> Dale, your definition of sustainability seems to rest on
> preservation of "wild nature." That seems to me to be an
> extremely narrow conflation of the concept.
???? Here is the exchange regarding wild lands:
>>> Does the real estate broker think about what it means
>>> to sell a piece of wild or agricutural land for a strip
>>> mall or a casino? Does the person selling the land?
>> I am sure they do sometimes, but probably their values are
>> different from yours. I think that many people don't care
>> that much about wild nature, for example.
> So I'd argue that this debate is not so much about ethics as
> about sustainability, which is a concept in which ethics play a
> role along with economics, ecology, sociology, political science.
"Sustainability" is a political code-word, useless for ordinary conversation
about biology, cultural practices, or ethics.
> And I'd always argue the case for there being an "objective
> reality" independent of each of our points of view.
At least we agree on something. And this is very important.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: