...
首页> 外文期刊>Conservation Biology >Conservation Focus: Directions for Conservation
【24h】

Conservation Focus: Directions for Conservation

机译:保育重点:保育方向

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Michael Soule wrote an editorial for the October 2013 issue of Conservation Biology. In it he argues that the "new conservation" erodes some of the fundamental goals of conservation biology, capitulating the primacy of biodiversity for human health and well-being. Michelle Marvier, one of the authors Michael criticizes, responded in an editorial in the February issue, saying that many of Michael's accusations were misguided or misplaced. Underlying the debate is a fundamental difference in values. One may see a preoccupation with human wellbeing as an inescapable reality, or one may see it as a capitulation of fundamental values that have driven the discipline since its inception. The participants in this debate share the common goal of maximizing biodiversity outcomes. What differs is how the discipline should approach problem solving and the priorities it sets for research and application. The following articles build on the debate that arose from the two editorials. The contributors should be lauded for their commitment to scientific discourse and for building a constructive dialogue from what may have become a divisive polemic.
机译:迈克尔·索勒(Michael Soule)为2013年10月号的《保护生物学》撰写了一篇社论。他在书中认为,“新的保护”侵蚀了保护生物学的一些基本目标,使生物多样性对人类健康和福祉的重要性屈居第二。迈克尔批评的作家之一米歇尔·马维尔(Michelle Marvier)在2月刊的社论中回应说,迈克尔的许多指控被误导或放错了位置。辩论的基础是价值观的根本差异。人们可能会将对人类福祉的关注视为无法回避的现实,或者将其视为对自该学科创立以来一直推动该学科发展的基本价值的概括。这场辩论的参与者有着使生物多样性成果最大化的共同目标。不同之处在于该学科应如何解决问题以及它为研究和应用设置的优先级。以下文章基于这两篇社论引发的辩论。应该赞扬贡献者对科学论述的承诺,并从可能已成为分裂性的争论中建立建设性对话。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号