Do you know what the problem is with nature conservationists these days? The way they treat arguments.
I was once present at a discussion during a course on wildlife management. Students were talking about how to conserve Wolves and Foxes and Bears. At one point it went towards reasons to conserve nature. I said that people do so because they love nature. I wasn’t taken seriously.
Throughout the years, I have been taught to give arguments on why one should protect forests. CO2, biodiversity, erosion, water storage, filtering… You name it, I’ve heard it. They taught me that I should never start a paper about forest protection without an explanation on the arguments to conserve a forest, because otherwise policy makers do not get it. That approach is wrong.
By giving arguments we create an impression that there is a discussion going on. Have you ever heard someone say: “I hate the forest” or ” Dunes, I despise them” or “Let’s bring down those mountains”? There is no discussion. We should protect nature at all costs. Entering this discussion is admitting doubt. There is no doubt.
By giving arguments on why forests should be protected -which is a different story than how– we invite policy makers to dismantle such arguments and counter them. And of course they will; if you think long enough you can argue that Hitler was a pretty decent guy. But the fact here is: there is no discussion.
Of course we should protect our last forests at all costs! Questioning that is questioning the core of our existence. To hurt nature is to hurt ourselves. Of course we should protect it. Of course!
Stop playing this game, society! The only reason you cut trees and destroy bushes is because you think other people want you to. Explain that to the lives you take! Explain it the soul you hurt every time you do. Your soul.
It’ll be glad to hear the arguments.