Date published: 2008/07/15
Jean-Christophe Vie says on the BBC:
In the world of economics, what nature provides for us is often seen in terms of immediate returns.
Forests, for example, are valued for their timber. When a country needs money, the forests can be cut down and the capital immediately released.
This may contribute to the nation's Gross Domestic Product, but in reality, the country has lost resources and becomes poorer.
The rationale for preserving wildlife is based on a variety of societal values including aesthetic, moral and spiritual ones, as well as more practical ones, such as contributing to the economy and human livelihoods.
It is also based on a precautionary approach and, in my view, common sense. If a species is there, I am firmly convinced that it has a good reason to be.
Nature has developed over millions of years to produce the most favourable environment for us to live in. Before attempting to disturb the subtle balance on which we all depend, with unknown consequences, we should look carefully at what we have and know.
It is hard to believe anyone could seriously make these arguments. Everybody knows that if a country (largely) cuts down its forests then "the country has lost resources". But it is not at all obvious that the country "becomes poorer". Of course all so-called environmentalists would plug this line, and in most cases it could well be true. But, for example, England cut down most of its forests long ago, and it would be interesting to see any real argument made that it became poorer as a result. The forest output was invested in other goods and services (including allowing people to stay warm, build ships for war, etc.).
But that is just the usual hype of so-called environmentalists, many of whom these days don't try that kind of silly argument but instead actually try and prove that it is better not to cut forests down using economic arguments.
No, what is really ridiculous is the statement that "if a species is there", then "it has a good reason to be". Sorry, species are here by semi-random, semi-directed evolution. They are not here for a "good reason", which is a meaningless phrase in this context. You might as well be a theologian.
Equally silly is the claim that "Nature has developed over millions of years to produce the most favourable environment for us to live in". No, Nature has not produced the "most favourable environment for us to live in". If Nature had done so, we would have no disease, we would have no predators (well, we've managed to kill most of them off), we would all have an infinite food supply within easy reach, etc. Nature is not optimised for us in isolation. Nature is (approximately) optimised considering everything in total (and of course it is dynamic, not static).
The rest of the (long) article is fortunately not nearly so stupid, but it also doesn't particularly say anything novel or intelligent either.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").