Dylan, you said: <I am claiming that you cannot proclaim the virtues of conservation based on materialist beliefs alone.> As I have said earlier, your claim is wrong: there are many practical reasons to conserve, and even though there is no objective aesthetics, people can be taught to appreciate the beauty of nature. There is intellectual beauty as well: on the materialist view, the wonders of nature are challenges to the mind, the shapes and colors and structures generally have functions and histories, and evolutionary lessons that reflect back on the processes that made us as well. The materialist view is not dry but rich and meaningful, and give plenty of reasons to conserve, without invoking "woo". But that was not my main point. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right. Suppose materialism is vastly inferior to some super-material alternative as a motivator for conservation. My point was that this is not a valid argument in favor adapting that alternative belief. We shouldn't choose belief systems or arguments because we like their consequences. We should choose them based on evidence and validity. Intellectual honesty demands this. Lou