Endangered Species Act

There was a time in this country when slavery was a societal norm. Humanity has exploited this planet for far longer, and far more intensively, than it has ever exploited other human beings.

To the extent that there is an argument being made against the Endangered Species Act on the basis of “private property rights,” let us not forget that when society moved to end slavery, those who then saw slaves as “private property” raised a protest, to put it mildly. Admittedly, the plight of other human beings in danger tends to touch us more intimately than the danger to plant and animal life. However, history tells us that whenever there is a paradigm shift that results in a redefinition of societal norms, there will always be those who “stand to lose.” And they will always argue that it is inequitable for them to have to pay a price because society has changed its goals.

There is a moral imperative here that we would do well to hold in mind. Because the tension is not between “jobs and the spotted owl,” it is between hedonic materialistic growth and empathetic co-evolution.

ASHWANI VASISHTH

Los Angeles