[Preliminary Thoughts: II]
A conservationist insists on leaving land alone. With a “bleeding heart” they enumerate the benefits of allowing land to return to a native state of rest whereby diversity returns and health is reestablished.
A pure capitalist sees the land as a natural resource with potential value on the market. With a “cold heart” they propose harvesting the land for its value initially in timber and later for development.
All conservationists don’t have a “bleeding heart” and all capitalists aren't “cold hearted” but each by definition desires a different outcome.
A gardener falls squarely in the middle, manipulating the landscape for minimum “profit”. Might a gardener offer a third way—managing land toward diversity and health while also “extracting” value from it? Perhaps there is such a thing as a “gardening ethic” that is of great value in land debates.
