Andrew,
I think that it is, insofar as society is a kind of contract between
past, present and future. All I am saying is (and Mises, at the very least
an agnostic agrees with me) that value comes from the individual, and we
aren't going to get anywhere with conservation by running roughshod over
the individual.
Kiran
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Andrew Stafford wrote:
> Kiran,
>
> I think what Laurie is really asking is, how is this philosophical or
> religious argument compatible with conservation?
>
> Regards, AS
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Laurie,
> >
> > I am too busy at the moment to engage in a debate on this issue, but I
> > suggest that it is neither quaint nor 19th century in particular. I am not
> > even sure it is not maintainable outside of a religious context. Within
> > one, though, it is fair to say that birds exist for man's sake.
> >
> > Kiran
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Laurie&Leanne Knight wrote:
> >
> > > Kiran Krishna wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, the environment exists for man rather than the other way round.
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Krishna
3rd yr physics
(Falkiner High Energy Physics)
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
--------------------------------------------
The strong man with the dagger is followed by the weaker man with the
sponge. First the criminal who slays then the sophist who defends the
slayer.
-Lord Acton
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~kiran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
