เพื่อประเทืองปัญญาของผู้ที่เปี่ยมไปด้วยโมหาคติ และมิจฉาทิฐิ ก่อนที่ทุกอย่างจะเสียหายไปมากกว่าที่เป็นอยู่
“Increasing human population interacts with local and global environments to deplete biodiversity and resources humans depend on, thus challenging societal values centered on growth and relying on technology to mitigate environmental stress. Although the need to address the environmental crisis, central to conservation science, generated greener versions of the growth paradigm, we need fundamental shifts in values that ensure transition from a growth-centered society to one acknowledging biophysical limits and centered on human well-being and biodiversity conservation. We discuss the role conservation science can play in this transformation, which poses ethical challenges and obstacles. We analyze how conservation and economics can achieve better consonance, the extent to which technology should be part of the solution, and difficulties the “new conservation science” has generated. An expanded ambition for conservation science should reconcile day-to- day action within the current context with uncompromising, explicit advocacy for radical transitions in core attitudes and processes that govern our interactions with the biosphere. A widening of its focus to understand better the interconnectedness between human well- being and acknowledgment of the limits of an ecologically functional and diverse planet will need to integrate ecological and social sciences better. Although ecology can highlight limits to growth and consequences of ignoring them, social sciences are necessary to diagnose societal mechanisms at work, how to correct them, and potential drivers of social change…
For most of our history, the planet seemed static compared with the rate of cultural changes. The great increase in human population and impacts in the last 60 y reversed this relationship. The rapid changes imposed by humans on the planet seem to exceed the rate at which societies can change core attitudes, leading humans increasingly to perceive their planet as small and vulnerable.
In this shrinking world, a shift in conservation thinking from simply preserving “what is, or what was there” to include un- derstanding and promoting “what more could be there” may also help reassess how we view interactions with nature. Putting the reconciliation of biodiversity conservation and human-made nature proposed by Rosenzweig within a worldview based on respect for nature and for its biophysical limits would be a way to overcome the risk of devaluing the more natural areas.
Conservation science would then increasingly become a means to reflect better on how we interact with the world and others and on how to adjust our needs to the resources at hand, rather than a means to provide society with ways to “mitigate” undesired effects of “useful/necessary progress.” Such a new mission could be ar- ticulated around an ethical commitment toward respect for nature, a commitment for which a first necessary step is to acknowledge and respect the biophysical limits of the living community.”