Page 2 - cbi_544.tex

All About Nature

∗
JULIANNE LUTZ NEWTON AND ERIC T. FREYFOGLE†‡
∗ Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Center for Wildlife Ecology, 283 Natural
Resources Building, MC-652, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, U.S.A.
†University of Illinois College of Law, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820, U.S.A., email efreyfog@law.uiuc.edu

We are grateful to the editor of Conservation Biology cannot find in it a clear test for distinguishing land use
forarranging this Forum and for the willingness of such from land abuse. A sound answer to our questions neces-
distinguished conservationists to respond to our essay. sarily must be phrased in terms of nature itself. It could
Our critique of sustainability has clearly touched a nerve. be phrased in terms of how nature functions collectively
By way of rejoinder we would like to revisit the main point in a given place over time; it could be phrased in terms of
of our essay, approaching it from a different direction, and the variety of life forms that inhabit the place; it could be
then turn briefly to the three responses. phrased in terms of the aesthetic appearance of nature; or
At its root, conservation is all about nature and the ways it could (as we recommend) include all three of these in-
people interact with it. From a conservation perspective, terconnected categories. Any sound goal, though, needs
some ways of using nature are acceptable and some are to be phrased in this manner if it is to focus attention
not. How do we tell which is which? We can ask this where it needs to be focused: on physical nature itself
question in other ways: Where is the line between using and how well it is holding up under human use.
land and abusing it? Or, if conservation succeeded, what Three further points might clarify our claims (although
would success look like, in terms of nature itself? without providing the full defense that we would like to
Currently, there is no consensus answer to these ques- offer). The first has to do with the ways people live on
tions, not among society generally, nor among conserva- land and why, in our view, it is not productive to frame
tionists. Indeed, these questions are not asked very often conservation’s overall goal in terms of human behavior.
and are not asked in ways that keep these questions sepa- People around the world embrace varied ideas about the
rate from the many other questions that conservationists good life. It is not the job of conservation, surely, to tell
find important. people precisely how to live. To the extent that alternative
As posed, our questions are designed expressly to focus modes of living keep nature’s physical condition in line
attention on the core ends or aims of conservation, having with the stated goal, then people can have reasonable
to do with the physical condition of nature. Everything freedom to select (and re-select) among these modes.
else about conservation, in our view, is secondary to the Second, there are the issues of morality and mental
achievement of these ends. Conservation is about living state. Again, it is tempting to say that conservation ul-
right in relation to lands and waters. If we do not get that timately is about embracing a particular line of ethical
relation right, judged in terms of our effects on nature reasoning, or a particular world view. It is a temptation
itself, conservation has failed. Conservation might also be that needs resisting, as important as morality is. Like the
about other things—about living right with one another, attempt to frame a conservation goal in terms of how hu-
for instance, or living right with future generations—but mans live, morality and mental state raise intermediate
it is first and foremost about the direct human–nature issues that are best set aside at this final stage of things,
link. If we get that wrong, we can never declare success. which (as we have said) is entirely about the physical
A central reason why we do not like the concept of condition of nature. If people’s behaviors are properly re-
sustainability is because we cannot extract from it a clear spectful of nature, in the sense that they comport with
answer to our questions about humans and nature. We the overall goal, they can be free to select their own moral
views and mental state.
Third, there are the messy questions about diagnoses
‡Address correspondence to E. T. Freyfogle.
Paper submitted October 12, 2004; revised manuscript accepted and remedies for land abuse. Why do we misuse nature,
October 13, 2004. and how do things need to change to rectify our errors?

42

Conservation Biology, Pages 42–44
Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005