The NSS puts much importance, officially, on cave conservation. Many of its members take cave conservation very seriously. Most of them have, or claim to have, real concern for conserving the cave environment. Conversation about conservation is applied to an extremely wide variety of activity (or inactivity). "Caving softly," marking trails, gating, speleothem restoration, graffiti and trash removal, abstinence, (and more, help me out)... these are all included in discussions about conservation. For me, the frequent references to conservation and its importance raise a few questions that I'm struggling with. I know that these things have been discussed, in conversation and surely in print, and your insights or any references to pertinent information would be good.
What really is conservation? The definition is fairly simple, and generally boils down to: the protection of resources from long-term harm. So, we need to identify cave resources that are commonly held to need protection. This is simple for many, requiring only the simple acceptance of a widespread delusion: that each and every component of each and every cave is inherently precious, and is more precious than other similar or identical objects outside of the cave environment. That this attitude exists is a demonstrable fact. That it is indeed a delusion may be fodder for argument. At any rate, it doesn't do it for me. To me, "cave resources" are aesthetic, biologic, recreational, historical, scientific, and their relative importance is directly linked to the ability of humans to appreciate them, and to a very limited extent, their rarity (which sometimes amounts to the same thing, given our fascination with the unusual). The fact that something happens to exist in a cave makes it no more or less special. A stalactite is a resource because it is pretty, an eyeless fish is a resource because it fascinates us, the Lascaux paintings are a resource for basically the same reason... then things start to get fuzzy. Are bacteria and minute organisms within cave sediment a resource? Maybe to a scientist. So why do the rest of us pretend we care about them? I feel that every living thing has value, but that their values are relative to our comfort, convenience, and personal preferences. This might sound like a selfish way of looking at things, but as the only self-aware creatures on the planet, isn't it our right? Most of us, if we're honest, feel the same way, and demonstrate these feelings every time we kill a spider or a mouse in our house, or hit a bird with our car, or eat bacon. Do we allow ourselves to cultivate shallow hypocrisies in the interest of looking good?
Other questions involve the setting of conservational efforts. Does hauling around a jug of your urine while surveying an almost-never-visited cave make you a conservationist? What resource are you protecting? Is it more precious than your comfort and convenience? Does dragging scrap metal and tires out of a secluded sinkhole make you a conservationist? What resource are you protecting? Is it more important than your time? Of course, the way you use your time is a personal thing, and if something really matters to you, then that's great. But should we feel pressured, or pressure others, to conform to an artificial ethic of conservation?
There are lots of other sides to this issue, lots of situational complications. I'm not able, right now, to give voice to all the stuff flopping around my tired brain. This is a respectful call for information, clarification, introspection. I would never encourage careless treatment of the cave environment. I view myself as a person of conscience. While I'm not looking to others to legitimize viewpoints that I have thoughtfully cultivated, I have and will continue to amend my them on the basis of increased knowledge.
That there's my ramble from a few nights ago. Bear with me, blame insomnia, blast away!
-J