A review of "The John A Livingstone Reader".
John A. Livingston is (I presume) well known in
radical environmentalist and deep ecologist circles. I had no idea that Mr.
Livingston even existed until I started doing some private research on deep
ecology. And no, Livingston didn't call himself "deep ecologist". At
least, he doesn't do so in the two works reprinted in this volume, "The
fallacy of wildlife conservation" and "One cosmic instant". Of
these, the first work is the most interesting one. (It was originally published
in 1981.)
Livingston argues against the prevailing pragmatic arguments for wildlife and wilderness conservation. The argument for "wise use" is essentially an argument for continued exploitation. At least, that's what it boils down to in practice. Besides, there are animals, plants and wilderness areas with no appreciable use for humans. Should they be sacrificed, then? He also opposes the aesthetic argument for conservation. Many animal or plant species aren't particularly aesthetically pleasing. Nor can one argue in terms of "rights", such as animal rights. "Rights" are a meaningless concept in nature. Livingston eventually reaches the extreme position that there isn't any rational argument for wilderness preservation. If wilderness has neither "rights" in any meaningful sense, nor any use for humans, why on earth should we save it? The only reason is a kind of mystical feeling that wilderness somehow deserves to be left alone.
It's also obvious that Livingston was at bottom a misanthrope, who regarded animals as better than humans. Animals just are, they accept their place in nature, and simply cannot do otherwise. Humans are out of control. An interesting contradiction also surfaces in this book. On the one hand, Livingston is a very consistent atheist, who regards the universe as completely numb and meaningless. The same is true of our existence. This marks him out from deep ecologists sensu stricto, who seem to be more spiritual and pantheist. At the same time, however, Livingston nevertheless espouses a kind of nature mysticism, which he believes is the only ground on which to base wilderness preservation.
Livingston argues against the prevailing pragmatic arguments for wildlife and wilderness conservation. The argument for "wise use" is essentially an argument for continued exploitation. At least, that's what it boils down to in practice. Besides, there are animals, plants and wilderness areas with no appreciable use for humans. Should they be sacrificed, then? He also opposes the aesthetic argument for conservation. Many animal or plant species aren't particularly aesthetically pleasing. Nor can one argue in terms of "rights", such as animal rights. "Rights" are a meaningless concept in nature. Livingston eventually reaches the extreme position that there isn't any rational argument for wilderness preservation. If wilderness has neither "rights" in any meaningful sense, nor any use for humans, why on earth should we save it? The only reason is a kind of mystical feeling that wilderness somehow deserves to be left alone.
It's also obvious that Livingston was at bottom a misanthrope, who regarded animals as better than humans. Animals just are, they accept their place in nature, and simply cannot do otherwise. Humans are out of control. An interesting contradiction also surfaces in this book. On the one hand, Livingston is a very consistent atheist, who regards the universe as completely numb and meaningless. The same is true of our existence. This marks him out from deep ecologists sensu stricto, who seem to be more spiritual and pantheist. At the same time, however, Livingston nevertheless espouses a kind of nature mysticism, which he believes is the only ground on which to base wilderness preservation.
But isn't this at bottom a kind of spiritual position?
No comments:
Post a Comment