> Moral arguments, however uncomfortable and problematic they might be, are indispensable. 

Hi there

Thanks for chiming in. At length, I came to the same realization. Ironically, I used to feel very strongly that there were moral  or ethical reasons for preserving nature, but I based them on certain "universal truths". At length I came to realize that the "universal truths" were subjective creations, became disillusioned in an ethical approach to advocating for conservation, and began looking to the science. 

But science cannot really support the preservation of this or the other ecological state. Objectively, they are all the same. Nature has no preferences, all are equal in the face of the sun, rain and ice. So, I returned to the idea that the real value of nature is that value which we give to it. In a way, I can more strongly argue for something I value deeply than something that I think is a "good idea." 

We can agree that the natural world is an amazing creation and although we could use a great deal of it for our own pleasure, we must not use all of it. We need to stop damaging it well before the point where nature's ability to support us begins to falter. We need to stand up for something that is unique and irreplaceable, for its own sake. 

I value nature because it's amazing, created by vast unseen forces, beautiful and terrible at the same time. But in the end, how we treat nature reflects on who we are as a species. We need to look into the mirror and realize if we go too far with our exploitation, we will have nothing left but shame and scorched earth.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html