As with any debatable issue, conservation in practice is a balance between the supporters and opponents. Conservationists like Aldo Leopold push their viewpoint with the help of literary exaggeration, half-truths, and unreasonable elitism. Developers and industrialists fight back with deception, incomplete environmental impact reports, and their deep pockets. Inevitably the two sides meet somewhere in the middle, where neither wanted to be but both are willing to accept.
Does it always work that way? Is it a natural progression starting with a person or party’s unchecked fulfillment of self-interest? I highly value the work of conservationists, but I could never be one myself. Luckily, today there is a growing population of advocates for nature.
This college of business lawn that I set next to is an example of the inherent fuzziness of the issue. The lawn is artificial and exact, designed to be what it is and placed over the original landscape. On the other hand, it is a beautifully organized and peaceful setting, and will ensure that the vegetation has a secure home for years to come. One could argue that it is even a tribute to nature’s beauty. But the natural extremist might counter with a claim that the best and only tribute would be the original environment itself. Who is right? I believe neither group can win the debate, not in any real sense, and their opinions must merge to create workable solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment