Madam, – Could it be that the Irish TimesEditor decided to publish an article, not based on whether it is true or false, but whether it is potentially controversial, or able to provoke reaction ("Fight for biodiversity begins at home – out on the bog", by Frank McDonald, Opinion, May 13th)?
It is obvious that Mr McDonald has an aesthetic appreciation of nature, guided by the natural sciences, but he ignores or fails to understand that cultural narratives are relevant as well.
The science-based model of nature appreciation is not the only model of appropriate aesthetic appreciation. Any model of appreciation must be capable of supporting objective judgments.
Like some well-meaning but misguided environmentalists Mr McDonald glosses over the question of human motivation. He casts himself in the role of altruistic guardian of the mutilated Earth – the vandals being the rural population who depend on the local bog for their winter’s fire.
What does he suggest people use for heat and cooking? Who cares – the goal justifies everything, and will sweep away the traditions, cultural language, skills expertise in land management and indeed the very guardians of the countryside themselves.
We may have an interest in consuming the Earth’s resources, but we are mindful that this is not what our people before us laboured for. We are aware, therefore, that long-term social equilibrium must include ecological equilibrium and that we must always be responsible for the environmental consequences of our actions. Can the same be said of all (mainly) academic environmentalists, who have no practical land management skills and bear no responsibility for the consequences of their agendas?
Bog owners act and live in a symbiotic relationship with their private property, in which inherited skills, management practices and the culture that accompanies such a way of life are conserved and passed on to the next generation.
Their loss would surely be a cause of regret for generations to come. – Yours, etc,