Mixed
Messages in the Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability
A Review Essay
By David Orton
Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological
Sustainability
edited by
David M. Lavigne, published by the International
Fund for
Animal Welfare, Guelph, Canada, and the University
of Limerick,
Ireland, 2006, 425 pages, soft cover,
ISBN:
0-9698171-7-7.
The widely accepted policy of
encouraging sustainable development
emphasized the management of
natural resources to promote human
material well-being, rather than
the protection of nature.
John F. Oates, p.277
Our
only hope to retain a thriving biodiversity is to embrace a human-
centered view for the use of the
biosphere, in which wildlife provides
for human needs and aspirations
and is therefore valued by a broad
segment of society. A romantic,
purely eco-centric view, that is, an
impersonal and unselfish view of
biosphere management that excludes
broadly held aspirations to use
resources by common people cannot
but fail.
Valerius Geist, p.290.
Biospherical
egalitarianism in principle. The ‘in principle’ clause is
inserted because any realistic
praxis necessitates some killing,
exploitation, and suppression.
Arne Naess, “The
Shallow And The Deep, Long-Range Ecology
Movements: A
Summary”,
1973.
Introduction
This is an interesting volume of
26 distinct essays, edited by Canadian biologist
David Lavigne, with 30 individual contributors. It
came out of a
conference held in
June of 2004, co-sponsored by the International Fund
for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
and
the University of Limerick in Ireland. Lavigne, science advisor to the
IFAW, is
the author of the
opening chapter and the summing up concluding chapter,
“Reinventing Wildlife
Conservation For The 21st Century” (along with three
other writers) plus co-author of one additional
chapter.
Lavigne was the guiding
influence for this book, as becomes clear on reading
the various articles.
The conference was held under the
theme of “Wildlife Conservation: In Pursuit of
Ecological Sustainability.” Some of the writers
would be well
known to wildlife and
animal rights activists with an interest in
theoretical issues, for example
Sidney Holt.
This British whale and fisheries scientist is
someone who has worked closely with
Lavigne and
who is an intellectual mentor to him, I believe. Other well known
writers
are the Australian Sharon
Beder, William Rees of ecological footprint fame, and
Valerius
Geist. Most of the other contributors were not known to me previously,
although with some I had “name”
recognition of, e.g. Jeffrey Hutchings, a fisheries
biologist from Nova
Scotia and Brian Czech, a
progressive US economist. It was
good to see the substance behind
previous name recognitions.
This book will become influential
for those in the environmental and green
movements, and green electoral parties (e.g. the
Canadian federal Green
Party),
who still cling to extending support for sustainable
development. Many of the
writers, led
here by Sharon Beder, show that the ideology of sustainable
development has influenced wildlife
conservation in a very negative way for
more than two decades, with its unfounded basic
assertion that
there is
compatibility between economic and environmental
goals. This is a big
contribution made
by Gaining Ground. Those who
follow wildlife issues
in Canada must be familiar with
those members of hunting/fishing/trapping
organizations who reflect the sustainable
development ideology. They make
spurious distinctions between “conservation” or
“conservationists”, to
which
they associate themselves, and “preservation” or
“preservationists” for those
like
myself who believe in the intrinsic value of wildlife and strive for a
non-humancentered world
view. Essentially, for the conservationist as here
defined, wildlife is there to be preserved in
order to be killed by humans. As
Arne Naess points out above, contrary to the
“conservation”
ideologues,
an ecocentric or biocentric world view does not
exclude some killing and
exploitation
of other life forms, but it does exclude a view of human
dominance of the natural world and
wildlife.
There is an international flavour
to the book, with several of the contributors
being based in Africa and India and drawing upon
their experiences.
A cluster
of about five writers have links to the University
of Guelph, a university not
traditionally associated with any form of radical
environmentalism, from an
activist perspective. A
nice light touch are the reproduction of a number of
quite funny limericks, the production of
which were apparently an informal
part of the conference proceedings described as a
“limerick
contest.”
(Limericks are five-line nonsense/serious verses.)
The leading limerick by
place of
prominence in Gaining Ground
(strange title, why not Losing
Ground?) was rather appropriate. It
introduces the critique of
‘sustainable
development’ which runs through this book:
A Norwegian PM name of Gro
Took a concept which as we all know
Does not hold water
Though some think that it ought to
But the Planet just won’t grow and grow.
Roger G. H.
Downer, 2004
After going through this book I
thought its overall message of the pursuit of
ecological sustainability, which included a welcome
critical
evaluation of
sustainable development, deserved an examination
from a deep ecology and
left
biocentric perspective. But I also wanted to make
Gaining Ground
further
known as an information source. In Canada, as
elsewhere, there
is everywhere
the claim that we must appeal to human
self-interest, including in a monetary
sense, to move wildlife
conservation forward. I believe
that a deep ecology
inspired conservation ethic, which
repudiates the idea that the Earth and other
species “belong” to humans, which is basically
ignored in this book
except for
essays by
Martin Willison and Sharon Beder, can help activists counter this
claim. How does Gaining
Ground
assist our
understanding, and does it really
give us the promised “Principles of
Wildlife Conservation for
the 21st Century”?
I do not intend in this review to
deal with each individual essay, some of which are
very technical. Interesting for me were factual
articles on the
dilemmas faced by
wildlife in the commercial fisheries, in whaling and
in
watching whales, in the trade
in
ivory and bush meat, and in the influence of conventional
capitalist growth
economics on wildlife conservation. But I want to
raise for discussion
here some
themes which directly relate to the
overall topic of ecological sustainability and what
this means in the
context of modern day industrial
capitalist society. The main focus
of this review will be to look critically at the
claim by David Lavigne and
some other
writers that this book is advancing a significantly
“new” geocentric
conservation
ethic.
Themes of interest
The Geocentric
Conservation Ethic and its 'Rivals'
Advocating this geocentric ethic
idea, and the rationale for it, seems to be the main
claim to ethical originality in this book. It is
advocated by David
Lavigne, Rosamund
Kidman Fox, Vivek Menon and Michael Wamithi in the
concluding chapter
“Reinventing
Wildlife
Conservation For The 21st Century”. (It is also advanced
in the essay
by William S. Lynn.) But it is a claim which supporters of deep ecology
will be skeptical of, when they read
this book. They will find the claim contentious,
even though on first appearance “geocentric” seems to
have much promise and to
be in the spirit of the overall work being done by
deep
ecology supporters.
After all,
what is the substantial difference between putting
the Earth
first or ecocentrism, and
advocating for a geocentric conservation ethic?
In the opening essay in this
book, in chapter one, Lavigne sets up three tendencies
in conservation. Using quite amazing and
self-serving
language, which animal rights
and environmental activists will be familiar with,
he describes the
two tendencies he
disassociates himself from as “extremes”
(p.11). The conservation tendency Lavigne
favours occupies of course a
kind of middle ground “between
these two extremes”
and is called
“‘traditional’ progressive
conservation.” (p.11) We are informed this is
the only one that “is
truly concerned with biologically and
ecologically sustainable
use.” (p.11)
However, one of the extremes, “protectionist
conservation”, given the
IFAW sponsorship of the conference in Ireland, and
how Lavigne comes to
eventually define the geocentric ethic, is treated
somewhat
sympathetically in the
discussion.
The “extreme” protectionist
conservationist tendency is described as follows, and
as occupying one end of a spectrum:
Characterized largely by moralistic and humanistic
attitudes towards animals
and nature.
Because
protectionist conservationists - especially the animal-
rights
movement
- are basically
opposed to the consumptive use of animals,
they have been
largely
marginalized in the
sustainability debate. (p.11)
The other “extreme” (perhaps
justifiably in this case) conservationist tendency is
“wise-use” and is well argued against
extensively in Gaining Ground:
Motivated by utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes
it has become a major
player, if not
the major player,
on the world stage. (p.11)
After the above, Lavigne et al
define the geocentric conservation ethic in the
concluding essay. While full of promise, it displays
a staggering lack
of understanding
about deep ecology (or is it wilful denial?) and
this philosophy’s ongoing
contribution
to wildlife conservation. The position as outlined
in Gaining
Ground shows also an
absence of self-critical philosophical
reflection. (Sidney Holt, who has worked closely
with David
Lavigne and who I overall much admire for his theoretical and political
radicalism, once told me
that “deep ecology was a lot of
cod’s wallop.”) I also believe
this geocentric conservation ethic
assigns more dominance to the human than to other
species. As the quotation from Naess which
introduces this review notes, it is not true
that deep ecology as a philosophy is opposed to the
consumptive use of animals or
plants. While many deep ecology supporters, as Naess
has indicated
in the past,
incline towards vegetarianism, others hunt and may
eat meat and fish.
The following extensive quotation
is needed to convey what I consider to be the
ethical heart of this book and the important
theoretical nuances
here being implied
by the ‘new’ conservation term geocentrism:
Legal, regional, and national differences
in values notwithstanding, there is
arguably still
a need
for a widely adopted conservation ethic characterizing
the
relationship between all
humans and nature. This too is an old idea, but
the urgency is
greater now than ever
before. It was central to Aldo Leopold’s
Land Ethic, in
which he argued that we must
adopt a more ecological and
ecocentric
approach to our dealings with the rest of
nature. What he seems
to have meant
is that we must abandon our anthropocentric world view, where
we are the
centre of the universe and
nature exists, and is used,
solely for our
benefit; and
we must recognize and accept that we - both as individuals
and
as a species -
really are an integral part of the biosphere.
In some fields, however, the term ecocentrism has
more precise connotations.
Among some
ethicists, for example, ecocentrism emphasizes species and
ecosystems
but, unlike
biocentrism, does not explicitly include individual
animals as a
locus
of moral concern. But,
as several authors have already
noted...there
are good reasons - and numerous
precedents - to recognize that
individual
animals...have intrinsic
value and, therefore,
deserve moral
consideration
as well. The addition of individual animals
to the mix
suggests
that the sort
of conservation ethic we are searching for would
best be described
as geocentric.
Geocentrism (Earth-centered) assigns moral value to both the
parts
and the wholes of the Earth. In other words, individual animals,
species,
and ecosystems
all have concurrent moral value - i.e. they are intrinsic ends in
themselves, as
well as being instrumental means to other ends.
Traditionally, progressive conservation has been
concerned primarily with the
welfare of
populations
and species, leaving concern for individual animals to
humane
societies and animal
welfare organizations such as IFAW. The
adoption of a
geocentric conservation
ethic removes the artificial separation
of individual
animals and
populations (which, of
course, are simply collections
of individuals
belonging to the same
species) and puts
animal welfare where
it naturally
belongs - on the modern conservation
agenda. (pp.
385-386)
What I found quite revealing and
an illustration of the intellectual timidity of David
Lavigne et al and their basic ecological
conservatism, was the
polemic against a
“Re-wilding
North America” paper co-authored by 13 people including Michael
Soulé, (p.382) referred to in Gaining
Ground.They rail against the proposed bold
reintroduction
of species that formerly inhabited North America. Lavigne et al call
them “alien
species” and
“exotics.” They then raise
more ghosts and dragons by
writing “that
some North Americans, including
many farmers and ranchers, are
already troubled by the modest success of wolf
reintroduction
programs.” (p.382),
so “hungry”
lions and cheetahs on the prairies of North America would be a no-no.
We start to see that a geocentric conservation ethic
as unfolded here has a sense
of
human-centeredness about it. Intrinsic worth or value for wildlife
becomes
redefined in a geocentric
conservation ethic. Several of the “principles”
of the
generally progressive “Wildlife Conservation
for the 21st Century” unfolded in
this book (see p.389), speak of wildlife being “passed on to
future generations”,
of the public ‘owning’ the resource, or of wildlife
belonging to “nations”. Of
course
the term “resource”,
which is widely used in Gaining
Ground, should not to be
used for wildlife, as John Livingston
pointed out a long time ago in his 1981 book
The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation. “Resource” as an expression means
human-centeredness in how we look
at the natural world and wildlife. Another
example of the timorousness of Lavigne et.
al. is where they explicitly state that
“respect for the
law” must be part of a New Conservation Movement. (p.393)
Yet we
are “lawfully” in an ecological meltdown situation.
Canadian Concerns
I, along with a few other federal Canadian Green
Party members, was given a
copy of this book by the Associate Editor, Sheryl
Fink at the
2006 Convention of
the party in Ottawa. Those who received this book
seemed to have in
common
that they were active supporters/organizers of the
position of the federal party to
oppose the annual industrial killing of harp and
hooded seals in Eastern Canada.
This is a policy
position which sets the Green Party apart from all the other
bourgeois political parties
in Canada, including the ‘left’ New Democratic Party,
which are quite enthusiastic
supporters of what has been called the largest
annual wildlife slaughter on our planet. (Seals are
designated as “fish” by the
Canadian government!) The supporters of the annual
seal
slaughter narrowly
define this issue as mainly one of anthropocentric
economic justice for
sealers.
However this policy against the annual industrial
killing of marine mammals on
the
East Coast of Canada, of what are called the ice seals - harp and hooded
seals, faces some
continuing internal challenge within the Green Party going
back to the 80s and the recent
federal convention was one further example of
this. It is a little ironic, given the
overall negative view towards deep ecology in
Gaining Ground
that it is mainly deep ecology inspired activists in the federal
Green
Party who have been at the forefront of what is publicly
seen as an
animal rights issue, of ending the annual commercial
slaughter of harp and
hooded
seals on Canada’s East Coast.
Since the early 1980s, I, along with other
environmental and animal rights
activists in the Atlantic region, have been involved
with defending
the interests
of seals in Eastern Canada - harbour, greys, harps
and hooded seals. This has
included having had some contact with the IFAW, and
also with David Lavigne
and Sidney Holt.
The 2003 Brock university paper Deep Ecology and Animals
by myself,
outlines the theoretical similarities and differences between animal
liberation and deep ecology
activists. This Brock paper shows that deep ecology
has a very inclusive and expanded sense of
“community”, leaving human-
centeredness far behind. It also shows that deep
ecology differs from animal
liberation significantly in that it places animals
in a
necessary “context”: ecological,
political, economic and cultural. I made the point
that the
animal liberation
movement shows deep ecology supporters that, as well
as working for
conservation,
it is necessary to work for the welfare of
individual animals. This means that
an
acceptable restoration ecology must be concerned
with individual animal welfare,
as well
as the concern with species or populations and the preservation of
habitat.
Yet
this view is presented as a new theoretical breakthrough in Gaining Ground
as part of the
geocentric conservation ethic. Deep ecology and animal rights
supporters do work
together on a range of wildlife issues. I also believe that the
creative tension between
“biocentrism” and “ecocentrism” within deep ecology
(basically ignored in this book) makes
it possible to encompass the individual
welfare of animals, as well as a concern with
species, populations and habitat
preservation. Naess associates himself and deep
ecology with both
ecocentrism
and biocentrism, even though Canadian theorists like
the late Stan Rowe
and
Ted Mosquin have argued solely for an ecocentric
orientation for deep ecology
and
have, erroneously in my opinion, portrayed “biocentrism” as of lesser
importance to
ecocentrism. In concluding the Brock paper I noted, “Respect
for
animals is an integral part of preserving the
community of life which, ultimately,
human existence depends upon.”
Unfortunately the influence of deep ecology - the
eco-philosophy which defines a
new human relationship with the earth and which has
become so influential - is barely
acknowledged in any substantive way in this book,
except in essays by Martin Willison
and Sharon Beder. Left biocentrism, a theoretical
tendency within deep ecology which
combines ecocentrism and social justice with ecology
first, has no mention at all in this
book. This despite the fact that this philosophical
orientation has influenced a number
of wildlife activists and has contributed to the
theoretical debates in Canada, as for
example on sustainable development and on deep
ecology/animal rights
interrelationships, both ignored although reflected
in this book.
Lavigne et al can
astoundingly declare,
We can find little guidance in the
traditional conservation literature on how
specifically to resurrect a movement and implement a
new paradigm. (p.391)
In the past, becoming a seal defender has not been a
popular viewpoint to uphold
among environmentalists in the Atlantic Region,
because of
the economic importance
of the fishing industry and its government backers
who want seals
killed. My own view
is that David Lavigne and Sidney Holt have done
valuable work
which gave activists a
non-compromised scientific base for opposing those
who wanted seals
or whales
killed on an industrial scale. (Holt has had a more
radical
vision than Lavigne.)
It has
been the IFAW which has funded this work and which
has often
brought together
scientists from around the world to give their views
on wildlife and
marine mammal
issues. The
Irish conference was another example of this. One needs to
keep this
in mind, if one is disgusted when receiving numerous
“begging for
funds” letters,
continually mailed out to
supporters of the IFAW; or if one is in disagreement with
the $2.5
million “golden handshake” which Brian
Davies, the founder of IFAW,
received when he “moved on” to other pursuits than
saving the
ice seals. Here
in Canada it was frequently fisheries scientists
from within the
federal
government in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) who
attempted
to provide a basis, wrapped in scientific packaging,
for the killing of
seals. IFAW
scientific work has helped
counter all the disinformation about seals. The
following quote, which introduced the 1983 Green
Web Bulletin “Atlantic
Seals: On the Road To Extinction?”, is
indicative of
the work which could
be utilized by activists:
Controversies concerning marine
mammals
are now a common
theatre for the distortion of science,
especially by those who
do
not wish to be restricted in their exploitation
either of the mammals
or of
their prey.
(Holt and Lavigne, “Seals slaughtered -
science abused”, New
Scientist, March 11, 1982.)
This quote also reveals perhaps what I think has
been a fatal flaw in the past
thinking of these two scientists, who have shown
themselves
dismissive of deep
ecology. They seem to have believed that “if the
science is
right”, and if society
follows the science, then the human exploitation of
seals or whales is okay
and
human-marine mammal interactions can be made
sustainable.
Changing the Paradigm, Not
Compensation
Despite years of extensive
development of timber certification criteria,
not one formal certification process has explicitly
incorporated
the
exploitation of wildlife as a key component of
certification.
Heather E. Eves, p.143.
‘How do we protect Nature’ is the basic question
which many of us struggle with.
How do we respond to the growing initiative in
Canada of
advocating that we
(the government/tax payers) pay people to protect
wildlife and what remains of
the
natural world? In my own province, and generally
within Canada, there is quite a push
to
pay ‘landowners’ like farmers and those who have ‘woodlots’, or those
who
commercially exploit
the oceans, compensation for putting into place measures which
supposedly help conserve
wildlife or plants – or, more generally, compensation for
not destroying in the name of
development (i.e. habitat annihilation) all those
wonderful services provided by fresh and salt water
marshes or streams bordered
by trees and other plant life, etc., and which
natural ecosystems
make available to
humankind as well as to other life forms. This
viewpoint of providing
compensation
has obvious parallels with U.S. ‘Takings
legislation’ and the Wise Use devotees in
that country. It also has its supporters among
various Canadian green parties,
federal and
provincial, as in the general population. The GP supporters are
generally
of an eco-capitalist
orientation, who believe personal compensation/self-interest is
the main way to bring about changes
in human ecological behaviour. Yet it is the
appeal to industrial capitalist self-interest as
prime motivator which has resulted in
the existing life-threatening ecological crisis
which politicians
shadow dance around.
With the above compensation thinking, wildlife is
not valued in its own right, for its
intrinsic value, but instead for how people value it
within a
market, that is, a capitalist
frame of reference. So farmers and rural people, or
those who fish the
oceans have to
be economically induced to supposedly protect
wildlife, which must "pay its own
way."
This book in the main shows that these ideas have
been a disaster. This is why,
despite the academic obscurity of some authors, this
book is important. One article
which completely
and astonishingly bucks these ideas is the essay by Valerius Geist,
with its self-deprecating
title: “The North
American Model Of Wildlife Conservation:
A Means Of Creating Wealth And
Protecting Public Health While Generating
Biodiversity.” This essay, which
is also against firearms control in Canada, is one
which every fishing, hunting, and trapping
organization would celebrate because it
purports to show how the pursuit of human
self-interest is
almost sacred and
essentially responsible for the “success” of
wildlife conservation in North America.
Moreover, we are informed:
Hunting also creates public
benefits such as the ‘freedom of the woods’
that results from keeping large and potentially
dangerous
carnivores
timid and afraid of humans, as without this we could
not use our woods
and
campgrounds safely. (p.286)
Personally, I feel the position of paying
compensation, or appealing to human
self-interest undermines the needed view put forth
by Arne Naess
and others, such
as Rudolf Bahro, that "The earth does
not belong to humans" (see Deep
Ecology
For The 21st Century, p. 74). I have promoted
over the years in Canada usufruct
use, instead of "ownership" for humans, where such
use by humans is accountable
to the
community of other life forms and the Earth itself. It is industrial
capitalism
which has
commodified Nature and de-spiritualized the world around us. Changing
consciousness, not paying
so-called compensation for those working the land and
the oceans, is the path we should be
embarking on. Wildlife and plants have no
place within a monetary nexus devised solely by
humans, because ultimately,
with such a value system, humans and
corporations will still
determine the ultimate
shots and matters of life and death for nonhuman
life forms. As the Deep
Ecology
Platform puts it
"The
well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on
Earth
have value in themselves...These values are independent of the
usefulness
of the
nonhuman world for human purposes." For those of us striving to
be deeper
Greens, we need to
change, not reinforce, the basic capitalist human-centered
value system which
presently governs us.
Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC) thinking,
which the Canadian federal
Green Party supports, leaving aside all the
fraudulent
applications, is another
example of having to pay people who utilize the
forests for commercial
purposes, to
lift a finger to protect other species and protect
habitat, when this SHOULD BE A
CONDITION
for having access to woodlands. FSC certification of course translates
into higher
economic payment for wood products. (In my own province, Nova Scotia,
the largest pulp mill
Stora-Enso is in the process of trying to acquire FSC certification.
The Globe and Mail,
on
August 30, 2007, reports that forestry giants in Canada like
Domtar and Tembec “have
won the FSC
stamp of approval.” The new reality in the
world marketplace for wood products is that, for
selling in the new green wash
culture, it is necessary to have some kind of
“certification” stamp
of approval.)
We humans do utilize Nature, but deep ecology has
taught us about the intrinsic
value of the natural world and all its inhabitants.
Our existence
as humans does
involve killing nonhuman forms of life. This must
mean, it
seems to me, to
re-wild,
that is to leave vast areas free of any commercial
exploitation
on land and in the
oceans,
where evolution can continue to unfold free of
human/corporate
exploitation. We have to hammer
home the fact that human use/exploitation of
land or the oceans is a
privilege granted by
society, not a right, and this privilege
cannot be seen in a
human-centered manner, as compensation
thinking pushes
us.
Conclusion
For most of the writers in Gaining Ground, it seems that the use of wildlife, of
course sustainably, is a priority. I believe this
severely
limits a true non-human
centered geocentric world view, which David Lavigne
and
others are putting
forth.
I have shown that the deep ecology philosophy, as
outlined
originally by Arne
Naess, is
not opposed to some necessary use of Nature and wildlife. But
this
is not seen as an absolute
human right, because of the limiting belief in
“biospherical egalitarianism in principle.”
A major criticism of this book, given its declared
aim of outlining a new geocentric
ethic, is the refusal to take seriously the
contribution of deep
ecology to such an
ethic. The contribution of deep ecology to wildlife
preservation is amazingly
basically ignored by Lavigne and a number of other
essayists, both
theoretically
and
practically.
The book presents a good critique of sustainable
development (not however
original) and how it has negatively impacted
wildlife
populations.
This discussion
of the negative impact is a very welcome addition to
the needed
repudiation of
sustainable development. Also, a consistent critique
of the
position that wildlife
must “pay its
way” is given, with the notable exception of the article
by Valerius
Geist. But a problem with this
book is that most of the writers dream in the
present and not in the
future, hence self-limiting
their theoretical options.
The book claims to have brought together in its
geocentric ethic the concern for
individual animals and the concern with species,
populations,
and habitats, hence
appealing to an IFAW and animal rights constituency.
I have shown that,
while
necessary, this is not unique and was already
present within deep ecology. It is also
something I have written about in a Canadian context.
Just as there can be no eco-forestry, eco-fishery,
or eco-agriculture in an
unsustainable society, so there can be no ecological
long term
sustainable wildlife or
plant life in an unsustainable society. Ethical
questions occur within a social
context.
Apart from occasional remarks, some of which were
quite radical, as for example by
Sidney
Holt, William Rees, Brian Czech and even David Lavigne, in this book
capitalism, class power,
increasing human populations, land and wildlife ownership,
consumerism, and the rule of the market
are taken as givens.
As I have tried to
show, Gaining
Ground: In Pursuit Of Ecological
Sustainability
sends out mixed messages. But I still believe there
are some
important insights to be
gained from reading it.
September 2007
To obtain any of the Green
Web
publications,
write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada,
BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of Green
Web Writings
and Left Biocentrism
Book
Reviews
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Mixed_Messages.html
Last updated: September 22, 2007