pichimahuida principle


home  ●  español 


<h1>pichimahuida principle</h1>

In the development of or discussion about a nature conservation project, once funding or financial support  is invoked, the debate shall be terminated

It, no doubt, reminds the Godwin’s law of online discussions, which states that:

“as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfeited the argument”,

or the buddhist precept:

“Abstain from taking things

not freely given”.

The rationale of the principle for the

ethics of protection of nature and Earth

in a projects-dominated society:

A nature or ecosystem conservation

project cannot be combined with

economic profit. A conservation

activity is aimed at preserving

what can still be preserved in nature,

wild or altered. Those who work on it

are supposed to act “on behalf” of the

piece of Earth they are protecting from

further altering by human development and expansion:

    Alive nature does not need funding or financial support, nature rather needs to secure conditions for it to be left in peace to continue with the flow of life. It can be ensured only by adequate human ethic and lifestyle. Those cooperating with the land on the field should adopt biomimicry in ethics and lifestyle, including sources of spirit and vigor (=energy). And nature and land need the absence of all others.

    Any “funding” in this case is a human economics value, extracted from life somewhere on Earth and, after a long series of conversions, re-injected into a structure created to feed from “conservation”  (project, organisation, programme), expanding thus the state of “need for conservation” and the feeding from the problem indefinitely. Protection of a piece of Earth does not compensate for the series of destructions in other places. The end does not justify the means.

    Should the condition for a conservation activity be funding, the denomination of  “conservation”, therefore, is not valid. The intrinsic ethics of conservation are killed by the introduction of the notion of financial funding.

    Economic profit and funding aspects belong to the economy-driven aspects of human social life. They can not be a precondition of preserving life of a non-human person they are otherwise destroying. Let’s not mix life and consumption, and attribute to finances and funding an institutional value.

Should one need to participate in the consumption-merchant cycle  he should sell human attributes, but should not advertise for sale the misery of Earth. Should one want to give to Earth what he think he “has”, it should be freely given.