Thanks to Conservative candidate Mel Arnold, for his forthright self-portrayal as a ‘conservationist,’ not a ‘preservationist.’ “I believe in the wise use of resources,” stated Mr. Arnold. (Observer, Sept. 18).
This implies, however, that everything in nature is a resource for our exclusive use – and nothing more. What if nature is more, much more, and what if we don’t – or shouldn’t – have to use everything, or even worse – believe that we must ?
When ‘preservation’ and ‘conservation’ are compared, their meanings become clear. The prefix pre derives from the Latin for ‘before,’ or in front. The prefix con derives from the Latin for ‘together’ or ‘with.’ ‘Serve’ derives from the Latin for ‘a slave.’ Thus, ‘preserve’ carries the sense of ‘before slavery’ which, in turn, carries the suggestion of preventing something from becoming a slave. ‘Conserve’ carries the sense of ‘together’ with a ‘slave,’ which, in its turn, suggests not preventing something from becoming a slave, but rather, of working together with something that is already a slave.
In effect, ‘preservationists” allow members or processes of the nonhuman world to follow their own characteristic patterns of existence as much as possible. By contrast, ‘conservationists’ act – however wisely – to physically alter the characteristic patterns of existing members or processes of the nonhuman world – by farming, damming, mining, logging, hunting, fishing, meat-packing, etc.
(Readers might be surprised that some ‘conservationists’ view no use of nature to be as bad as misuse!)
Mr. Arnold and the Conservative Party obviously engage nature solely as a ‘usable slave,’ rather than as an ecologically diverse world where its members and natural processes are respected and preserved as inherently valuable, in and of themselves. Too bad the mythology of ruinous human dominion and false entitlement lives on.
Tom Crowley