The Slippery Slope of Conservation and Environmental Values (2022)

We occasionally negotiate slippery slopes in our lives.  I’m not referring, though, to driving our vehicles safely over hilly and icy roads.  The term, slippery slope, has been used to describe difficulties in applying our moral values to human decisions.   

Sometimes our moral values make decision making easy.  We merely apply our existing value to decide what to do, and then we almost automatically do it.  Occasionally, though, we face more difficult decisions.  We recognize a conflict for simply applying one of our key moral values for a decision.   

For example, consider the moral value of honesty in our communication with others.  There are situations when almost all of us will fib or lie, and for a variety of reasons.  If telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth could result in very adverse consequences for us and/or others, we probably avoid or distort the sharing our actual perceptions of the truth.  Even much stronger moral values can be subject to unusual exceptions or exemptions.  We can deeply value human life and believe that we would never kill another human being, but soldiers in wartime are expected to put aside this strong moral value to fight an enemy.   

Moral values can be viewed as our ‘best intentions,’ but we can fail to live up fully to these values and intentions.  Few of us are true absolutists, or willing to give up everything, in our steadfast commitment to some of our strongly proclaimed moral values.  Yet few of us care to be viewed as hypocrites who espouse a moral value but do not, or only seldomly, practice that belief.  Thus, we often are riding somewhere on the slippery slope of practicing our moral values.  

Nature and outdoor enthusiasts appear to appreciate earth’s natural resources more than other people.  We can seem, by our existing activities, more committed to values of nature conservation.  Yet few of us probably match our actual deeds with our best intentions.  I know that I fall short of my best intentions at times, and I imagine that many other nature and outdoor enthusiasts fall short of their best intentions as well.   

Why do we fall short of these best intentions?  Two probable reasons come immediately to my mind.  The first is the financial and other costs, such as time and inconvenience, of practicing more fully what we seem to advocate.  The second reason is human rationalizations that our individual costs or sacrifices will make little overall difference when so many others remain much less committed to these conservation and sustainability practices.  

Cartoonist Walt Kelly updated a famous quote by Commander Perry in a 1970 Pogo cartoon celebrating our country’s first Earth Day.  “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  His message was that we, through less than fully responsible treatment of nature and the planet, are the enemy.  It's true that the conservation movement starting more than a century ago and the environmental movement of the 70s and 80s have produced more public awareness and some genuine success stories. These previous responses can seem distressingly inadequate, though, given mainstream scientific warnings concerning the future.   

Regarding slippery slopes, human nature might argue against our expecting conservation and environmental values to tower over other important and competing personal values that we have.  But must we fall far down this slippery slope and do very little?  What are our best intentions, or even just our good intentions, regarding major conservation and environmental concerns, and how might we better fulfill these intentions?   

It’s easy to criticize those who talk grandly in the media about their green commitments, and yet some of these advocates are reported as not fully ‘walking the talk.’  There are many, many more of us who can be hypocritical in a different way.  We have conservation and environmental values, yet seldom by our deeds, or sometimes even our words, do we come that close to expressing our best intentions.  Some of us are hunters, campers, birdwatchers, gardeners, beekeepers or sports enthusiasts, and by our individual actions and affiliations we already have made some differences.  But are these nearly enough of a public statement and contribution in the face of expected environmental threats?  Do we have any plans or an approach for coming a little closer to meeting our best intentions? 

I’m less encouraged by noteworthy commitments and contributions from a few environmental exemplars than I am by another potential force for positive change.  That impact could come from the very many of us who climb just a little higher on the slippery slope toward our best intentions.  Our existing contributions to a particular organization or interest area certainly help, but widespread environmental and climate challenges threaten the future of those specific interests.  Our own best intentions might argue that we can and should do a bit more.  

Is your current organization or club continuing to communicate to federal and state representatives and officials its active support for broader conservation and environmental initiatives?  As a dues-paying and contributing member of one or two organizations, is that the only way that you can truly further its goals?  Membership and contributions to organizations committed to broader conservation and environmental goals should help your own organization and many others that promote other specific wildlife and nature interests.  My advice is to research such organizations well, so that your contributions are more likely directed toward appropriate targets and handled by competent and trustworthy administrators.