The argument that I wish to develop in this Chapter is best served by beginning with the meaning of Conservation.

The word Conservation, like ecology, now enjoys everyday use but with little unanimity of meaning. By Conservation I mean 'wise use' and by Preservation I mean 'no use'. The words are often equated. Both words are implicitly human-centred. Conservation means 'wise use' by humans.

These definitions do not always agree with the everyday use of the term Conservation. Most of us would understand a Conservation Park to be an area of land that has been set aside or removed from a previous landuse. The area of land is now subject only to non-consumptive recreation use, such as we would find in a National Park; or to no human use at all, as we might find in a Conservation Park or Reserve.

In this Chapter, I have taken the widest meaning for the landuse of Conservation. Landcover that is subject to Conservation landuse may still have non-consumptive recreational use in some form. Or, it may experience no landuse at all. That is, the landuse of Conservation most commonly conserves landcover but it also can preserve it.

The point just made is not emphasised for pedantic reasons. I have a far more serious objective in mind. That objective is to contrast the attitudes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians towards Preservation (no use). I make this contrast not to be politically divisive. Rather it is to cut away much woolly, uncritical thinking that has crept into our conservation debate.

To Aboriginal Australians, and to Indigenous People globally, there is no concept of Wilderness, no meaning for land deliberately left unused.

These are examples of Wilderness

In contrast, there are many in Australian society, myself included, who see great value in the total preservation of landcover. That is, to set aside landscapes and exclude all human use. This preserved landcover is to remain a habitat for all organisms other than humans. The landcover is protected by humans but not for humans.

The ethical basis of this moral stand is that the beneficiaries of this landuse - all other organisms - are regarded as having a right to exist irrespective of their value to humans. Let's call this view an explicit biocentric view. The focus is on Life as such and it underlies the drive for Preservation landuse.

However, the award of the right of an organism to existence is not uncritically given. Not all organisms have the right to exist in all habitats. Only organisms native to any ecosystem are considered. Feral organisms introduced by humans have no such rights, and are to be relentlessly eliminated. I encourage you to turn back to the inside front covers of this book and think about that image and these ideas.

There is an alternative and much more widely held view. This view is implicitly human-centred, or anthropocentric. This view is frequently heard in the contemporary debate over rainforest clearing. It is argued that the rainforests should not be cleared because they probably contain plants, not yet discovered or identified, that may be a cure for human cancer, warts or bed wetting.

Therefore, the rainforests with the galaxy of living organisms that they contain, are to be spared principally because they may be of use to humans in the future. In particular, these rainforest plants will contribute to an increase in the numbers and longevity of humans.

I find this view repulsively selfish. Unfortunately, it underlies much of the drive for Conservation landuse.

In both of these views, which I have put to you in an extreme manner, it is humans who decide the fate of organisms. That may be an uncomfortable realisation for you. But that it is how it is. Humans are the most powerful species of life on Earth. We decide what will live and what will become extinct. And there is no denying that omnipotence.