It really is quite simple, a habitat would generally be better off if left alone. However humans have a habit of interfering. Therefore the next best thing is for that impact to be minimised and where possible any damage to be repaired and put right as far as possible.

This is just a minor point - Katz seems to include any interference in his artefact category, so even if we make a community ecologically "better" (increasing diversity, stopping an unwelcome instability, preventing decline, blah blah) he still considers it to be devalued.

It seems that anthropocentric concerns are what he is condemning, not what he is offering.

This is just a minor point - Katz seems to include any interference in his artefact category' date=' so even if we make a community ecologically "better" (increasing diversity, stopping an unwelcome instability, preventing decline, blah blah) he still considers it to be devalued.

It seems that anthropocentric concerns are what he is condemning, not what he is offering.[/quote']

 

As he apparently considers an ecosystem to be 'devalued' by any human activity it appears that he is making an anthropocentric value judgement rather than a judgement based on ecological considerations. He uses a value system based on something called 'historical continuity' rather than such possible values as biological diversity, or stability. A cultural rather than a scientific or biological judgement.

I find myself thinking that he is a fellow of a peculiar sort.

I find myself thinking that he is a fellow of a peculiar sort.

 

I have a feeling he is of the same mold as lawyers.