单项选择题

The point of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves―particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner―offer little evidence to support this accusation. In their view, preservationists are filled with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter ranks humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical basis for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and ruthlessness of their attack on preservationists, reinforced by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have robbed the natural world. 　　The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory supports a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to--for example , Turner’’s description of humans as "the lords of creation", or Jordan’’s statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"--are not consistent well with the community-participation model. 　　Another holistic model―namely, that of nature as an organism―might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly useful to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists’’ view. 　　However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to attribute to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of reasonable human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no restrictions, only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done. There are also important differences between the two theories. For example, restorationists no longer view the world in the old dominationist way as a passive object. And though both assign to humans a controlling role in the world, dominationists conceive this in terms of conquest while restorationists conceive it in terms of healing. Also, restorationists insist that the ideas which must serve to guide our work in the world are drawn not solely from a consideration of human needs and purposes but from an understanding of the biosphere; as a result, they are more conscious than dominationists of our capacity to human nature. The author would probably agree that preservationists