Ecology is no science. It is an instrument of economic and political competition. All ecologists are perfectly aware of that, but, in the market world, one is not intended to be too squeamish about one's earnings, so, why not feed upon people's stupidity? Technologically, the breeding of the top-quality fool is just like cultivating plants, or livestock farming. This is a quite acceptable enhancement of the natural environment, raising no world-wide protest. On the contrary, rose gardening, buckwheat production or dairy and meat industry is deemed to be a criminal negligence, offence to nature, and an existential threat. That is, preferring some breeds, we eradicate the others, thus upsetting the (wisely established by god-almighty) natural balance; the number of wild species is annually diminishing, and all the civilized countries are obliged to seriously address this problem, to cut short our imminent maleficence. Those trying to fall out risk to fall from grace and fall in, to maintain the general consensus. Those at power won't tolerate any diversity of attitude in this respect.
The struggle for the conservation of biological diversity is steadily developing into the clinical forms. A swamp right in the middle of a big city, former agricultural soils turned to saline, beehives in an office... Things like that are in the order of things today. Just try (god forbid!) to smash a mosquito, or exterminate rats or insects, and you are sure to have a life-long litigation with the well-organized defenders of their little brethren: incessant lawsuits, utter ruin, the face whacked all over... Behind every microbe, there is a strong support group equipped with the most advanced technologies and in contact with the most expensive lawyers. Do you think your income will stand the fight? If I happen to publicly refuse to share my dwelling with rats and cockroaches, nobody will know, save a couple of casual passersby; on the contrary, a massive media campaign or a globe-scale social action under ecological slogans will promptly find packs of sponsors. Isn't it suspicious, just a bit?
A man in the street, grown up in a bourgeois dominion, would believe in the tale of the supreme responsibility: say, the humanity is aware of its biological (and even geological) fault, and their conscience unites them in the common aspiration to atone the sin. Those formed under the banners of Marxism would resolutely object and recall the sacramental question: à quoi bon? No money is invested without a thorough analysis of financial perspectives. Philanthropy is a serious business, and not a trifle toy. Eventually, each ecological campaign is backed by certain representatives of a certain class, who compete with each other, with the bills paid from the pockets of the duped masses. Besides, some much higher stakes are involved too. The political roots of the biodiversity case grow from the global capitalism's innate craving for self-preservation. Indeed, how a parasitic class could convince the masses daily robbed of everything to keep on their suffering without a thought of revolt? The recipe is quite simple: 1) declare that the conscious humankind is just an animal species, and 2) proclaim the ultimate value of any biological species at all for preserving the natural stability. With these premises, the laymen will accept the hegemony of the capital as a rule admitting no exception; just add a little material interest, and the philistine will man the barricades for the biodiverse power of the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, admitting that, under certain conditions, something in nature does not deserve further existence, we populate the other side of the same barricades, which would irreparably spoil the pleasures of the rich.
Capitalism has become rotten yet on the prenatal stage; with all that, it can keep on decaying for many decades, as long as those at the trough are ready to put up with the stink and force the others to the same. The core of the capitalist system of brainwashing can be expressed in just a few words: the future will be exactly like today, since we have reached the acme, and there is nothing else to strive for. So, let us can ourselves in, for the sake of the general well-being (that is, for the wealth of the money-bags). The deification of the parasites of all kinds just adds a natural stripe. This perfectly goes along with the clerics: all the toils and disasters are heaven-sent, as the Satan's instigations are as sacred as the word of the Lord, who has authorized it all from the up-there headquarters.
Such a stand won't go as well with the dawn of reason. We know that everything in nature was, is, and will be changing at any epoch. If dinosaurs were so much preoccupied with biodiversity, its present promoters would never have come to life. One cannot stop the process; all we need is to reasonably direct it to a supreme purpose, instead of chaotic flow. The preservation of the capitalistic bestiality, the state of everybody fighting with everyone, does seem too sublime a motive.
The very definition of reason is to rearrange nature in a consciously controlled manner: some things should be kept for a while, others must be removed, and there is always an option of something entirely unprecedented. Any human action is bound to change the world; inaction will change it too, and the effect of the random play of the elements may be much more disastrous. The rostra roar that the domestication of animals is harmful for nature. What kind of nature do they mean? As for the wild nature, it's our primary duty, to build a less savage world. Human creations (inasmuch they bear the signs of reason) are much more beautiful and versatile than any evolutional achievement in inanimate and living nature. Well, a dog-rose flower may be very nice; however, it can never stand a comparison with a real rose. Even where we decide to leave a wild islet, it will no longer live on its own, revealing its beauty in a due faceting and an appropriate mount.
No doubt, besides wonderful masterpieces, people can produce lots of garbage that may sometimes foul up even those things that have been far from ideal from the very beginning. Still, this is not a sign of too much intellect. The first step towards reason are difficult, and some mess is practically inevitable. And it is this natural under development that we are suggested to preserve, with the very diverse well-wishers strongly recommending to cut any attempts of approaching truly human deeds. No, thanks! we redesign the world just to incorporate an objective necessity of reason. No good intentions, no auto-training can ennoble our existence; for self-improvement, we needs to immerse ourselves in the objective conditions that will compel nobility from us, whether we want it or not.
Any construction works means careful distinction of what could serve us a little longer from what has already exhausted its productive potential. The demand to keep everything at all is nothing but a pernicious utopia. There are millions of species of bacteria or insects; nobody could convince me that all of them are vitally important. Maybe, if somebody removes this very grain of sand from the sand beach, I'll never get a top-level tan. Alright, a lower-than one will do as well, and one could perfectly do without the beach, and probably without me. Something different, and as good, will fill the niche. The only thing of importance is that things come to please humans, and not as they please. Fat chance! The ecoactivists shout from the house-tops about the immeasurable significance of any living creature (obviously, meaning themselves in the first rank). We are incessantly warned against an accidental violation of the universal balance; and there is a flashy slogan too: the butterfly effect.
I admit that it may be difficult for some brains, to properly ponder a proper act. Especially, when the brains are piled up with junk propaganda. Still, in town-planning, the idea of a complex development has long since penetrated the minds of the architects; so, why not dream about the human capacity of re-engineering biocenoses, without the risk of yet another lame community. This refers to the design of the human society, too. And now, the parties are right in the spot: hold on! don't swap capitalism off, restrict your social creativity to occasional patches, isolated reforms. But any reformism creeps with incomplete and unbalanced decisions, so as to drive ourselves into the next crisis with our own hands.
From biodiversity we are smoothly ported to the idea of the revival of the lost species. The genetic house works hard to squeeze money from the public. Come on, let the herds of mammoths straddle across the tundra, and just imagine how a tyrannosaurus would look nice in a tropical safari! Nobody cares that the tundra of today may be of a different kind, or the tropics have long since become much thinner. Just pack them with as much live creatures as possible. The arrangement of a specially balanced and comfortable habitat is off the issue. A slightest consideration would pop up an obvious forecast: some people will have to flock tighter, to make room for the nice beasties. Of course, nothing threatens those who capers with the banners in the streets of the world capitals. Neither those who stir them up. However, in the wild nature, an increase on one side inevitably turns into extinction on another. So, the petty genre like me will have to fight tooth and nail against the pressing vermin. And here (sorry, don't worry!) no mercy to anybody! When something destroys my house and eats up my bread, I must cut short this outrage by any means. Otherwise, how can I pass for a conscious being? If a microbe undermines my health, the worse for the microbe. If a gnat sucks my blood, I'll smash it. If a spider mite spoils my roses, I'll have to do away with it, despite of all the protests of the insect right defenders. The galaxy M31 (aka NGC224) contains more than a trillion stars, and it looks beautiful on the photographs. Still, I doubt that anybody is going to enjoy such a diversity when the Andromeda Galaxy will approach the Milky Way enough for the hard radiation from the zone of the collision shock wave to kill any trace of life in the both.
Everything is good in its place. And there are those who does not deserve any place at all. One might admit that science would profit from a wide enough number of samples. A more developed science must rather collect the basic principles, to be able to produce anything needed in piece, for a particular task. A scientific portrait of a dinosaur is better than the dinosaur in person. The theory and history of capitalism will do much better than the capitalist reality. The cabinets of curiosities will pass away; virtual reality is to entirely replace them. And let us live by the law of the new time.
In abstraction, say, industrial cattle breeding is not too attractive, indeed. The right question is: who would consider it harmful and why? On the Earth, millions suffer from hunger; do you mean that they are not allowed to eat? Or, do you keep them just for diversity, to please the rich with the feeling of their exclusivity, on such a background? You don't like the destructive influence of agriculture on the biosphere and climate; alright, just provide a full-fledged replacement, so that everybody on the planet (literally: everybody!) could get everything they need for a full-blooded life and creative work. Until then, you have no moral right to through any appeals, just calling the poor back to the caves.
As long as we are tied to our biological bodies, we'll eat somebody, and clash with somebody. Someday, we'll manage to dump that wasteful and immoral stockbreeding in favor of industrial tissue nurture; still, such artificial meat will yet be living cells, albeit produced in a milder manner. Virtually, food can be synthesized from non-organic materials from scratch; this does not change the very mode of our metabolism. Quite probably, future generations will entirely stop eating, transforming themselves into robots. Such bodies are to be indifferent to any insects, at last. With all that, the society is to stay, and it must impose certain restrictions anyway.
The propaganda of biodiversity is a part of a wider program of massive brainwashing. The capital needs markets, and there are no markets without a consumer. Now, one can be inclined to buying something either if the thing is good for something or, at least, not so bad as other similar things. This is what a capitalist considers the least while launching a production project. The prospects of easy gain on the expense of the others absolutely dominates over the necessity of satisfying any public need. It's an open secret from the very beginning; however, people have no choice, and one has to take the possible instead of the right. Some portion of the purchased can yet be adjusted to the needs; buying most other things, we only demonstrate our belonging to a particular culture, just to fool the big brother, who would otherwise suspect too much freethinking and punish the trouble-rousers depriving them of that little they could probably get so far. Eventually, the gray sky makes wear, and nobody wants anything at all. How a capitalist could cope with that? Good deeds are, of course, out of question. So, they take a piece of old shit, repaint it (or, more often, just change the wrap), and offer to the admittedly naive street-walker under the guise of the latest hit of the industry. The more such merchandising, the more junk on the counters; this is proudly called abundance, the thing the lapdog propagandists of capitalism use to shove in our mugs. In meanwhile, the dreary consumer has to waste hours pacing to and thro along the garbage-loaded stands, to finally take, with a deep sigh, just something, not entirely dreadful. A seditious thought may visit the most spirited heads: why do we need all that? why not stop overproduction of the unneeded and content ourselves with producing really useful things? The rebellion can be nipped in the bud with the same well-seasoned techniques: 1) declare that the market is a natural state of a human (already identified with animals, as above), and 2) proclaim the ultimate value of market diversity for preserving the global economic stability, that is, to prevent the well-being of those who are quite well from an incidental deterioration (god forbid!). Another aspect of the economic diversity is all about the relative nature of prosperity. Yes, we hate the ugly life we draw; but there are those who live mush worse! So, just shut up and don't think of straightening things up. For those who are nearly bursting, the freedom of blether, an authorized diversity of opinions, where any outstanding thought is to drown, like in a filthy bog. The world of the universal abstract diversity will always be governed by the wild fortuity; in that wild nature, anybody is to kill somebody else, and to be murdered in the end. That is how it was since the dawn of time; that is how in will be forever. It is this wild truth that the practicing ecologists are to plant in the people's heads. They are just like us, and they could occupy themselves with something less devastating; unfortunately, as they have become the hirelings of the capital, they are obliged to fight any reason, and primarily, the reason on their own.