🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mbarton-2510941252400001@mbarton.sensemedia.net> mbarton@picosof.com writes:
>Patrick writes:
>
>"Again my question.. Why 8 million acres?
>.......
>Precisely! The desert has inherent value and ecosystem value to humans. 
>.......
>...- the field of ecology and ecosystem management is new and
>comprehensive, taking into account the wholistic account of cumulative
>impacts on the desert. 

And it is not really about "ecosystem value to humans," either (or only,
if you prefer).  Unfortunately the term "intrinsic worth" has become
too particular to serve, but this is about ecosystem integrity, 
and resilience, and (evolutionary) stability.  Let's not forget that 
it is not just the desert that is being affected by this particular
(or any other) policy intervention.  There are as many source-sink
relationships as there are processes and functions to be named,
at very many spatial and temporal scales.

May I suggest 
   Crawford S. Holling (1994) "Simplifying the Complex:  The 
   paradigms of ecological function and structure," _Futures_
   v26n6, July-August 1994.
not just because I think him a sound ecosystem scientist, but
because he makes good cases for an ecosystem theoretic approach
to policy and decision making.

>
>BTW, with more and more people on the planet, population double time in
>California is now about 20 years, we have to say No to access to delicate
>places like the desert.  It is not to allow access to elite people, but to
>the FEW irresponsible people who's only concern is for themselves, and
>NOW!

What scares me is:  
   a) that they are not "they," they are us too 
(or at least we are all "they" on some issue or other);  
   b)  they are not at all "few," they are very many 
(the human mind, by virtue of how we CAN cognate, will _always_ 
be better at visualizing the short-term more vividly than the long-term,
and can only come to know things within the frame of reference
set by what it already knows.  The paradox here is that, as
cognitive science can tell us, beliefs come easily to the
enquiring mind--too easily--but are hard as hell to get rid of);  
   c)  they never think of themselves as "irresponsible," so it is 
rarely 'merely a matter of showing them the light';  and 
   d) the belief in selfishness as a prime requisite for survival 
(and hence evolution), as an immutable law of 'nature red in tooth
and claw' is so very deeply engrained through the course of human 
existance that it is almost inseperable from the stew of beliefs 
we bring to the table (if there was ever a myth that needed
dismantling, it must be that of objectivity--well, maybe
causality is up there too) in any deliberation.

>mbarton@picosof.com
>Home Page: http://www.sensemedia.net/
>

regards.
ashwani.          vasishth@usc.edu        (213) 737-7875
   "for what is it to die,
             but to stand naked in the wind,
                       and melt into the sun........"   -anon.