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.


                    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
?) 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

            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
(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

                    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.

                    The other “extreme” (perhaps justifiably in this case) conservationist tendency is
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.

                    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.

                    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
, 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
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.

                    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
                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

                    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

 Last updated: September 22, 2007