One way or another.

I’ve never been a big fan of conservation.  The idea that all land should be put to good use has a certain pride inherent in it to my mind.  Who are we to say that our judgment of use is the correct one?  And, since conservation is not an exact science, how do we know we aren’t damaging the natural landscape, rather than protecting it?

A current example is the idea on the table to move endangered species to new habitats to preserve them from extinction.  While I mourn the extinction of any species, I wonder at the validity of the idea.  Obviously, those presenting it are aware of the difficulties inherent in such movement – species interaction in the new setting, and choosing between which species are saved, as well as the actual logistics of the movement.  But what happens when climate change or human encroachment threatens this same species again?  What happens, when despite our best intentions and most rigorous science, we make a mistake and destroy the ecology of a region?

It is time, and past time, to reject stopgap measures and really choose how far we are willing to push the world habitat.  We’re breeding like bunnies and taking over resources left and right  – how many species are worth that reckless expansion and waste?  I am human, and as such, I would have to say I would choose the life of a child over that of a puppy, or turtle, or rare endangered warbling crane.  But how far am I willing to to push that choice?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: