Conservation & Conservatism

Both conservationists and conservatives have a problem in defining what they wish to conserve and what change, if any, they can support. Extreme conservatives act as if they believe that any cultural, social, political or economic traits that existed at some point in the past should be retained or reinstated. The historical point taken for reference is usually in the lifetime of the conservative of his/ her parents. The priorities are also wildly variable .... family structure, racial composition, social service levels, dress, speech, etc. Conservationism is a subgroup of conservatism that focuses on ecology. It is historically separate Extremist conservationists act as if they believe that any ecological systems that were in existence before the great expansion of influence of the west in modern times e.g. from about the 1500's should be protected against further change or even restored. More moderate conservationists believe that we should strive at any time to maintain remaining enclaves and restrict as much as possible further degradation. The priorities that are applied to various issue vary wildly depending on what group is speaking... global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, pollution, extinction etc. My brand of conservatism includes elements of both the above. I would ask therefore, what type and most importantly what speed of "development" can the farmers in developing nations undergo before they find that: a.. they are no longer farmers (e.g. they are workers for an international agribusiness.) b.. their community relationships are disrupted (e.g. inefficient "enclaves" of "traditional" family or village farms hold back "development") c.. their life choices are greater but do not include many of the social relationships by which they used to define themselves. (e.g. better to offer more "life choices" by aggregating the population into larger towns. No more villages - or just the geriatrics left.) d.. their lifespan is increased but they are less content, less fulfilled and less responsible (e.g. disparity of income without cultural explanation leads to increased discontent regardless of absolute level of comfort - witness the increasing dissatisfaction and irresponsibility in Aust despite the poor being extremely comfortable in international terms). What is the purpose of human life ? What do humans want ? Even the simplest interventions can produce as much harm as good. Take health (and the related outcome that you mention - increased lifespan) I do accept that change should usually be accepted where it produces a gradual improvement in health standards. But look at how many countries have had great improvements in reduction in child mortality over the last century only to have huge consequential problems in population growth, poverty, environmental degradation and political instability. If we look at the "globe" as a collection of "suburbs", then the most important planetary goal should be zero population growth in those suburbs where humans are breeding like rabbits. The secondary goal would be to rid the world of the addiction to growth as a good in its own right. It is THIS addiction that makes economics the dismal lens that through which all development and conservation must be viewed. I do consider myself a global citizen - but only after I consider my family, local community, and nation. After these have been considered, I support equally the conservation of the rice farmers in Japan, and the improvement in health of the Thais. In Australia, I want to conserve remaining elements of the "social fabric" that I believe existed in the 1950-1980's in Australia. But "fabrics" are unchanging after manufacture. Straitjackets are made from fabric. I better analogy would be to conserve the social ecology because ecologies are not static. They are defined by relationships between different living creatures and by relationships between living creatures and the physical environment. An ecology can accommodate change and still be the same ecology. The key attribute is the rate of change. There are some rates of change that alter the ecology to the extent that most observers would agree that it is not the same ecology. Some extreme "development" proponents would argue that rabbits (and cane toads for that matter) don't destroy the ecology - they just change it. I think they are disingenuous. Unfortunately, it seems that many people (particularly those of the "left") argue that change in Australia will just change our culture - not damage it. I think that they are naive at best (e.g. Natasha the Democrat and Bob the Greenie), and liars at worst (e.g. Latham the sycophant). I think that that, in general, the French government has got its priorities right ............ for the French. And isn't that what a government should do ?