There is a substantial difference between protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries. The former are a rational answer to the current decline of biodiversity and, as such, they are widely accepted in our society; the latter respond to an ethical need, which is not very common so far. This is the reason why administrators and public opinion are reluctant to accept the non-usability of areas that, to be preserved, require maintenance, patrolling and monitoring costs. The challenge of increasing the consensus around wildlife sanctuaries goes far beyond the establishment of protected areas. It lies in making desirable a sober lifestyle, with general awareness of the environmental consequences of all our actions. It lies in making people realise how perverse it is to hoard without limits; how illusory it is to claim pre-emption over what, in reality, belongs to everyone; how vain it is to spend time just to satisfy needless needs, believing that this is the right way to escape from a status that looks like "poverty" to our blinded eyes.
|Data di pubblicazione:||dic-2013|
|Titolo:||Absolute zapovednost’ as an ethical model|
|Tipologia:||Articolo su rivista|
|Citazione:||Guarino, R. (2013). Absolute zapovednost’ as an ethical model. BULLETIN ... OF THE EUROPEAN DRY GRASSLAND GROUP, 21, 33-35.|
|Tipo:||Articolo in rivista|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01 - Articolo su rivista|