arizona) March 14, 1903

5. Uncompahgre (Colorado) March 14, 1903

6. Belle Fourche (South Dakota) May 10, 1904

7. Lower Yellowstone (Montana and N. Dakota) May 10, 1904

8. Minidoka (Idaho) April 23, 1904

9. Shoshone (Wyoming) February 10, 1904

10. Yuma (Arizona and California) May 10, 1904

11. Boise (Idaho and Oregon) March 27, 1905

12. Huntley (Montana) April 18, 1905

13. Klamath (California and Oregon) May 15, 1905

14. Rio Grande (New Mexico) December 2, 1905

15. Carlsbad (New Mexico) December 2, 1905

16. Okanogan (Washington) December 2, 1905

17. Strawberry Valley (Utah) December 15, 1905

18. Sun River (Montana) February 26, 1906

19. Umatilla (Oregon) December 4, 1905

20. Yakima (Washington) December 12, 1905

21. Orland (California) October 5, 1907

Theological Basis for Environmentalism

Theodore Roosevelt was not a Republican aberration, as some on the left might suggest.  It is the conservative – in particular the religious conservative - that makes the most rational claim to be a steward of the environment.  That stewardship stems from a religious person's reverence for the Creator and all His creation.  God is life, and not just human life. A rejection of the culture of death should not only include protection of the unborn and the infirm, but of all life and indeed, all creation.  The critical perspective that emerges from God-centered conservation is a prioritization of His creation, with human beings at the center to enjoy, develop, and protect the natural world.  Yet to be the leader or the head in a religious sense is paradoxically to serve. Humanity's dominant position at the head of the natural world engenders a deep obligation to defend and wisely manage God's creation.

The anti-capitalism environmentalist stands on weaker ground because this breed is not so much for the environment as against Man's place in the environment.  The anti-capitalist disingenuously employs reverence for nature, which elicits widespread support, and conceals their true unpopular motivation: to limit and roll back the technological advance of Mankind. Their end game is to drag the Western world down to 3rd world status, for where free markets and technology are taboo, so too is prosperity.  You can (and will) plow only so many state-owned acres with an ox.

The nature worshipper places all of nature on an equal footing with Man, which is an untenable worldview.  From this, one logically can decry the swatting of a fly as murder (above).  The ultimate expression of such inverted priorities would have humans quarantined on reservations, for the expansion of human culture is to destroy habitats, and to destroy habitats is to commit a crime against a creature with equal claim on life and freedom.

Sprinkled throughout these extremists are a whole host of rational, concerned citizens who believe, as did Theodore Roosevelt: "To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase it's usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed."  These people need a rational home for their views, and they don’t want to share it with a man shouting "murder" every time a fly is swatted.

President Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated almost flawlessly how man should cherish God’s creation, and it is with this spirit that conservatives should fill the space vacated by the insane left.  Yet do the policies and pronouncements of today's conservatives align favorably with the prodigious conservation efforts of Theodore Roosevelt?  They do not.  It seems conservatives are unable to walk and chew gum, unable to defeat extreme environmentalism and at the same time put forth an aggressive policy of conservation clearly elucidated.

Policy

Conservatives should begin by redefining the labels used throughout this debate.  "Environmentalism," with its distorted emphasis on the environment (rather than man's place in the environment), should be rejected in favor of the active imagery of "Conservation."  Conservation speaks directly to Man's role in protecting and managing natural resources, a major distinction that redefines the issue.

Next, define the agenda.  Future essays and reader feedback must develop the details, but some broad strokes are possible here:

• Humanity Comes First.  Whether it is logging or ANWAR or eminent domain, the impact on people must be the first consideration.  However, it does not stop there.  With full respect for and appreciation of the human impact, a comprehensive program of conservation should follow.  The two are not mutually exclusive.
• Federal Resources.  Social engineering is not a legitimate function of the federal government, but conservation is.  As conservatives strengthen their hold on power, some resources should be transferred from social programs to conservation efforts, including aggressive unfunded mandates that localities meet environmental cleanliness standards.
• Control of Development.  As Martin Lyle said in his comment in Man and the Environment, there is nothing quite as disheartening as relentless overdevelopment.  Federal law should have strict greenspace requirements for municipalities. Nowhere do conservatives live up to their stereotype more than in their slavish support for business and development at the local level, even when it is unattractive and unwise.
• Clean Energy.  For Heaven’s sake, WHEN are we going to dig a hole and bury the internal combustion engine deep in the ground?
• Good Science.   Conservatives need to aggressively develop and disseminate alternatives to junk science (a la global warming).
• Consumer Waste.  A greater challenge than anyone suspects, we must begin to rethink packaging of consumer items.

Finally, communicate, communicate, communicate.  Push the militant vegans and the Marxists aside and fill that vacuum with a vision that the world understands.

"In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight...The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Copyright ©  2005 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

1: Martin Lyle

January 15, 2005 03:09am EST

Interesting take.  I have thought of myself as an environmentalist of the non-wacky, non-anti-capitalist type.  But now just thinking about the terms it makes such sense: conservation is a responsible, reasonable behavior of man - environmentalism is the unreasonable placement of the environment above man.

As for the agenda items I would like to add:

• Regarding Clean Energy, I believe the federal government should increase the deduction given for hybrid vehicles, and expand it to include vehicles which run on bio-diesel.  

• The federal government needs to examine the balance of transportation in our country.  We have abandoned the railroads for building more and more interstates and airports.  The air-lanes are full, and the two-lane interstates are now too little.  We have had little or no progress toward high-speed rail, which is the most comfortable and could be the most ecologically friendly method of transporting large numbers of people over large distances.

• Interesting your essay talked about Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of the National Parks, Forests, and Reserves-- some of the places where our current polluting, wasteful behavior has bothered me the most is during visits to Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and the Smoky Mountains.  Where Grand Canyon ran these dirty buses all over the place, I began to wonder why all these parks are not changed to pedestrian parks with light rail or electric trams to move people about.

• As far as the control of development, some method of reducing overdevelopment needs to occur.  My dream legislation would have commercial developers place funds in escrow for reclamation.  If the commercial property is abandoned, those funds could be used by another business for restructuring the property to their needs, or by the government to convert the property into some public use such as a school, community center, or for restoring the property to it's natural state.

In the meantime, the least we can do while these agenda items begin to work is to put the American Indian with the tear back on the TV.

{Aslan: Thanks for the feedback, Martin.  In particular, I share your disappointment at the state of national and state parks alike.   My pet peeve is the proliferation of trash, which I used to think was simply a matter of irresponsible park visitors.  However, I have come to realize (hat tip to EvntPrdcr) that there is another factor: the overwhelming amount of packaging of consumer items.  I take the family frequently on picnic hikes.  I need the reflexes of an NHL goalie and the focus of a surgeon to snag all the bits and pieces of trash peeled away from our repast, from slivers of cellophane around our juice-box straws, to paper napkins and plates, to bits of tinfoil protecting their candy-bars.  Walk down any street and look at the trash everywhere – it is not just trash that is thrown down, but trash that slips from dumpsters, falls out of minivans, and escapes all but the most diligent conservationist.

As for overdevelopment: Amen!  Cities are entities with a driving self-interest to maximize revenues and prosperity and a tree or a park is low on any elected official’s list.}

2: Alex Dolan

January 15, 2005 02:21pm EST

When you make you point with respect to conservation being a conservative issue, there is another aspect to that argument which you neglected.  One of the strongest incentives for proper treatment of the environment is private property, which is a concept defended most vigorously by conservatives.  Where property is owned, it is invariably cared for and where property lies fallow, no one invests much concern there.

{Aslan: You make an excellent point.  Parks, monuments, national forests, preserves, etc. are publicly owned and generally treated poorly.  It is like owning a car vs. a rental car.  At what speed do you drive a rental car over a speed bump?

Yet these national lands must of course remain public.  One silver lining in the cloud of environmentalism that has pervaded the youth is that one hopes a more responsible person emerges from the socialist rhetoric.  So far, I have not been impressed.}

3: Deborah Krongard

January 16, 2005 11:24pm EST

Thank you for this great post that really struck a nerve with me.  Ever since I first heard the term, I have considered myself a "crunchy conservative," a category that I think includes a great deal of my generation (Gen X).  I think you've got a great start on the policy/philosophy side of things.

With regard to science and its use/abuse in the environmental debate, I think that it is EXTREMELY important that smart conservative scientists get the word out about the all sides to issues like global warming - it seems like every science magazine out there has a bit of a liberal agenda on that topic.  And, by the way, I am not a global warming naysayer, per se.  I just believe that the dire  predictions for the future are very hard to back up scientifically (the models are so complex that they are always being modified and have so many variables that their predictions are suspect [the ocean will rise 3 feet in the next 50 years, etc]), and that whenever data comes out that is contrary to the prevailing dire predictions it is buried in the news, while any hint of dire consequences is front and center.  It doesn't seem like it should be necessary, but I think a conservative-conservation leaning science magazine (or maybe just a straight-up just-the-facts one) would really be beneficial to the cause here in the U.S.

Secondly, I think the key word that would separate conservationists from environmentalists is "balance."  There are ample examples of this all around the world...usually environmentalists that have to work in developing countries realize pretty quickly that they have to balance the needs of the people in the developing countries to help themselves economically and their desires to help the environment.  Here in the U.S. because we seem such a rich country, they don't bow to any concept of balance - say in the logging debate, for example.  They'll push to save every tree here while in Brazil they have come to realize that they need to balance the economic needs of the local Brazilians with their desire to save the entire Amazon basin.

Deborah references the FIELD Web Site:

The Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest is a partnership of the Brazilian Government, Brazil's civil society, the international community, and the World Bank. The Program was setup in 1992 out of concern about the deforestation of Brazil's humid rain forests in the Amazon and on the Atlantic coast. Its purpose is to demonstrate ways towards conservation and sustainable use of the natural resources of the rain forests. The Program is funded by the G-7 group of countries, the European Union, the Netherlands and Brazil itself, with about US$340 million. The World Bank assists Brazil in coordinating the Program and administers the multi-donor Rain Forest Trust Fund. The Program is funded in part by bilateral funds and by a trust fund created by the G-7 countries, administered by World Bank's Brazil Rain Forest Unit in the Latin America and Caribbean Region.

 

The Pilot Program has several specific objectives. It aims to help:

 

• Demonstrate that sustainable economic development and conservation of the environment can be pursued at the same time in tropical rain forests.

• Preserve the biodiversity of the rain forests.

• Reduce the rain forests' contribution to the world's emission of greenhouse gases.

• Set an example of international cooperation between industrial and developing countries on global environmental problems (emphasis added by Deborah)

Another example I remember occurred in Namibia I believe where a Wildlife conservation group was trying to restore one of the big cats to its former glory.  Only problem was that the cats were then attacking the local ranchers livestock and there was lots of animosity going on. So the Conservation group came up with an innovative plan – they learned that a certain breed of dog was well suited to guard the livestock from the big cats and had proven successful in other areas. So they devoted their resources to buying a number of these dogs to give to the local ranchers to guard their livestock.  This forced the cats to look for their meals in the wild areas and kept them from being killed by the ranchers...win-win.

Anyway, that’s my two cents I’ll look forward to anything you add. But I really must agree with you that the conservatives/Republicans have got a really bad name on this and need to better educate others on what they are trying to accomplish with their policies as well as to be more innovative and insistent on practical, balanced, conservation policies.

{Aslan: Deborah, you have a brilliant grasp of the key to conservation, which is creating and maintaining approaches to the natural world that enhance people’s lives now and in the future.  The absurd extreme for the radical environmentalist would be the elimination of human beings from the natural world, a condition that would fill them with ecstasy, if there were not sadly eliminated along with the rest of us.}

4: Brittney

January 17, 2005 10:44pm EST

You misrepresent vegans.  Do you have any pets?  Say you have a cat or a dog.

{Aslan: Actually, I have a snake.}

 Are you cruel to that pet?  Of course not.  Why?  Because you both care for it and you are not a cruel person (hopefully).  Yet when you eat meat and wear leather and barbeque chicken, you endorse and support the kind of cruelty that you would never tolerate in your home or teach your children.  And I do not mean just the death of the animal, but a life of suffering.

{Aslan: Brittney, you are an omnivore.  You may choose to be a vegetarian, but your species is omnivorous.  When my snake eats a mouse, it constricts it slowly, suffocating it, before swallowing it whole.  Suffocation is very painful.  Have you seen the natural world in action?  Have you seen the weak left to die and the dominant male kill his own young?

Suffering in the natural world is not evil.  It is natural.  Because an animal lacks any moral capacity whatsoever, suffering is simply a state, no different than sleeping or copulating is the final analysis.

That said, humans should not cause animals to suffer.  This is important from the standpoint of the human, not the animal.  Humans are moral creatures charged with protecting and nurturing God’s creation.  I agree that there are some conditions of animal husbandry that are substandard, but the definitions in this debate are confused and vastly distorted because your side thinks keeping an animal in a corral is suffering.  You think keeping a cow in a stall and milking it day in and day out is suffering.  There is no difference in a non-sentient’s cow’s life between being milked daily and wandering around in nature.  Until you square your definitions with reality, we can’t make progress in the debate.}

5: Ellis R.

January 31, 2005 02:01pm EST

As usual with conservatives, you make ridiculous claims, such as: "The ultimate expression of such inverted priorities would have humans quarantined on reservations, for the expansion of human culture is to destroy habitats, and to destroy habitats is to commit a crime against a creature with equal claim on life and freedom."  Exaggerated nonsense.

{Aslan: You believe this to be an exaggeration, Ellis?  Consider the following (source here) –

Greg Ferrando glistened with sweat and sea water as he went for a barefoot jog up the immaculate white sand beach, where the tsunami has wiped away almost all signs of humanity.

 

"This whole area was littered with commercialism," said the 43-year-old from Maui, Hawaii. "There were hundreds of beach chairs out here. I prefer the sand."

 

The beauty of Thai beaches is the stuff of folklore: pristine, clean and untouched. That was 10 or 20 years ago. More recently, they have been swamped by development.

"Everyone is talking about it. It looks much better now," he said.

Never mind the many thousands killed by the tsunami.  I rest my case.}