(note: this entry was started during my last year at Cornell. I've only recently gone back to finish it)
When I first started college, I viewed conservation from an almost completely ethical standpoint. I did not go as far as PETA with animal rights, but I did believe that all other animals have just as much right to exist on this planet as humans do. I followed the philosophy that humans have been here for such a significantly small portion of the earth's history, so who are we to judge who survives and who doesn't, what's important and what can be ignored?
That was about four years ago.
As the idealism began to clear, I began to think about things in an entirely different way. It was so different that it actually made me a little uncomfortable. I'll try to summarize as best as I can some of my conflicting internal arguments and what let to them.
///
1) I began to ask, "how can environmental progress be achieved", instead of "how can I get people to understand that conservation is important".
I believe that progress can only be achieved if you ask the right questions. If your questions are off the mark, your answer will be worthless. I'm beginning to notice more and more that in my class discussions (usually relating to or directly about conservation and/or management of natural resources) the majority are still focusing on asking the latter. What I think we all need to realize is that most people are first and foremost concerned with matters directly affecting them and may not care that a certain species in is trouble. Why should a single housewife in the US care about some bird going extinct in South America? (Believe me, it hurts me to even think that, let alone type it on a blog). Their time is too important to listen to something they don't think they care about. Instead, conservationalists should approach it from an economic standpoint (using the definition of "economics" as the study of decision-making, too often it is mistaken as strictly money-based.) Instead of trying to convince the public that "I'm right, you're wrong", the goal should be to show the public why the act of conservation in question may be beneficial to them both now and in the future.
2) I began to accept putting pricetags on nature.
This also relates to certain statements made above. Associating a "price" to nature essentially translates "environmental science speak" into something more people can understand. Assuming the theory that people are rational and think "at the margin" (from Mankiw's principles of economics), most will be able to weigh costs and benefits. However, many people will not be able to make sense of an advanced scientific study (complete with big words and confusing charts!), whether they are rational or not. The majority of people that I've heard opinions from think that it's absolutely wrong to put a pricetag on nature. To that I say it really can't be helped. If you think about it, we put pricetags on everything, including human beings (it's called a salary).
3) I began to think about human development in the context of evolution and natural selection.
Survival of the fittest. The strong survive and reproduce, the weak decrease in number and may eventually die out. What if our technology is just a part of "natural" processes leading to our increased fitness?
4) I began to realize that it is impossible to save everything.
And this was what perhaps hurt me the most of all. My inner idealist wants to save the world, wants to champion world harmony, and maybe win the Miss America pageant in the process. But I've been naively thinking that there was a chance to save every creature in trouble. I've since seen that given our limited resources and priorities in other areas, there is no way that we can save everything. This is where we need to assign priorities. But then, that opens up a whole new can of worms. Different people have different priorities, or even different ways of achieving the same goal. How can we choose one over the other? And how can we say that one person's priorities are more important than another person's? We simply cant.
///
There are so many intricacies involved in conservation and in so many different aspects... no wonder I've heard that conservation is not rocket science. It's harder!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Classic Question and its Relation to Environmental Progress
If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?
First off, here are some definitions of sound. (from dictionary.com)
The anthropocentric answer:
No. A falling tree will create vibrations, but it is not classified as "sound" unless someone is there to translate the vibrational signals and send it to the brain. Definitions 1,3, and 4 above would all imply that someone would need to be present for a "sound" to exist (they all talk of organs and auditory effects, characteristics that only living creatures have and are able to process). Definition 2 gives an approximate vibration speed at which "sound" is created, but someone still needs to be there to translate such vibrations, or the vibrations will remain vibrations, nothing more.
Is the anthropocentric answer overly simplified?
In questions like this, do we take into consideration, for example, other entities that were present when the tree fell? We are pretty certain that animals can translate vibrations into sound just as humans can, and some can even do it better, so why not take them into account? Where do they come in when thinking about this age-old question? This opens up a whole new philosophical can of worms.
The connection to environmental progress:
Most people are living in the anthropocentric answer. It's simple, relatively straightforward, and most importantly it makes sense. When you add in the question of whether animals should be an important part of the equation, the analysis gets complicated and questions are raised that there may not even be an answer for. Furthermore, debates and arguments arising from questions of ethics begin to hinder progress.
When we argue in favor of a conservation strategy, we need to focus on people and what they want rather than focus on what the animals "want" or should have. Ideally, if it's done correctly, both people and animals will be better off. I believe that too often the leading conservation rationale given to the general public puts science and environmental ethics in the spotlight when most are too busy worrying about the economy or what's for dinner. However, this is NOT saying that we should give everyone what they think they want or give up if our environmental objectives are not what people are concerned with. Like clever parents getting their children motivated about an activity, we need to phrase what we want to appeal to the needs and/or wants of the general public rather than to our own scientific egos. Science should be an important part of decision-making when it comes to matters of conservation, however, instead of focusing on experiments and controls, we should focus on how the conservation effort in question will help the people. This could include (but is definitely not limited to) an increase in physical or mental well-being, an increase in recreational options for both them and their posterity, an altruistic sense of pride, a boost in economy from ecotourism, etc.
The question of ethics:
Is it ethical to leave out the animals from discussion when it is their homes on the line? I believe that we should not, but we should not make it the focus when talking to the general public. People who feel very strongly about this ethical question should know that other people may not hold the same values. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in order to help "save the animals" sometimes we need to take a step back and argue not from the animals' standpoint, but through the eyes of the public. It is when we try to force our ethics on other people that we are pushed away and ignored.
First off, here are some definitions of sound. (from dictionary.com)
| 1. | the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. |
| 2. | mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. |
| 3. | the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause: the sound of music. |
| 4. | any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance: all kinds of sounds. |
The anthropocentric answer:
No. A falling tree will create vibrations, but it is not classified as "sound" unless someone is there to translate the vibrational signals and send it to the brain. Definitions 1,3, and 4 above would all imply that someone would need to be present for a "sound" to exist (they all talk of organs and auditory effects, characteristics that only living creatures have and are able to process). Definition 2 gives an approximate vibration speed at which "sound" is created, but someone still needs to be there to translate such vibrations, or the vibrations will remain vibrations, nothing more.
Is the anthropocentric answer overly simplified?
In questions like this, do we take into consideration, for example, other entities that were present when the tree fell? We are pretty certain that animals can translate vibrations into sound just as humans can, and some can even do it better, so why not take them into account? Where do they come in when thinking about this age-old question? This opens up a whole new philosophical can of worms.
The connection to environmental progress:
Most people are living in the anthropocentric answer. It's simple, relatively straightforward, and most importantly it makes sense. When you add in the question of whether animals should be an important part of the equation, the analysis gets complicated and questions are raised that there may not even be an answer for. Furthermore, debates and arguments arising from questions of ethics begin to hinder progress.
When we argue in favor of a conservation strategy, we need to focus on people and what they want rather than focus on what the animals "want" or should have. Ideally, if it's done correctly, both people and animals will be better off. I believe that too often the leading conservation rationale given to the general public puts science and environmental ethics in the spotlight when most are too busy worrying about the economy or what's for dinner. However, this is NOT saying that we should give everyone what they think they want or give up if our environmental objectives are not what people are concerned with. Like clever parents getting their children motivated about an activity, we need to phrase what we want to appeal to the needs and/or wants of the general public rather than to our own scientific egos. Science should be an important part of decision-making when it comes to matters of conservation, however, instead of focusing on experiments and controls, we should focus on how the conservation effort in question will help the people. This could include (but is definitely not limited to) an increase in physical or mental well-being, an increase in recreational options for both them and their posterity, an altruistic sense of pride, a boost in economy from ecotourism, etc.
The question of ethics:
Is it ethical to leave out the animals from discussion when it is their homes on the line? I believe that we should not, but we should not make it the focus when talking to the general public. People who feel very strongly about this ethical question should know that other people may not hold the same values. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in order to help "save the animals" sometimes we need to take a step back and argue not from the animals' standpoint, but through the eyes of the public. It is when we try to force our ethics on other people that we are pushed away and ignored.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
