Prerogative

     A new perspective may be emerging in the Adirondacks.  It stems from the
small area of overlap between two existing, but antagonistic, viewpoints.  Within this  
common ground there is a chance of finding a balance between the
opposing views.  Nothing less than such a balance will enable the Adirondacks
to become an international model of sustainable development and environmental
protection. 
     One existing viewpoint on the Adirondacks is ecologically and aesthetically 
oriented.  For want of a better label we might call individuals with this orientation 
"the preservers."  To many preservers the Adirondacks represent a small corner of 
nature saved from the ravages of modern civilization.  Largely visitors from the 
urban culture, the preservers see the vast green open spaces of the Adirondacks as 
their recreational playground, their public park: a place to soothe their eyes, calm 
their jaded nerves, refresh and relax their minds, and re-invigorate their sense of 
adventure.  The Adirondacks also contain the ecologically sacred space called 
Designated Wilderness, where nature is untrammeled by Man, at least by definition 
(i.e., unhindered rather than untrampled).  Furthermore, scientists from around the 
world see the Adirondacks as an important laboratory, a place to observe the 
processes of the natural world at work.
     The preserver's perspective has merit because the aesthetic arguments for
preserving the Adirondacks are deeply embedded in the local history and
culture of the Adirondacks, in our psychological health needs, and in the simple
fact that the public is a significant landowner in the mountains whose
property needs protection.  The ecological and scientific arguments focus
on species diversity, the rare habitats found only in the northeast, and the
fact that we really know very little about ecosystems.  Close to the root of
the aesthetic and ecological arguments, however, is the economic idea that
private actions sometimes "spill over" and adversely affect the scenery and
ecological processes, two Adirondack resources coming to be understood as
important forms of common property like clean air and sunshine.
     An important glue that helps to hold the aesthetic and ecological
perspective together as a single sphere of interest is a new understanding of
the ethical obligation humans have toward the other organisms on the planet.
 This ethical argument maintains that non-human organisms and maybe even
ecosystems are intrinsically valuable and ought to be considered in our
decisions.  This philosophical aspect is called biocentrism and it adds
considerable weight to the more straightforward aesthetic and ecological
arguments.  Such ethical considerations may motivate some individuals to
block pond reclamation efforts and other intrusive management activities in
Designated Wilderness areas.
     The other perspective in the Adirondacks is generally the view of people who
live in rural areas and make their living directly from the use of natural
resources.  Again, for want of a better term and for an explicitly opposite
label we might call individuals representing this orientation "the developers."  This
viewpoint also has considerable merit.  To the developers, living within a Blue Line 
somebody once drew on a map is a difference that does not make a difference.  
Developers point out an obvious but often overlooked reality: the Adirondack 
Mountains are "home" to more than 130,000 people trying to make a living in a 
rigorous and sometimes harsh environment.  Thus, the developers' arguments are 
based on the simple fact that the Adirondack Park is not really a Park -- certainly 
not like Yellowstone or Denali.  The region called the Adirondacks is mostly private 
property and the people living and owning property within the Blue Line should have 
the same economic and political rights and privileges as everyone else in New York.
     Yet, to people with this perspective the climate and isolation of the
mountains seem to be the more moderate aspects of the Adirondack environment. 
Regulations that command and control our opportunities and economic
activity in the Adirondacks are imposed by a remote, centralized state
government that is more representative of the urban preservationist perspective.  
These regulations are then administered for the Adirondacks (a region about as large
as Vermont) by a single, also remote and seemingly unrepresentative regional 
planning authority.  An image of the centrally planned economy of the defunct Soviet
Union is not far from a mind with this perspective.
     Beyond political philosophy, Adirondackers who own and use natural
resources directly in their livelihoods generally see the Adirondacks as
just another natural resource whose value exists in its ability to be
utilized in various ways to promote the health and well-being of people,
particularly its owners.  This ethical aspect of the developer's perspective, called 
anthropocentrism, is predominant not only in the Adirondacks but everywhere in 
America and the industrialized world.  It is the dominant social paradigm and even 
most preservationists subscribe to it.  Anthropocentrism holds that all of 
non-human nature, including ecosystems, have their only value in human use, with no
intrinsic value at all. 
     Within both perspectives there is clearly a range of opinions.  But, and
despite some important differences, there is an area of overlapping interests
as suggested by the figure.  The two spheres of interest are not so far apart
that there is no common ground, at least for people with the more moderate
opinions within each sphere.  At a minimum, perhaps, the common ground for
the new perspective requires a belief in maximizing protection for both the
environment and individual freedom as our goals and in using the participatory 
democratic process as the means to find the balance -- Garrett Hardin's solution to 
the tragedy of the commons, "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon." (1)
     This new perspective between existing viewpoints requires that the
Adirondacks be both nature saved and home to thousands.  Converting all of
the Adirondacks into Designated Wilderness or into a totally unregulated
"free enterprise zone" would actually do very little for either viewpoint in
the long run.  Six million acres more or less of wilderness or exploitable
resources will not save the planet's ecosphere or even the local Adirondack
economy given the state of economic affairs in New York, the nation, and the
world.  In contrast, the new perspective offers us an opportunity to resolve
our ethical, economic, and political differences within a new, sustainable
development context.  In the process we might not only achieve our
ecological/aesthetic and economic/political goals but establish the Adirondacks as 
a sustainable development model for the world as well.
     Broadly defined, sustainable development is a form of economic activity that
meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.  This "form of economic
activity," however, is inevitably political:  it will involve choices about
who gets to do what, when, how and, most importantly, who will get to decide. Any 
limitation in the freedom of Adirondackers to pursue a form of economic
activity ordinarily legal in the rest of the state will require coercion. Yet the 
politically acceptable concept of mutual coercion mutually agreed upon does not 
seem properly satisfied if a powerful state government dictates the allowable 
forms of economic activity to a politically weak region. 
     The concept of sustainable development is also inevitably philosophical for
it involves questions about "needs" and values and the true meanings of words
which will require us to re-examine the assumptions and beliefs we hold
today.  For example, the currently accepted theory of economic growth and
development assumes, with absolute certainty, that future generations will
have more wealth and resources than the present generation.(2)  It seems
obvious that our generation, by comparison, is richer and has more resources
now, both natural and cultural, than our great-grandparent's generation.  This 
assumption means that resources aren't, they become, so we can exhaust
our present resources with impunity.   Is this quality about resources really
and always true and how do we know?  Perhaps we should also re-examine our
assumptions about what it means to be human in a society becoming
increasingly complex and removed from any direct and obvious connection to
nature.  Maybe we should ask ourselves whether or not there are human needs
and values that remain constant, regardless of changing forms of economic
activity in society or the availability of different resources.  Even the
preconceived notions we hold about the meaning of the concept "regional
economic development" should be re-examined for perhaps regional economies
can develop like a person grows -- first growing or developing in size while
young, then developing in other qualities when mature.
     What sustainable development means is still unknown.  Whatever it means we
will have to define and create for ourselves here in the Adirondacks because,
except for a few special and isolated cases, it has never been done before.
 In this sense, and especially to some people within the overlapping portion
of the two perspectives, the Adirondacks represent an ongoing, but
under-researched, ecological, social, economic, political, and philosophical
experiment of global significance.  It is an experiment in a democratic
state to protect a small corner of nature while providing a range of
economic opportunities and activities to sustain the present as well as
future generations of Adirondackers.
     Resolving our differences in perspective and moving forward with sustainable 
development might seem a nearly impossible task, especially in light of recent 
conflicts. But, frankly, the future of our children's world civilization may literally
depend on it.  If sufficient natural diversity is to be maintained in order to protect a
quality environment, for all the irreplaceable services a healthy environment 
provides, then about one-third of the world's terrestrial ecosystem should be kept 
in natural vegetation.(3)  Unfortunately, less than 2 % of the world's terrestrial 
environment is strictly protected in parks of the "pure" variety such as Yellowstone 
and much of that is the bald tops of mountains and ice fields.(4)  The rest of the 30 
% in natural vegetation we all need has got to come from countryside parks with 
working landscapes, just like the Adirondacks but all around the world.  We simply 
cannot afford to "lock-up" so much land in pure parks in the face of another doubling
of the world's population in what could be as little as 41 years.(5)  This incredible 
increase in our population is especially alarming because about 1.6 billion out of the
5.5 billion people alive today are already malnourished and prospects for the near 
future are grim.(6)  Agricultural land degradation estimates, for example, suggest 
the loss of 22 % of the most productive agricultural land over the next 25 year 
period.(7)  As a result of population growth and land degradation (largely due to 
human-accelerated soil erosion) we have to find about 15 million hectares of new 
land for agriculture each year -- about 10 million to replace land lost to
degradation and 5 million to feed the 93 million humans added to the world's
population every year.(8) 
     To even think of approaching the one-third estimate we must learn to do it
with some kind of human-nature mix like that which might be developed and
perfected in the Adirondacks.  Toward that end, this issue of AJES presents 
articles by Dean Lefebvre, Howard Aubin, Richard Purdue, and Dale French for their 
personal perspectives.  Robin Ulmer's article on watershed management along the 
Boquet suggests some ideas for one of the ways sustainable development might be 
approached.  The Adirondack Research Consortium, a new, transdisciplinary research 
society associated with AJES and focused on the Adirondack "experiment," is 
discussed by Tom Pasquarello.  Curt Stager describes some interesting research 
questions about the human-nature interaction that can be addressed in the
Adirondacks using paleolimnological methods.  Finally, and in a new peer review 
section of AJES, Bob Buerger presents the results of a study examining 
Adirondack residents' perceptions of the forest products industry.

Gary Chilson
Paul Smith's College

Work Cited

1. Hardin, G., 1968.  "Tragedy of the Commons."  Science, 162: 1243-1248.
2. Underwood, D.A. and King, P.G., 1989.  "On the Ideological Foundations of
Environmental Policy."  Ecological Economics, 1: 315-334.
3. Odum, E.P., 1971.  Fundamentals of Ecology, especially chapters 20 and 21.
 W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.
4. Reid, W.V. and Miller, K.R., 1989.  Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific
Basis for Conserving Biodiversity.  World Resources Institute, Washington,
DC., page 69.
5. PRB, 1991.  World Population Data Sheet.  Population Reference Bureau,
Washington, DC.
6. Kates, R.W., Chen, R.S., Downing, T.E., Kasperson, J.X., Messer, E. and
Millman, S.R., 1989.  The Hunger Report: Update 1989.  Alan Shawn Feinstein
World Hunger Program, Brown University, Providence, RI page 3.
7. Buringh, P., 1989.  "Availability of agricultural land for crop and
livestock production."  In: D. Pimentel and C.W. Hall (Editors), Food and
Natural Resources.  Academic Press, San Diego, pg. 73.
8. Pimentel, D., Stachow, U., Takacs, D.A., Brubaker, H.W., Dumas, A.R.,
Meaney, J.J., O'Neil, J., Onsi, D.E. and Corzilius, D.B., 1992.  "Conserving
biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems."  BioScience, 42:
354-362.