Question: At the start of his book Naure’s Ghosts, Mark Barrow describes seven basic arguments/rationales that naturalists developed for justifying the preservation of species from the 1770s to the 1970s (culminating in the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973): aesthetic, economic, ecological, evolutionary, cultural, scientific, and ethical. How did each of these rationales relate to ecological ways of thinking? Choose three of these arguments excluding the ecological one, and discuss how each one compared and/or contrasted to ecological ways of thinking, as discussed by Sharon Kingsland in her article “Conveying the Intellectual Challenge of Ecology.”
Aim to compose an essay of 350-450 words that minimizes duplication and includes as much specific supporting evidence as possible from the two assigned readings.
Note: You can find the answers here in the book:
I suggest that might help: if you looking for something on the book, you can use the search box in the left side, to look for some key words