The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© The ConversationShould we protect nature for its own sake?
By Bradley J Cardinale UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© The Conversation
6 Comments
Login to comment
ArtistAtLarge
The question assumes that nature is somehow a separate thing from mankind's existence.
Nature can live without mankind. Mankind cannot live without nature.
ifd66
The fact that there are still people who could find fault with ArtistAtLarge's comment, illustrates why the human species is on a collision course for extinction.
Oldyeller
8 billion people are too many. And those with an anit-nature/biodiversity attitude prove it.
Wakarimasen
It is actually for our sake.
Peter14
How? We know about global warming, we know what we need to do and refuse to do it in any way that might cause short term economic hardship, preferring instead the long term economic hardship of increased temperatures, bringing new diseases and resurrections of old ones, harsher weather events more often, and rising sea level's.
So how do we protect nature when we cant protect ourselves or the planet from our damaging practices? And given that, is there any way to protect nature without protecting the planet and limiting climate damage?
Can anyone answer how?
Jtsnose
It is an apt conclusion; mankind should protect nature for its own sake.