Fascinating reading thanks - who would have thought that as practical scientists of the 60's we would face the prospect that our life's work in big picture environmental understanding and risk management would be so often ignored for blinkered, inadequate and even irrational views . The opportunity to invest wisely in conservation is being lost to those with an unrealistic and narrow museum worldview view of the world that avoids buying into the really tough and dynamic cutting edge issues. - the ones that Africa Asia and the Middle east need to move with right now .

Clearly too , if we are going to be more effective , we have to recognize the rational basis for the irrationality that’s out there Things like worldview, denial ,projection and guilt factors and the widespread Western cultures failure to see different value systems as actual heavy weighting factors in human decision making.

What gives the post Christian worldview of “nature worship” so much power is the value its adherents place on matter over mind. Those of us who want to see sound outcomes and not tokens need to take”nature worship” issues seriously because the values systems themselves can powerfully and increasingly distort the mere “evidence on its own “principles.

It’s easy to see elements of distortion , narrowmindedness ,fear, guilt and projection going on in that ‘irrational and emotive opponent” - harder to recognize it in your own worldview. To reduce the degree to which we might be calling the kettle black , we need to understand how to rationally argue both science and values together - to chase objectivity - well done AEF !

We , and our governments , can be a lot more effective in sound conservation investments if we understand and accept the real depths of the paradigm challenges that face each community living in and with each environment . Join in and help us BE objective and avoid cul de sac quick fix and token investments in conservation. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com

We could start to teach our innate connection to the natural world in school. Also spending time with our kids in our own gardens. Get them out of the house, away from the television and away from rigid structure into the more free flowing nature of nature itself. Plant a few seeds and watch them grow. Kids love that.

Having gardening plots at school, growing vegetables, excursions into the bush. Standing by a fresh water stream under a tree fern, taking in the sounds and the smells. Then take the kids on an excursion to a salt contaminated area or an open cut mine.

Kids are smart and very observant. They will make the connection.

Apologies from me then Timkins. In that case I completely agree with you for once. But just don't let it go to your head or anything.

More money for research is a good idea. But I agree that Jennifer's view of evidence based environmentalism is a thinly veiled push for all dollars to be allocated by the economic-rationalists and given out selectively to pro-development research groups like the IPA and AEF. Nice try for a plug there Sirhumfree. What about an environmental-rationalism where the values are based around what's going to sustain the environment for longer? Otherwise, even though we might get to squeeze out a few more people with our human-centric rationalism, we won't survive for very long. Can't we co-exist?

The Institute of Public Affairs is a faith based (or should I say cashed based) org. Which uses science as selectively as a creationist.
Practice what your preach Jennifer, ever worked for the tobacco lobby they were always able to find people to say cig’s weren’t as bad for you as people made out.?

Jennifer,

Very naughty of you to ask for evidence to be used to manage the environment.

You know when you are little and you kick your toe, amazing how a hug from mum is the best thing in the world.

Its the same with trees, so lets all go out tomorrow and hug a tree and the whole world will be a better place and you won't even feel your stubbed bleeding toe.

t.u.s.

Hi,

I was interested in Martin's comment: "I’m not sure anyone is frightened of the answers; it’s the objectives of the people who are pushing the questions we should be wary of. In the genuine scientific journals the evidence is speaking for its self, it is in the opinion pages that you’ll hear the squealing choir of evidence-less lobbying."

Is he referring to studies in the scientific journals that compare biodiversity in state forests to biodiversity in national parks? I would really like the references.