If we admit any ambiguity in the moral authority of nature, people worry that we’ll have no ability to recognize better or worse relationships to nature. All that will be left is whatever we want to do.
Oh? Does nature have moral authority? In my experience, most people think that it does not at all. I’ve heard humans expound on the beauty of nature and how they love being among it. Yet, they are still rabid consumers. There is a dichotomy in their minds. Perhaps they do recognize and appreciate the laws (lack of a better word) of nature and feel awe at how these laws shape the landscape. I think the landscape is all they perceive, however. The invisible forces are ones that I’d actually attribute to nature. Hello, multitudes of bacteria.
The quote puts man up against the dilemma of changing the world about him to fit his desires (see - capitalism) and allowing (in part) nature to run its course. Every species creates its niche in nature, so wouldn’t what humans are doing be only carving their own? Mass extinction says no. Environmental terrorism sounds better and better.
Madis asked me yesterday evening to read a paper he had received for review the night before. He wanted my opinion. I am trusted. Odd, but very welcome. I came to similar conclusions as Madis had. It was a gross simplification of data concerning American and European mink populations in Spain over the period of 2000 to 2011. Specific data were missing. Instead of mapping out how trapping was done in each river basin or even in each ten by ten kilometer block, a sweeping median throughout Spain was used. Therefore, the conclusions could not be remotely accurate. If he emails me the paper, I shall post quotes from it. I’ll query him this evening at the party.
The conclusion of the last paragraph is that the Italian chick seeking a PhD and using this paper as a ladder to climb to that goal will find it falls painfully short. Madis and Asun will ask to not have nothing to do with it. I wonder about the eventual conclusion.
