Mike Gallagher's cactus

I just caught a re-run of Mike Gallagher's talk-radio show-- where he and an environmental activist talked about allowing a few oil wells vs. offing a particular species of cactus.

I agree with Mike's conclusion-- and implicitly, how to deal with the inherent trade-offs-- but was (quite) troubled with how he got there.

Here is my response to him:

1.) I know that talk-radio is meant to be a mix of entertainment and analysis. But you seemed quite cavalier about the cost side of the trade-off as if the loss of a species was zero. This is not consistent with a Biblical view of stewardship.

2.) You exaggerated the benefit side of the equation-- as if a few oil wells would make a big difference in the price of oil/gas. Beyond that, you were not comparing the life of a plant to the life of a human (as in abortion), but the added costs of a few cents per gallon of gas.

3.) You should have acknowledged that there is a slippery slope either way in this debate. If we preserve every species of cactus, then... If we hold every species to be without value, then...

4.) This is a common sin of omission in the worldviews of "conservatives" (however they and their worldviews are defined), but there was no recognition of the importance of beauty. If the cactus had no "use", then you were seemingly happy to discard it. This utilitarianism is inherently troubling-- and has alarming application to Teri Schiavo and euthanasia.