In this, my introductory post, I wanted to describe the lens through which I see conservation to provide context for everything to come. A few weeks ago there was a brief paroxysm of micro-controversy over whether the environmental movement was "dead" [The Death of Environmentalism]. It is my view that if the environmental movement is dead it was a suicide carried out by degenerating into a fraudulent movement -- though perhaps defrauding only its most dedicated activists.

The fundamental assumption that the environmental movement tries to foist on the public, whether we're supposed to save the whales, the rainforest, the spotted owl or the six-toed sloth-a-dillo, is that life has intrinsic value. This is not something I would attempt to assert, or even necessarily believe. This belief puts men in the role of "protectors of life," which is as much a rejection of our place in the biosphere as the Christian fundamentalist belief that we should expedite our depletion of the natural resources we use so that Jesus will come back. The centrality of this principle portrays environmental conservation as a wholly selfless pursuit, which it is not.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that human activity is "destroying the earth" or "destroying the environment." While we have significant power to influence our environment, and while we have the very real potential to eliminate ourselves, we are not so powerful as to be able to eliminate life from this planet. Though our powers to predict the behavior of complex systems are fairly poor, the various environmental trends we're seeing long-term are very worrying, particularly in light of the fact that while individuals may have the power of foresight, societies do not [see Collapse, Jared Diamond's newest book]. It is my selfish intent to preserve my own existence by conserving the environment in as static a manner as possible.

Despite the conventional wisdom surrounding the result of the recent Presidential election, groups of individuals don't make decisions based on "morality." Individuals might, but societies are decidedly amoral if not outright immoral. Trying to sell environmentalism as a moral issue is doomed to fail.

There is no doubt that human activities are rapidly and significantly changing our environment. However, I won't pretend to know whether this is right or wrong; natural or unnatural. Regardless of any of my own opinions about what is right and wrong to do in the environment, I know that what's happening now goes directly against my self-interest.