To many people he is perhaps the preeminent sage and prophet of our time. He finds a typical expression of this attitude in sociobiologist E.O. Wilson's book Concilience. Along the way he deals with the commercialization of scientific research, the temptation to political tyranny inherent in promises of complete and certain knowledge, the effects of placing a premium on innovation, and the fragmentation of specialties within universities. He notes the irony that Wilson, a staunch advocate of preserving biodiversity, undercuts his own cause of conservation by promoting a view of organisms as machines. What is essential is language that specifies the particular, the unique, the individual.
People exploit what they have merely concluded to be of value, but they defend what they love.
To defend what we love we need a particularizing language, for we love what we particularly know. Scientific language can help us to know the value of biodiversity. But it cannot replace, and it cannot become, the language of familiarity, reverence, and affection by which things of value ultimately are protected. He is not calling for the dismissal of science, but for its reorientation toward the well-being of creation. I am not of course proposing an end to science and other intellectual disciplines, but rather a change of standards and goals. . . . .