>
>
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:01:03 EST
>CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>>Regardless
>>of such hypotheticals, we must act on the knowledge we have,
>>and that indicates that biodiversity is neither essential
>>nor particularly hazardous to our continued well-being.
>>In terms of changing our existance in a incremental fashion
>>biodiversity is probably good; but in terms of major catastrophic
>>changes it's probably bad.
>
>You make your case well. But is it not plausible to say that a great
>variety of design is in itself a value? Though (as I think you would
>probably agree) biodiversity is neither important enough nor determinable
>enough (as you say above) to warrant interference with peoples' lives,
>it is important enough in this abstract sense to warrant some degree of
>shepherding.
Sure! The complex designs in biodiversity, based on billions of years
of thorough testing, clearly present a large possible value. I'm
arguing against the claim that, if biodiversity in the wild were largely
eliminated, human culture would be destroyed or even suffer significant
losses from its present and probable near-future conditions.
The scare tactic "save the wild environment or we're all gonna die!"
is bogus and, as such, will fail in the end. Saving biodiversity
needs to be based on more substantial values, such as economic
efficiency, aesthetics, and the potential for new discoveries.
If the movement to save biodiversity is based on solid ground,
it will succeed; otherwise it's likely to get ploughed under unless
it becomes a religion. That would bring its own set of problems.