‘Nature’ and ‘Wilderness’

The application of paleozoological data to modern conservation biology and restoration ecology embodies the belief that there is some condition to be conserved or to be restored to. The terms ‘nature,’ ‘wilderness,’ and ‘pristine’ are often labeled by scientists and philosophers as loaded for several reasons. First, it is argued that these are cultural constructs that hold meanings that humans create; that is, wilderness may not exist—as we have constructed its meaning in reference to ourselves. Second, it is argued that such terms divorce humans from the rest of the world, the environment. Third, that these terms represent constructs is used by some to argue that humans cannot possibly understand the true limits of human-environment interactions, thus we cannot possibly pose solutions to the current environmental crisis (global pollution, warming, extinction, et cetera).

How, then, can a baseline for restoration or conservation be chosen if humans cannot determine what is ‘natural?’ This problem is a regular part of scholarly discourse in applied paleozoology, and during the last week I have seen one research talk and done some reading that have solidified my opinion on how to address the ‘nature as cultural construct’ problem.

First, I attended a research talk by Walter Dodds, an ecologist at Kansas State University, on the economic value of ecosystem goods and services (such as soil nutrients for growing food or wetland filtering of water) piggy-backing on the classic research published in 1997 by Costanza and colleagues. It is clear that conserved habitat garners the highest economic value in terms of ecosystem goods and services. In addition, restored habitat, though not as high in value as conserved habitat, eclipses the value of ‘impacted’ habitat (e.g., a drained wetland or a field with eroded topsoil). To be frank, conserving and restoring is worthwhile. So, for crying out loud, let’s pick some benchmarks (time periods and habitat conditions) and conservation/restoration targets and continue to conserve and restore. Ecological economics, the dollar-valuing of ecosystem goods and services, can play a key role in helping the conservation science community convince the general public of how worthwhile conserving and restoring is. Call it nature, call it pristine, call it wilderness, just call habitat something to be conserved and restored, and move on. Communication entails terminology.

Second, I have been reading ethnobiologist Eugene Anderson’s new book The Pursuit of Ecotopia; the book represents Dr. Anderson’s research experience on human-nature relationships in 60 different countries over 50 years. In the book he synthesizes his thoughts on global environmental problems, and he assigns ‘lack of solidarity’ as the reason political systems fails to confront the environmental crisis. Here’s his take on terminology:

"It does not really matter whether we call nonhuman entities “nature,” or ba’alche’ (Maya for “things of the forest”), or medio ambiente. It does not matter whether we see them as some sort of undifferentiated mass (“nature”) or as a cluster of species (as the Maya do). What matters is that we know there are things out there, and that we depend on them, and that we have to manage them better than we are doing if we want to survive" (Anderson 2010, pg. 18).

It would seem, then, that the paleozoological record is one of the ‘mass of animal species’ that existed prior to the contemporary environmental crisis. It is debatable as to what conditions habitat should be conserved and restored, but conservation scientists (including applied paleozoologists) must not be paralyzed by semantics. Such paralysis is symptomatic of the ‘lack of solidarity’ blocking progress in conservation and restoration, which Dodds and others clearly show is valuable and which Anderson demonstrates is well within our capabilities in modern society. In Anderson’s (pg. 20) words, though we (humans) “have the know-how and the political ability to cure the problem; [we] lack the will.”

For those who still argue that there is no ‘crisis of curiosity’ in modern America; consider this. We could lead the world on solving the environmental crisis. Why aren’t we?

References:
Eugene N. Anderson 2010: The Pursuit of Ecotopia: Lessons from Indigenous and Traditional Societies for the Human Ecology of Our Modern World. Praeger, Santa Barbara.

Walter K. Dodds, et al. 2008: Comparing ecosystem goods and services provided by restored and native lands. Bioscience 58:837-845.