Yesterday in class, we discussed the development of conservation biology. It emerged as a "crisis discipline" in the early 20th century, in response to rapid habitat destruction. But even though many conservation practices have been successful, such as those by the NWTF, the majority of these practices are reactive measures. Countless environmental crises and disasters could have been and could still be avoided if people act in a proactive manner, rather than reactive. For example, passenger pigeons might still roam the skies of Wisconsin if hunters had not killed them in such excess, but rather hunted them in a sustainable manner. Unfortunately, it appears to be basic human nature to only change our behavior until it leads to a crisis, or at least a situation where the consequences of our current actions start to outweigh the benefits they once brought.
Changing our behavior at a crisis point can work sometimes, as shown in the video yesterday with America's grisly bear population. It is true that local efforts can add up to nationwide successes, but right now hundreds of questions, regarding the state of the environment, persist in my mind: can local or national efforts solve current global issues? Can local farmers, using sustainable practices, offset the damage of large-scale, corporate-run agribusiness? As Brazil's Amazon rain forests are burned to meet China's growing demands for food, as America's forests are cleared to make room for urban developments, and as the world's oil resources are depleted, do individual or local actions even matter?
Could any of these situations be solved by national governments? And would these governments even stand up to do the right thing, and be proactive about protecting the earth, or will they only wait to react until every global environmental crisis becomes a matter of life or death for the entire human population?
No comments:
Post a Comment