In the blog I posted yesterday, we discussed the “big picture”
of climate change, and how climate induced biodiversity change would destroy
resilience and push ecosystems towards collapse. I would like now just to talk
briefly about some of the values and perceptions I observed in the papers I
read, and offer my own opinion about how some of the academics have framed
their argument.
All of the papers I read on the subject during my blog
research framed this issue in a very human light. Jones (2014), Folke et al. (2004) and the briefly mentioned Côtéand Darling (2010) all brought the argument back around to the idea of
ecosystem services (the services and functions provided by ecosystems that
benefit humans) and how they were at threat. Whilst I understand the importance
of framing the issue of ecosystem collapse in a human light, thereby making it
relevant, it still seems rather sad that this problem is viewed on an ecosystem
scale and not on the scale of individual species.
Whilst yes, the services provided to us by the natural world
are massively important, I saw no academics arguing that biodiversity should be
preserved for biodiversity’s sake. None of the academics I read in fact
suggested that ecosystems and biodiversity should be managed because animals
have their own intrinsic value. If environmental management is conducted with
the perspective that value comes from contribution to the human lifestyle, then
huge numbers of species that are part of functional groups deemed to have sufficient “functional redundancy” will
be lost. If we truly wish to save our flora and fauna for the sake of our flora and fauna, we need to take a more
individual approach to issues, and make sure that no species is left behind.
Very interesting point. In your opinion what would be the best way to change peoples perceptions of nature?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I really have no idea... Changing people's perspectives and how societies function are incredibly hard subjects. I think one of the most important steps would be to get rid of that "degree of removal" and bring people closer to nature. So that when you buy meat in a shop you have a better understanding of what exactly it is you're buying and where it came from, and when you buy leather boots, you don't just think of them as leather boots but as a product that comes from an animal, if you catch my drift?
DeleteThese are just examples but I feel currently society is very isolated from the things that happen to keep it running, if you know what I mean?
I feel we have to frame the issue as a human issue for people to take action. In the Env-Soc module there has been a few readings about the intrinsic value of nature - but often it is attached to tribal beliefs, or "tree-huggers". I feel in an ideal world nature should be valued for what it is, creating a universal effort to save it - yet in reality self-centered humans need their own livelihoods to be threatened for change to be established - do you think effective change to biodiversity loss can be made if intrinsic views are more widespread? Interesting post!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say that I completely agree with you to be honest. Society really isn't in a place where it is viable to frame any issue outside of its relation to humans and how our society functions. Whilst there are a few "tree huggers", as they are so unceromoniously called, the majority of people probably are quite apathetic to the problem, as it is so removed from their day-to-day experiences of life.
DeleteIn answer to your question, yes I do think if there was significant outcry, biodiversity conservation could gain more significant political platform, however how we can go about creating this exposure is a challenge all in itself.
To some extent, justifying saving something for human sake has the most impact, as it justifies it's purpose and value. We cannot sympathise with nature as much if you label it as significant in nature. For example, polar bears, we portray as poor suffering creatures, and we give them human attributes. These are important for us to feel for them and want to save them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your comment that a humanised approach is not always the best, it is the most useful in appealing to our human-centric approach.
Once again, unfortunately I would have to agree with you, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we can only be bothered to save another living thing because of its value to us, or depending on how "cute" we find it.
DeleteIn my opinion, we have a responsibility to every single creature we endanger through our selfish use of our planet and resources, however I know this is a view that is relatively rare in comptemporary society and politics, and that framing the issue in a human-centered way is the only method by which to gain any real political platform.
I completely agree with some of the previous comments that the human approach has been necessary to validate and justify some of these studies. While it would be fabulous for everyone to want to preserve biodiversity for the sake of it, I think it's a natural way of the world to evolve and value certain species above others. Do you really think even if humans adopted a completely altruistic and save-all-species mentality, biodiversity could be fully preserved?
ReplyDeleteBiodiversity, due to its sheer complexity and the intricacies by which ecosystems function, will never be entirely saved from climate change, however I believe if people did adopt this "altruistic" view, if you can call it that, we could save a significant amount more species and innumerable lives.
DeleteHowever to call it an "altruistic" view I feel is quite contradictory. We are the ones who have put these animals at threat, so is it really "selfless" of us to try and save every single one, or are we just cleaning up our own mess? I think we have a responsibility to these animals, and anything less than full committment is quite unacceptable.
Interesting to hear your thoughts! I think the thing I'm considering is the natural changes in climate that occur and affect biodiversity, regardless of humans. But I do think humans have a lot of responsibility for dying species that we don't claim, and it's been really great reading your research into the topic!
Delete