Remember this: Humans have never stood outside of Nature. Humans contribute equal portions of good and evil.
I read this article called, "The Battle for the Soul of Conservation Science", written by Keith Kloor. Read between the lines, man,read between the lines.
I was aghast at the behavior of papered, intelligent beings living in Ivory Towers. I took a couple of drags off my Capri Sun, straw hanging in my mouth, as I quietly mouthed, What the F*#K?
Is this what people do when they get degrees? Einstein might be rolling in his grave at the thought the science community has now transversed social media with its twitter-like wars in those hallowed halls of academia. The sad thing in this article, two prominent scientists exhibited a poor role-modeling example to young up and coming ecologists.
There are allegations that this debating system has caused a lot of usurping of productive discourse, funding, progress, and not to mention the breakdown of mutual colleagues ability to work on a problem to solution.
My input on this is in regards for Nature's sake or human benefit is this: Humans live in Nature, even if it is inside the buildings of industry. We interact as a part of the biome Earth. We are not floating outside in dark space, watching everything like a God. As a consumer and producer of by-products, humans have to benefit to exist, otherwise we die in less than dignified ways. There is a mutual relationship between Nature and humanity that exists, even if it is imbalanced by human actions and endeavors. Humans are a part of the narrative, even when we write upon Nature's ways. Research is done in parts and not a whole. Research should start taking into consideration all the variables that are reasonable to the problems and solutions.
The first great question was: How useful is science and the results when applied. I wanted them to come down to my woods and go for a boat ride or a walk. Sounds like they need some realism in their lives.
I can concur with Karieiva to include the complete ecosystem of the world in the conservation conversation. There are two many times when science is locked into a location designated as a national park, protected wilderness area, wetlands, or refuge.
That comes to my point on several readings where I have seen it stated in scientific assumption that some variable was not given appropriate consideration in its role as a variable in the overall scientific study. Sometimes this lack of consideration, determines whether or not a variable should be examined. The problem arises when this variable should have been considered but the outcome of the study falls on its face, temporarily or completely.
Are views on Nature and how to protect it, narrowed from a scientific perspective?
I interject here another scenario, has the rift between the common man, scientists, hunters, and government become such a vast chasm that in order to work together, there has to be a separation of human and their chosen conservation acts?
Scientist want to save. Hunters want to save. Animal rights activists want to save. Government wants others to do the work while doling out the funds. Yet, no one wants to work together.
No surprise there on why the world is in the state it is in.
Another question was: How do Earthlings best preserve the last vestiges of the natural world on a domesticated planet?
That is right Earthling. You are living on a domesticated planet and someone finally said it.
This one scientist, Soule, wants to save Nature from humanity. In his arc, humanity stands outside as an enemy instead of as an acting part of the circus of Life. I have indicated this thought process in other writings. Humanity is separated from Nature by his count it would seem. This is flawed because of his exclusion clause. In his spec, the things in Nature only have value. Man has no value, much like the Dallas's Safari Club going into Africa to indicate the wildlife has value, not the people so much. Or, so it goes.
The other scientist, Karievia, is tired of the gloom and doom of reported results.
A truth here is: Nature and its contents are under seige by the workings of Man. Yet, humanity is working on correcting that problem. At least, we will go down trying.
Why is it such a problem to call for new approaches in science? That is what science is for; approaching problems from some questionable and unquestionable directions to get to the answers.
Kareiva and Michelle Marvier wrote an article where humanity was included in the conservation dialogue. Finally, humanity is included. Conservation as a nature-centric enterprise has a lot of humans running around in it, once you start considering how hunters and citizens have been saying all that they have contributed. Why not consider that variable in the overall plan?
Why is there a problem when someone states, "Houston, we have a problem?"
This article is an example of how regular people leave it up to academia to answer the problems of the world, yet scientists are working with latent, outdated ideologies and practices. The world changes. The mentality of the scientists needs to be ever-evolving and open to things that could solve problems, instead of holding onto Linus's blanket with their fingers in their mouths.
This is why one must be pro-active and read what these people are up to on your dime. It is your world, too.
I thought the picture I provided did the article justice. Many people fighting it out and no one getting the message. Someone should rethink bringing assumptions to a knife fight, that is in dire need of some cold, hard, factual depositions. Bring the science and not the fear.
I have no control over the homo-erotic nature of the painting. You're welcome.
Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore
Here is the article. There is more. Enjoy.
http://issues.org/31-2/kloor/
