"It's philosophical.........."

We have occasionally questioned the conservation professionals who drive forward the policies of preserving an artificial landscape (upland moors) and its ecology instead of allowing a more wild and natural aspect to return. When we’ve asked why they all tend to respond in the same way, even to using the exact words: “Interesting question… it’s philosophical, I suppose”. There’s no doubt that this is intended to be a kind of closure on the discussion. It’s as if nobody in their right mind would want to get involved in a philosophical discussion. Real people are too busy for that.

But every time we make a decision based on a judgement of values - and we may do this many times in a day- we can’t avoid being drawn into a consideration of how we spend our lives, and what is right and what is wrong. Unless of course we drift through life blindfold. Philosophy is also about these issues, it’s not just some abstruse theology from the middle ages. So let’s ask some questions:

1 Why devote large sums of public money to preserving an artificial landscape that is no longer key to the national economy?
2 Why make such an effort to preserve unnatural habitats for certain wildlife species which themselves in the past adapted to those habitats and when other species are thereby discouraged?
3 Why pretend that a consultation you’re involved in and helped to set up is open and straightforward when it’s not at all?

As these are serious issues involving a considerable investment of public money you might expect that there has been an extended and comprehensive public debate about it. If there has I must have blinked.