we don't need to change how we do conservation, we need to change why we do it

First, Let’s be Pragmatic. And Then…

“If we do what it seems we must, in my opinion, it will be in direct violation of the non-interference directive.” Mr. Spock (on Kirk’s plan to destroy Vaal)

My wife just pointed out (Jan. 2024) that the Extremophile Choice message sounds a lot like Star Trek’s “prime directive”, and that this futurist ideal might be a good way of presenting my “point” in what otherwise has been judged by most readers (even though they’re wrong of course) to be a rather esoteric argument. This short post, from four years ago, demonstrates perhaps that I too can be a good judge, even very early in a discussion, of what will grab a listener’s attention. But unfortunately, I now see how later posts demonstrate more clearly yet that I too-easily give in to a died-in-the-wool sceptic’s compulsion to put his worst foot forward (as tier-up-of-loose-ends, or even devil’s advocate) at the start of a written message . . .  until somebody else guides me back to cultural reality. 

Post from 2018:

Is there a pragmatic argument for viewing ourselves as ‘adaptive extremophiles’ who move persistently to extricate ourselves as far as possible from dependency on resources that deplete or displace prime Natural habitat? How about this argument: The problem “in practice” is that anything less is negotiable. History shows that Humans always come first, and Nature second, when jobs and technological ambitions are in the balance. The only thing we can be sure of is that governments and policies will continue to change, so we need an understanding of Man’s relationship to Nature that takes into account Human caprice.

“Deciding” and really this is something we can only do for the political moment  that ten percent, or even fifty percent of the planet should be set aside for rewilding is not good enough.  It is simply not temporally practical for a fast-changing technological life-form to ‘negotiate a future’ with an authentically evolving wilderness of gene-regulated species. In fact it is my view that a believable future for both Humans and Nature depends on our quick acceptance of this long-emerging state of affairs.

And then, to put this in what might seem to be science fiction terms (and yet appropriate perhaps given our technology’s present and escalating power to transform the whole Earth and even it’s local orbital environment), I can imagine that future generations will one day be able to say: the realization that one hundred percent of our planet’s prime habitat belongs to ‘wilderness’ announced to the universe the beginning of our technological adulthood. Surely it is only with this acceptance of our adaptive extremophile natures that we can justify our interplanetary presence, and ultimately demonstrate that we have the right stuff to be truly cosmic citizens. For now, we just need to see this, because whether we reach our ultimate goal of complete non-interference in fifty years, or five-hundred years, is not the point; the point is that we must make a start, with this understanding being undeniably clear, both for the sake of Earth’s gene-regulated intelligence having a future and for the sake of humanity’s new and dangerous technological intelligence having a moral direction.

Leave a Reply