Two recent Minneapolis Star Tribune articles on conservation and mining highlight something very important—the principles of a land ethic and the legacy we pass on to future generations.
Outdoor Editor Dennis Anderson’s timely article, New DNR boss entering a fierce political forest, reminds us that “we all draw sustenance from land and water, and those governments that conserve theirs properly into the future will prosper, while others will fail.”
It is no surprise that we often look away from what we’re doing to our natural resources. Unemployment and the cry for jobs is pushing all else out of public debate or individual concern. Who speaks for our natural ecological treasures that have given Minnesota such distinction over the years? Do we care enough to ensure that we don’t ruin the very resources and intangible values that indeed sustain us? Isn’t it time to consider a greater good?
Anderson notes that “…absent leadership toward a greater good, people usually act to benefit themselves first—and often exclusively. Capitalism leverages this self-interest to its advantage, yielding a growing economy, in turn an advantage to many.”
Can we save and nurture the intangible values inherent in the forests and watersheds targeted by mining interests in northeastern Minnesota? Minnesota’s own Sigurd F. Olson described intangible values as “…those which stir the emotions, that influence our happiness and contentment, values that make life worth living. They are all tied up with the idea of the good life. Sometimes I wonder if we actually know what the good life means. But this we know—that whatever it is, the intangible values are so important that without them life loses its meaning.”
Public discussion has focused on jobs, income, the nation’s need for critical metals and the need to exploit our own natural resources rather than depend on foreign sources. Yet we’re turning to a foreign company to help underwrite this very project. If the common good means anything, let’s consider another perspective.
Is the greater good best served through mining? I submit that it is not. Why can’t our legacy for future generations be our northern forests, lakes, rivers, streams and marshes maintained intact through some management, yes, but not wholesale destruction through such invasive and destructive industries. This is a land ethic that helps sustain meaning in our lives. And this gives all of us something to think about.
Richard C. Struck
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply