Environmental Ethics 16 (2):135-144 (1994)
Alastair S. Gunn has argued that it is in principle possible to restore degraded natural environments and to restore their full value, provided that species distinctive to them are extant. I argue, first, that the proviso is unnecessary. More importantly, I claim that full value cannot be restored because restored environments lack the relational property of being naturally evolved. I delineate and explain the structure and detail of the theoretical bases for this claim and show that Gunn’s reflections do not rule out the view that full value cannot be restored
|Keywords||Applied Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Naturalness in Biological Conservation.Helena Siipi - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
The Promise and Peril of Ecological Restoration: Why Ritual Can Make a Difference 1.Nathaniel F. Barrett - 2011 - American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 32 (2):139 - 155.
Natural and Artifactual: Restored Nature as Subject.Yeuk-Sze Lo - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (3):247-266.
An Exploration of the Value of Naturalness and Wild Nature.Ben Ridder - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):195-213.
Preservation, Passivity, and Pessimism.Sheila Lintott - 2011 - Ethics and the Environment 16 (2):95-114.
The Restoration of Species and Natural Environments.Alastair S. Gunn - 1991 - Environmental Ethics 13 (4):291-310.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #413,143 of 2,019,589 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #397,033 of 2,019,589 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.