The Truth About Conservationists

We tend to assume that all conservationists are liberals. In fact, that's the way most of them vote. As a matter of fact, we view some conservationists as radicals; they tie themselves to trees or hammer spikes into their trunks to keep others from harvesting them, or they sabotage fishing vessels to prevent what they fear will be the killing of animal life and the eventual extinction of species. It is, after all, their mission in life to prevent such desecrations from ever occurring. Like the danger to the spotted owl; or the snail darter; or some African jungle species.

It's noble, but it isn't liberal. Their designation designates what they do and what they are: conservationists conserve. They are conservative. In reality, in many ways from a philosophic standpoint they are themselves conservatives. They may not see it that way but their actions belie their self-image.

Let's get down to cases. Whenever a business attempts to advance its program – to make progress – conservationists (and “environmentalists”) are likely to put up roadblocks. These may be in the form of lawsuits or demands for environmental impact statements that will either prevent progress from occurring or delay it for many years. The delay of progress is their most important product. Maintaining that their goal is to prevent greedy businessmen from destroying the environment and eliminating the chance that our descendants have of enjoying the glories of nature that are available to us, they hope to ensure the maintenance of creation (of course they don't call it that) in the form we know it. They want to stop time. And they “Tweet” each other from their “smart” watches about the ways they can do so.

And it doesn't matter how their acts might affect their fellow citizens, who don't always agree with them. If an oil pipeline in Alaska might affect migration patterns of arctic species, that pipeline must be stopped; if nuclear energy has risks, it must be stopped; if a pipeline from Canada will bring more (evil) fossil-based gasoline at a lower cost to Americans, it must be stopped; and, of course, the use of coal must be stopped because it pollutes the environment. Less important considerations are the jobs of those involved in the industries affected, or the cost and limited availability of the alternatives the conservationists would impose or might imagine.

One of the arguments for preventing any species extinction from taking place is that there may be important (if undefined and unimagined) benefits we can derive from those that currently exist. And it's true. But it's also possible that the species that would replace them – and there will be new species that do so – might contain useful substances whose nature and benefits we'll never know because we delayed their development. Those who favor the idea of evolution – and as good liberals most of them do – would stop it where we are now. Had they lived in the Mesozoic Era, the time of the dinosaurs, they would have saved the world and the species then flourishing by stopping things there. But now they eschew fossil fuel – a benefit we can derive from the life that existed back in that era.

They are selective evolutionists. They would preserve all that exists now while preventing any progress. Thus they tend to oppose any genetic modification of the foods we eat even though genetic modification is the way evolution works. When it's done by human design, however, instead of chance, it's unacceptable. (And the same is even more true if someone should suggest that the design is by divine causation.) We're going too fast. Who likes Idaho potatoes or nectarines anyway? Let (random) nature take its course. It's of no consequence that no harmful effects have been found in foods designed by industry. The chances are good that the studies producing those facts have been designed to give results that help the business interests, so they can make more money at our expense. And they'll do so by altering what we have and enjoy right now.

Now, conservationists believe, is better than the future. But does that mean that the past was better than the present? Were we better off before we learned how to use fossil fuel? Were the disabled more able to function in our society before we taught comfort animals to help them? Or are we abusing non-human animal species by enlisting them to aid us? And was agriculture before the development of cross-breeding and hybridization superior to what is available to us now?

Conservation and environmentalism are good things. But those who favor them should understand the full picture of what they are doing and balance it against what they are preventing. And, as scientific conservatives, they should respect the views of other conservatives as well. Progress comes in a host of forms, and many of them are good. But as today's conservationists and environmentalists seem to realize, sometimes we go too fast. There are many who believe the same about societal and political changes during American history.

We call them “conservatives.”