Not only might people be afraid (if only subconsciously) of the conclusion they might reach if they read about or studied the issue much, there are so many symptoms of the fundamental problem--such as climate change and habitat loss--that it is easy and convenient to be distracted and focus on 'solving' secondary problems that won't change the overall conservation equation.
Mike Michael A. Larson, PhD Wildlife Research Scientist Grand Rapids, MN On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:14 AM, joseph gathman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > namkwah breland wrote: > > > > It would be interesting to hear Dr. Czech comment on the > > fact that current U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson is a > former > head of The Nature Conservancy and Chairman of the Board of The > Peregrine > Fund. What is the philosophical and scientific disconnect > between any > proponent of perpetual economic growth and nature > conservation? > > This really is the main hurdle that Brian Czech and others face: that even > those who are avid environmentalists don't understand that economic growth > is incompatible with conservation, given the size of the human population at > this point in history. Furthermore, they don't really want to understand it > - so it's easier to ignore the issue because taking a serious look at it > leads to an uncomfortable realization. > > Paulson's entire career has been based on the mainstream economic > philosophy. To ask him to change to a zero-growth point of view would be > like asking a fundamentalist Christian to switch to Buddhism. He's an > extreme case, but most of our society sees growth as a necessary goal, even > while most Americans polled want more nature conservation. > > Joe Gathman > > > >
