Student: Gabby Francolla
Graduation date: May 2018
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: September 2017
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
It can be argued that we are living in a new epoch, named the Anthropocene, due to the substantial human impact on Earth. As we head towards a future of increasing complexity, more and more questions will arise in regards to the best conservation tactics. The most effective, practical, or even ethical choice is not always clear. In fact, there is a substantial disagreement within the conservation community regarding how to protect biodiversity into the future. Some environmentalists even argue that nature, as we know it, no longer exists. This has sparked a new outlook on nature and wilderness, that “far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, it is quite profoundly a human creation– indeed the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history” (Cronon 1996). This “new conservation” stands in contrast to the traditional conservationists who still cling tight to the notion of nature and wilderness, and intend to protect them. Since each ecosystem and situation is unique, it is logical to have a variety of approaches to protect biodiversity. These two perspectives, however, are not just different but rather stand in direct contrast to the other.
In my original concentration, I focused on what is particularly difficult in apex predator conservation. As I continue my research, I’m interested in shifting my focus to a new future for conservation that I detail here.
Anyone paying attention knows that biodiversity is still being lost at alarming rates. The concept of conservation must be rethought, taking into consideration that the “traditional tool-kit of 20th century environmental protection is utterly inadequate in considering the biological and social complexities shaping today’s and tomorrow’s environmental challenges” (Minteer and Pyne 2015). Current-day scholars and environmentalists are attempting to do just that, but have come to conflicting conclusions on what the future of conservation should look like in the Anthropocene. Even the idea that we are living in the Anthropocene is contested. A riff has formed between a more traditional model of conservation and a new conservation. While both groups have similar intentions, their ethical viewpoints about what will do the most good for the most people stand in contradiction to the other.
This newer model of conservation brands itself as being more logical in the age of the Anthropocene, where a more complicated world needs a more aggressive conservation approach. A major aspect of this new-conservation is that it disregards the traditional notion of nature for more hybridity. For them, the future looks like forests and diverse species mixed in with modern human landscapes, however, “conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of nature, parks, and wilderness…and forge a more optimistic, human-friendly vision” (Karieva 2013). In contrast there is the traditional conservationists, such as E.O. Wilson, who proposes that only half of the Earth’s land can be human-inhabited and developed on while half of the Earth’s land must be left alone to be, what he considers, nature (Wilson 2017). Wilson fervently disagrees with the new-conservationists and he is not alone. Numerous academics and activists have attacked this new environmentalism, “[c]onservationists and citizens alike… ought to be incensed by the preposterous scheme that replaces wild places and national parks with pretty gardens animated with well-behaved, convenient animals. Those who promote a Disney World should just move there” (Soule 2014).
There is not one approach that is inherently right or wrong, everyone is trying to find the best way to address a complex future where the best option is often unclear. The ethical issues that have arisen in the Anthropocene, and will continue to arise, will take many shapes and forms. The following are three places where species has challenged the pre-conceived and historical notions of conservation and we have attempted to find the best solution to wicked problems.
The majority of salmon advocates in the Pacific Northwest are specifically concerned with the protection of wild salmon. The NGOS such as Save our Wild Salmon and Wild Salmon Center demonstrate this point; for them, it is not the same if our rivers and streams are filled with hatchery salmon. Although, the population of pacific salmon in the Columbia river have had their numbers bolstered by introducing hatchery salmon. These days, approximately 80% of the one million adult fish returning to the Columbia each year were spawned in hatcheries, with the remaining 20% spawned naturally in streams (Salmon of the West). These salmon are known to be less competitive, less genetically diverse, or simply put, domesticate. Here is where the ethics of salmon conservationists diverge. Everyone wants to see the Columbia full of salmon again, but some still cling to the notion of wild and while others would prefer any salmon than none at all.
Another disagreement arises regarding the question of genetic modification in the name of conservation. On Hawaiian islands, mosquitoes carrying avian malaria are destroying bird populations, but this can be managed by ensuring that next generations of mosquitoes are sterile, which researchers have achieved in labs but not yet applied to ecosystems (Specter 2016). A few factors make Hawaii a unique location for genetic engineering. First, Hawaii has been labeled the extinction capital of the world, with birds especially at risk (Graham 2012). Secondly, Hawaii has been extremely susceptible to invasive species, with mosquitoes as one of the uninvited guests (Specter 2016). Mosquitoes did not inhabit the islands until the early 19th century when they came along with whaling ships. The combination of these two factors creates a situation where the modification of mosquitoes is more socially agreeable, since mosquitoes are a non-native, destructive force on the islands. Characteristics specific to Hawaii have made this idea even a possibility, where in other locations, such as the Pacific Northwest, it would be far-fetched. Whether this proposal will ever be a reality is questionable, since there is still a substantial group of conservationists who are hesitant to see conservation take a new form, even if it has the chance to greatly protect biodiversity.
The hunting of endangered or almost endangered species may seem like an obvious enemy to conservation efforts, although “hunters and hunting advocates insist that trophy hunting is of a major importance for conservation in Africa” (Lindsey). This argument is based on two main points (1) a portion of the money generated from selling hunting permits will be earmarked for conservation and (2) that the large interest that international hunters have in killing these exotic, and endangered, species gives African governments financial incentive to protect biodiversity. These arguments are controversial, but nonetheless, major scientists and conservationists such as the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the World Wildlife Fund, support this perspective (Howard 2015). Conservationists who support this approach may hold the ethical perspective of a consequentialist, uninterested in the methods that protect these species from extinction, as long as it results in the best outcome. Fundamentally, it is the varying ethical beliefs of environmentalists that leads to opposing perspectives on how to protect species in the complicated world known as the Anthropocene.
Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1.1 (1996): 7. Web.
Graham, Frank. “Hawaii’s Silent Extinction.” National Audubon Society, 3 Aug. 2012.
Howard, Brian Clark. “Can Lion Trophy Hunting Support Conservation?” National Geographic, 29 July 2015.
Karieva, Peter. Winter 2013. “Conservation in the Anthropocene — Beyond Solitude and Fragility.” The Breakthrough Institute.
Lindsey, Peter A., P. A. Roulet, and S. S. Romanach. “Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa.” Biological conservation 134.4 (2007): 455-469.
Marris, Emma, Peter Kareiva, Joseph Mascaro, and Erle C. Ellis. “Hope in the age of man.” New York Times 7 (2011).
Minteer, Ben A., and Stephen J. Pyne. “Restoring the Nature of America.” After Preservation: Saving American Nature in the Age of Humans. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2015. N. pag. Print.
“Salmon of the West: What Is the Difference between Wild and Hatchery Salmon?” U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Aug. 2017.
Soule, Michael. “The ‘New Conservation.’” Keeping the Wild Against the Domestication of Earth, Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2014.
Specter, Micheal. “Could Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Save Hawaii’s Endangered Birds?”The New Yorker, 9 Sept. 2016.
Wilson, Edward O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.
Questions
- Descriptive: What designates a species as “conserved” or a ecosystem as “biodiverse”? Which species tend to be prioritized in classic vs. contemporary conservation and are they same?What are the values of the traditional form of conservation? What are the values of the new form of conservation? How do they differ?
- Explanatory: Why do species continue to near extinction? Why does mainstream conservation prioritize and employ some strategies over others? Why would more human involvement in the name of biodiversity be helpful? Why will species conservation be important in the Anthropocene? How do we currently define wild or wilderness?
- Evaluative: Is conservation in this new era more anthropocentric? If so, is that justifiable? Who are the winners and losers in this new approach to conservation? How ethical is it to be manipulating ecosystems? How does this new era of the Anthropocene affect our role in protecting biodiversity?
- Instrumental: How can conservation ethics evolve to stay in line with our evolving ecosystems and planet? How do we decide which conservation approach will be most effective now and into the future? How will we know when we are successful?
Concentration courses
- ENVS 499 (Independent Study, 4 credits) 2 credits before and after Spring 2017. Researching apex predators and conservation efforts on a deeper level with the guidance from a faculty member.
- ENVS 350 (Environmental Theory, 4 credits) Spring 2016. This class will further my thinking in ENVS generally and translate into a deeper understanding of the theories behind my concentration.
- SOAN 306 (Social Permaculture, 4 credits) Spring 2016. By learning about the interactions of humans and ecological systems, I can further my understanding of environmental sociology and apply these interactions to human-apex predator interactions for my concentration.
- ENVS 460 (Environmental Law and Policy) Fall 2016. Having a better understanding of environmental law can give me a better idea of how to make change larger scale changes. Additionally, learning more about policies such as the Endangered Species Act would deepen my thinking about my concentration.
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.