Dear
HCN,
Edwin Dobb (HCN, 12/18/00: Still here: Can
humans help other species defy extinction?) argues that we must
accept our alienation from nature and, out of humane compassion,
take endangered species into our adopting hands. His philosophy of
“natural representation,” while perhaps inspiring some individuals
to protect wildlife, would be disastrous for the conservation
movement.
Dobb separates humans from nature not
on the basis of our current reckless use of technology, gross
usurpation of living space and resources, or tolerance of extreme
rates of extinction of our own doing, but rather as a consequence
of our unique consciousness, “a sense that we are no longer of this
planet in the way other organisms are.” Given “the planet is our
home too – for now, at least,” the de-naturing of the environment
that endangers species in the first place becomes the accepted
norm.
I am deeply troubled by the argument that
conservationists must resign themselves to the “sobering fact” of
complete planetary dominance by humans. The psychotic global
culture that is trashing Earth needs to be fiercely challenged –
and ultimately undone. Otherwise, there is little future for the
world’s wildlife.
I wish Dobb had treated the
important question of “why we want to conserve species” with less
flair and more thought. Did he really mean to suggest it is
unnatural to campaign on behalf of nature (“there is nothing in the
natural world itself that resembles such behavior and concern”)?
How strange a notion to people striving both to protect wildlife
and to live more natural lives by recycling solid waste, using
solar power, and choosing organic produce. Tony
Povilitis
Dos Cabezas, Arizona
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Dobb’s argument is troubling.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
