201 conservation is not enough 



Here in the West, as in the country at large, a war more 

 or less concealed under the guise of a "conflict of interests" 

 rages between the "practical" conservationist and the de- 

 fenders of national parks and other public lands; between 

 cattlemen and lumberers on the one hand, and "sentimen- 

 talists" on the other. The pressure to allow the hunter, 

 the rancher or the woodcutter to invade the public domain 

 is constant and the plea is always that we should "use" 

 what is assumed to be useless unless it is adding to mate- 

 rial welfare. But unless somebody teaches love, there can 

 be no ultimate protection to what is lusted after. Without 

 some "love of nature" for itself there is no possibility of 

 solving "the problem of conservation." 



Any fully matured science of ecology will have to grap- 

 ple with the fact that from the ecological point of view, 

 man is one of those animals which is in danger from its 

 too successful participation in the struggle for existence. 

 He has upset the balance of nature to a point where 

 he has exterminated hundreds of other animals and ex- 

 hausted soils. Part of this he calls a demonstration of his 

 intelligence and of the success which results from his use 

 of it. But because of that intelligence he has learned how 

 to exploit resources very thoroughly and he is even begin- 

 ning to learn how to redress the balance in certain minor 

 ways. But he cannot keep indefinitely just one step ahead 

 of overcrowding and starvation. From the standpoint of 

 nature as a whole, he is both a threat to every other living 

 thing and, therefore, a threat to himself also. If he were 

 not so extravagantly successful it would be better for 

 nearly everything except man and, possibly therefore, bet- 

 ter, in the longest run, for him also. He has become the 

 tyrant of the earth, the waster of its resources, the creator 



