Ehrenfeld (119) argues that nonresources should be conserved. By ...

[jake]

Ehrenfeld (119) argues that nonresources should be conserved. By this he means that conservation cannot and should not rely on economic or ecological justifications.
 
  He thinks that each species on the Earth, evolved over millions of years, is natural art, and that a species lost is permanently gone. He asks: What sort of change in the world view would favor the conservation of nonresources? Nothing less than a rejection of the heroic, Western ethic with its implicit denial of man's biological roots and evolved structure. Comment on Ehrenfeld's ideas.

Question 2

Air is denser than water, which has implications for underwater divers.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[bitingbit]

Answer to Question 1

I, as author, was very taken with Ehrenfeld's ideas. Your students will have other
answers. There are many economic and ecological justifications, and they are important.
For some people, they are the only important arguments.

Answer to Question 2

This is correct. People who dive too deep can be crushed, and many people have
heard of the bends, an affliction caused by the release of nitrogen bubbles into the blood as
the increased pressure is reduced by a rising diver.

[jake]

Gracias!

[nyrave]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it