Hello David ( a while ago now),
Thanks for taking the time for your reply,
"You seem to be saying that 'whatever is, is natural'. That is, that man is a part of the natural system, therefore whatever he does is 'natural' (whatever that means)."
Yes David, this is exactly what I mean.
"Following that reasoning, covering the countryside (which I am perfectly aware is man-made) with car-parks is natural, therefore ok."
No this would not be o.k. it would be a natural action but a strange thing to do. I have never said that everything that is natural including everything that humans do is ok.
"But surely the desire to conserve (which you say you don't believe in) is also a part of many people's make-up, and therefore must also be natural?"
I have never said I don't believe that many people have the desire to conserve. I believe this desire as far as it relates to a wide range of "conservation" practices is however based on a range of very limited and ultimately counter productive socially constructed (but natural) belief systems. It is however only the dominant belief system not the only possible belief system and not as far as I am concerned the "right" one.
I object to the primacy of the belief systems that manifest through the natural / unnatural construct because it leads to a simplistic identification of what is deemed "desirable" (or not) in environmental terms .
"Unnatural" practices are labeled as undesirable and "natural" events lauded.
Simplistic decisions are also made identifying what is a natural occurrence and what is not. So a species that relies on warmer human generated climatic conditions flying in to colonize (natural) is a good thing, whilst an escaped/introduced colonization of Eagle Owls (unnatural) is a bad thing.
They are both equivalent if you apply my belief systems. They are both ways in which the natural environment evolves and also both the direct result of humankind’s effect on the environment.
It follows from this line of reasoning that Eagle Owls are just as valid as Little Egrets and ultimately Hen harriers which are present in Britain via other equally valid "natural" processes.
The split itself and beliefs that assert that nature needs our help to conserve what is here now, probably derives from religious thinking that separated out the natural world from the human world and gave man "dominion" (back to star trek again) over the beasts of the field, the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven.
This is then followed up with belief systems that revolve around extinction being bad, as if it is "unnatural", that it must be avoided at all costs, when the evidence shows that throughout history (hundreds of millions of years before humankind had any influence on anything) evolution and extinction have gone hand in hand and you then combine this belief about extinction with a common human reaction to resist change (conservatism).
Following on from these belief systems are a range of emotional responses (despair being one of them) that further strengthen belief systems that something must be done, and something, a whole range of things are done, many of which are ultimately stupid/counterproductive/pointless. Expensive diversions away from meaningful support for the environment and the processes of evolution.
Things that not only are a waste of time but demonstrate to gamekeepers that they were right all along. If you want a population of species A you kill species B,C, D, E, F.
If conservationists get their we'll have gamekeeping on a global scale.
Global because the world is changing and in response to the changes with the current belief systems all sorts of species are going to be killed everywhere.
