Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘conservation’

My last post was about the link between nature connectedness and happiness, making this an appropriate spot to take a broader look at the important concept of nature connectedness. Specifically, I would like to provide a picture of what nature connectedness looks like “in the flesh” – in a person’s behaviour, in other words. Such a picture enables us to recognise a nature connected person when we meet them. It may also broaden you own awareness and appreciation of yourself.

First let me sketch the picture in broad strokes.

A nature connected person:

  • yearns to be in contact with nature as much as possible
  • has a strong emotional attachment to nature
  • is driven by a desire to know more about nature
  • feels a sense of kinship with the inhabitants of the natural world
  • has a strong and active commitment to the welfare of nature
  • has nature woven into their sense of self

A person displaying these characteristics can truly be regarded as having a “friendship” with nature. Indeed, if you substituted “another person” for all the references to “nature” in the five points, you would have a pretty complete definition of conventional friendship.

One of the most nature connected people you could hope to meet is Revol Erutan (ee-root-tan), known as Rev to his friends and acquaintances. Rev is the walking and talking embodiment of what it means to have a deep “friendship” with nature.

He spends much of his leisure time bushwalking, canyoning and rock climbing. By profession he is a horticulturalist, having chosen that career ahead of other options he had. The extent of his contact with the natural world is certainly a pointer to his nature-connectedness, but it is not a fully reliable indicator. For a better one, you need to ask what motivates Rev’s nature activities. Contrary to what you might expect, his motivation has less to do with achieving performance or ego-enhancing goals, such as completing a demanding walk or managing a challenging rock climb, than with the joy, peace and other “intrinsic” delights of simply being in nature. For Rev, there does not have to be a reason for seeking nature experiences – in the same way that just being with a loved one is an end in itself. In the spirit of the Scandinavian philosophy of Frituftsliv, Rev simply seeks the companionship of nature.

Rev clearly has a love of nature. The efforts he makes to maintain regular contact with domesticated as well as “wild” nature indicate that. So too does the confidence he has that nature does all kinds of “good things” for people. There is no “perhaps” or “maybe” about this as far as Rev is concerned. As a result, he constantly wants to share his nature experiences with others. He enjoys leading bushwalks especially to places that are favourites of his because of their natural beauty, peace and tranquillity. When they are with him in the bush and indeed in the gardens where he works, people can’t help noticing his energy and enthusiasm as he constantly draws attention to plants, birds, animals and features of the landscape. He seems to more “tuned-in” than most other people to the beauty, awe and wonder of the natural world and to the restorative power of nature. He reports having a strengthened sense of vitality when he is close to nature. After time away in the bush, Rev usually returns with the “bushwalker’s glow, an emotional high characterised by feelings of well-being and bonhomie. Not surprisingly, he feels regret, even sadness, when he has to leave the bush behind. Rev strongly believes that Harold Thurman (1899-1981; theologian and civil rights leader) has got it right when he says:

Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.

Even though his horticultural training puts him ahead of most other people as far as understanding plant behaviour and ecology are concerned, Rev never seems to tire of observing and investigating nature. He is always on the lookout for insects, animals, flowers and notable landscape features. He seems to have a sharper awareness of the natural environment than most other people. Not surprisingly, he is an avid watcher of nature shows on TV and subscribes to several outdoor and conservation magazines. He also has an impressive kit of bushcraft skills. Lighting a fire in steady rain is no problem to him, for example. Altogether Rev’s confidence in his knowledge and skills allows him to feel very much “at home” in wild places.

For Rev, other living creatures are much more than objects to be studied. He respects them and strongly defends their right to an uncompromised existence. He would detour around an orb spider’s web stretching across a bush track rather than damage it. Sensitive and caring behaviour of this kind is his typical modus operandi in nature, reflecting the empathy he has with all living creatures and the world on which they depend. He gets enormous pleasure from chance moments spent in the presence of a wombat, wallaby, echidna, water dragon or other citizens of the bush. He is distressed and angered by attitudes and actions that threaten the well-being of nature’s inhabitants – large and small; beautiful and ugly, benign and dangerous (deadly pathogens excepted). Although hunting for “sport” is anathema to him, he admires those indigenous hunting cultures that have succeeded in living off nature sustainably. Rev would say of himself that he feels a genuine sense of kinship with other creatures. There are no strings attached to his relationship with nature. It has the quality of encounter, an I-you rather than an I-it relationship. He accepts nature as it is, with all the challenges it can pose and the discomforts it can deliver. He has no desire to change nature or to “overcome” it.

Rev’s kinship with nature fires a very active commitment to sustainability and conservation. He is a “greenie” – not in the political but the practical sense. On the home front, he is an exemplary re-user and recycler. Although an apartment dweller, he maintains a worm farm and has managed to get a compositing system operating in his block (the compost goes to a nearby community garden where Rev helps out). In relation to the conservation scene, he is a member of at least two environmental organisations and participates in rallies, marches and other activities concerned with the welfare of the natural environment.

If Rev were ever to talk about himself at any length, you would learn that his sense of who he is – his sense of identity – is tightly bound up with his experience of nature. His image or concept of himself is highly coloured by the feelings, attitudes and values he has towards the natural world and by what he does in and for nature. It would be very clear that he feels at one with nature, not only intellectually but also emotionally and spiritually. He does not see himself as separate from the natural world but part of it – belonging to nature as much as nature belongs to him.

It will come as no surprise that Rev attributes much of his happiness and well-being to nature. He is testimony to the value of being a “nature person”. We could do a lot worth than aspiring to be like him.

Time now to come clean: there is no actual person, Revol Erutan (Perhaps his name – “nature lover” in reverse – may have made you suspicious), but there is a reality behind the fiction. He is a composite of real-life nature connected people I know personally or from autobiographical accounts. More than that; he faithfully reflects observations and data from formal studies of nature connectedness and nature connected people. He may not exist in fact, but many others like him certainly do.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

You may be as surprised as I was to learn that there is a connection between the damaging social inequality characteristic of most western societies and people’s concern for nature. Nature is losing out in those societies where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” is widening (as it is in most first-world and some developing countries). Why this is so is still being investigated but research already indicates that personal and social values are involved.

Driven by an obsession with production and consumption, western societies have embraced values that are both socially divisive and environmentally prejudicial. These values are the antithesis of those that underpinned the survival of our species through thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. These “primal” or “natural” values are those that safeguarded group cohesion and the equitable sharing of food and other essential resources. The successful hunter–gather societies were (and indeed still are) egalitarian rather than hierarchical. Most modern societies comprise hierarchically ordered groups – a few, small and powerful “have” groups at the top of the pile, more, larger and powerless “have-not” groups at the bottom, with other groups of varying affluence and power strung out between.

According to the proponents of “social dominance theory”, the affluent and powerful groups in society seek to preserve their status by manoeuvring politically and otherwise to defend and even increase their affluence and power. Other groups in society are seen as “inferior” and less worthy of the “good life”. We are seeing the consequences of this mind-set and its underlying values in the flowering of far right politics, the rampant distrust of political and corporate power brokers and the growing acceptance of bigotry, racism and discrimination.

When members of a society embrace the social dominance mind-set, concern for others and compassion are casualties.  Hunter-gatherer societies go out of their way to prevent this happening. The Ju/’hoansi (pronounced Dju-kwa-si) people of the Kalahari Desert, for example, are “fiercely egalitarian and uncompromisingly committed to sharing. They regard selfishness with hostility and are strongly opposed to self-promotion and arrogance. As life in Ju/’hoansi communities is very public, the close and constant scrutiny for violation of these values is both possible and effective. The communities also employ elaborate practices to keep egos in check. These practices include downplaying the value of a hunter’s kill, making self-effacing comments, using put-downs and giving back-handed compliments. They have no formal leadership institutions. Men and women enjoy equal decision-making powers, children play largely non-competitive games in mixed age groups, and the elderly, while treated with great affection, are not afforded any special privileges.

All of this discourages the accumulation of wealth and influence, and the over-exploitation of the environment. Unsurprisingly, traditional Ju/’hoansi communities are generally carefree, harmonious and co-operative and have a low incidence of depression, anxiety, hostility and aggression. It should also come as no surprise that the Ju/’hoansi are part of one of most stable, enduring, successful and sustainable societies that has ever existed. Genomic and archaeological evidence indicates that they have been around for at least 150,000 years, having navigated the climatic and other crises that decimated many other human populations.

As well as living compassionately and sustainably with one another, the Ju/’hoansi are masters of living compassionately and sustainably with nature. Their desert habitat in southern Africa is one of the few regions on earth where multiple species of megafauna have survived the coming of humans. The Ju/’hoansi still make use of over 150 plant species and are able to track and trap virtually any animal they choose to. Despite their extraordinary skills, they have only ever worked to meet their immediate needs (typically for about 15 hours per week), have not stored surpluses, and have never harvested more than they could eat in the short term. The Ju/’hoansi clearly do not comply with the assumption of modern economic theory that people always have wants beyond their means (the so-called “problem of scarcity”); the Ju/’hoansi have few wants and ample means to meet them. This has prompted anthropologists to dub them, “the original affluent society”. But theirs is “affluence without abundance”.

Even though Ju/’hoansi society could never be considered a blueprint for our own, we would be stupid not to draw lessons from their way of life and particularly their egalitarianism. While egalitarianism and self-interest can co-exist, the empathic, and indeed compassionate, concern for others is a strong driver of egalitarianism. To value egalitarianism, therefore, is to value empathy and compassion.

In the social dominance mindset, compassion struggles to have a significant influence. As a consequence a concern for others and altruistic behaviour are likely to be muted. And the consequences may not stop there. German researchers recently reported studies showing not only that compassion marches hand in hand with a concern for nature but also that the relationship is causal – increase compassion and nature also benefits.

These findings may help to explain the connection I referred to at the beginning of this post –  between social inequality and a diminished concern for nature.

The strongest evidence we have of this connection comes from a survey of 4500 participants from 25 countries. The survey measured social dominance mindset with a questionnaire that requires respondents to declare the strength of their agreement or disagreement with a series of statements such as, “An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be at the bottom”, and “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups”. The resulting score indicates the respondent’s “social dominance orientation” or SDO (Follow this link to discover your SDO).Participants in the survey were also asked about their environmental “intentions”, whether, for example, they would sign a petition in support of environmental protection, or try to reduce their carbon footprint by cycling or walking instead of driving.

The survey found a clear association between SDO and environmental intentions – a high SDO made a person less likely to take pro-environment actions. In other words, people who hold altruistic values (or are strong on compassion) and who want to achieve equality in society tend to be more concerned about the environment. Although this is a descriptive finding, the scale of the study from which it comes makes it quite robust.

Perhaps working to make a society more egalitarian could be a way of strengthening its member’s connection to nature as well as their commitment to environmental protection. An idea worth thinking about, I believe.

Read Full Post »

In most Western societies, the physical distance between people and nature is growing. There are, for example, studies showing that since the 1980s, visitation per capita to national parks and other natural places has been declining in the USA, Japan and Australia. This is part of a more general trend for outdoor activities to be replaced by indoor and virtual forms of recreation. As Oliver Pergams and Patricia Zaradic have suggested, “videophilia is replacing biophilia”.

Not surprisingly, there is now growing evidence that the physical isolation from nature is showing up as a pervasive cultural disconnect. The messages our minds are receiving from the words we read, the images we see and indeed the songs we sing are directing our attention less and less to the natural world.

Does it surprise you to learn that a study of 60 Disney and Pixar animated films made between 1937 and 2009 found a decline in the depiction of outdoor scenes and less biodiversity and more human impact in the scenes that were portrayed?

And what about this? An investigation of 296 children’s books that won Caldecott awards from 1938 to 2008 reported a similar decline, accompanied by an increase in the portrayals of human-built environments.

Films and books of fiction are cultural “products” and, as such, they reflect their creators’ minds and the cultural scene on which these minds are drawing.

If these creators have limited encounters with nature in popular culture, nature is less likely to feature in their work. And as communicators, they are less likely to refer to nature if they do not expect nature to resonate with their audiences. Is this, in fact, what is going on?

The answer is, Yes, and here is a graph that illustrates the reason for this answer.

 

As you can see straight away, the graph tells a story that spans the 100 years of the 20th century. It is also easy to see that it is a story that falls into two parts, one across the years to 1950, the second spanning the following 50 years.

The story can be told because the data bases and the technology are available to chart, year-by-year, the relative frequency with which words, phrases and other units of language have appeared in selected bodies of writing. The red line in the graph is just such a chart.

It shows, as a percentage of all words, how frequently 186 nature-related words were used in all fiction books published in English between the years1900 and 2000. In 1920, for example, the 186 words accounted for 0.40% of all words published; in 2000, the figure was close to 0.34%. The black lines in the graph show the overall trends in the figures.

The nature words (nouns and verbs) were objectively and very systematically chosen to cover four categories: general – e.g., hill, river, sunset; bird names – e.g., finch, heron, lark; tree names – e.g., birch, willow, poplar; and flower names – e.g., camellia, daisy, marigold.

What is clear from the graph is that, since 1950, the appearance of nature-related words in fiction books has fallen substantially and steadily. The same trend was not displayed by words, such as building, door, curtain, highway and computer, relating to the human-made environment.

The researcher responsible for these findings is Associate Professor Selin Kesebir from the London Business School. As part of the same study, she investigated trends in the number of references to nature for two other “products” of popular culture – song lyrics and film storylines.

Professor Kesebir found that references to nature in both lyrics and storylines exhibited the same downward trend as was detected in novels. This led her to conclude:

Nature features less in English popular culture today than it did in the first half of the 20th century.

She summarises the implications of her research eloquently and powerfully.

The pattern we documented is disconcerting in light of the strong evidence documenting the positive effects of contact with nature. To the extent that the disappearance of nature vocabulary from cultural conversation reflects an actual distancing from nature, the findings suggest unrealised gains to human health and well-being, as well as lost opportunities to nurture pro-environmental attitudes and stewardship behaviours.

There is another reason why these findings are of concern. Cultural products not only reflect the prevailing culture, they also shape it. Socialization that helps people to form, maintain, and reinforce particular worldviews. The flagging cultural attention to nature means a muting of the message that nature is worth paying attention to and being talked about. It also means a loss of opportunities to awaken curiosity, appreciation, and awe for nature.

The loss of physical contact with nature, combined with a parallel loss of symbolic contact through cultural products may set in motion a negative feedback loop, resulting in diminishing levels of interest in and appreciation for nature. In this light, our findings do not look auspicious. We hope that an awareness of the existing trends will be instrumental in instigating cultural leadership to reverse it.

Valid, eloquent and powerful as these words are, they are unlikely to change anything. In the face of the tide of popular culture, they are futile. It pains me to say this because I have written hundreds of thousands of words in the same vein. Naively perhaps, I once believed that if people were made aware of the value of a nature connection for them personally and collectively and for planet Earth, they would open their lives to nature – at least to some degree.

What do I think now? Well, I am still coming to terms with what is actually happening. But one thing I still believe is that there is a part all of us nature “lovers” can play in helping others reconnect with nature. How? – simply by inviting family, friends and acquaintances to join us in our nature-based activities. We need to do this in a patient, mindful, considerate and sensible way, of course, guided always by the “gradualism” principle. Success is not guaranteed but we owe it to others, ourselves and the future of planet Earth to try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

In a scene from his latest documentary, Planet Earth 2, Sir David Attenborough is surveying a natural landscape from the basket of a floating hot-air balloon.  “It’s impossible not to be impressed by the sheer grandeur, and splendour and power of the natural world”, he remarks.

That, a cynic might say, is the kind of thing you would expect him to say, given that he has been rewarded handsomely, materially and otherwise, for spending much of his life immersed in the natural world. Surely his exceptionally privileged career as a naturalist and documentary maker has given him a romanticised view of nature (some might say).

Even a less cynical person might be tempted to think that Sir David’s enthusiasm is a unique product of the extraordinary opportunities he has had to revel in the “grandeur”, “splendour” and “power” of the natural world.

There is undoubtedly some truth in this view, but it is far from the full picture.

The biological foundations of Sir David’s passion for nature are shared by everyone. We all come into the world with a brain that has an inherent disposition to seek and to enjoy nature. This disposition, known scientifically as biophilia, contains the potential for a profoundly enriching relationship with nature. We have to accept, however, that biophilia is thought to be a “weak” biological tendency, meaning that regular and positive interactions with the natural world are necessary if it to flourish in the human psyche and behaviour.

Fortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the world of wild nature that Sir David has experienced so extensively. Biophilia can be nurtured in all sorts of “green spaces”, including gardens, parks and other forms of domesticated nature. Even representations of nature in photos and paintings are able to provide some of the emotional building blocks of biophilia.

The building process works like this:

 

  • we have an encounter with nature in some form (flower, native animal, sunset, panorama, seascape, for example);
  • in response, brain chemicals, notably dopamine, trigger positive or “feel-good” emotions such as pleasure, joy, tranquillity, calmness and wonder; and
  • these pleasant and rewarding feelings motivate us to repeat the experience.

 

It is true to say that the process cultivates a form of subtle addiction. It tends to make our contacts with nature “self-multiplying” – the more contacts we have, the more we seek. That is why people who have gardens, compared with those without, are more likely to visit parks and other green spaces, and to take their children with them. And the children who are exposed to green spaces in this and other ways are more likely to become nature seeking and nature valuing adults.

A great thing about the process is that it requires little conscious management by us, apart from putting ourselves in touch with nature is some appropriate way to begin with. Once we have initiated a nature experience, our senses, emotions and unconscious cognitive processes take over – often in ways that range well beyond simply being “impressed”.

The “grandeur” of nature, for example, can

 

  • provide a profound sense of satisfaction and joy
  • transport us from the here-and-now to places beyond ourselves
  • make us kinder and more sociable
  • give us a sense of unity or “at-one-ment” with nature, others and the cosmos in general.

 

The eminent Australian biologist, the late Professor Charles Birch defined “at-one-ment” as the “experience of oneness with ourselves, with others, with the world, with the universe and with God”. It is, he says, the “most ultimate encounter”, the “opposite of being adrift and separate from the rest of existence”.

Urban environments can never lead us to at-one-ment, but nature can.

Possibly (and hopefully), it is a deep, intuitive inkling of this fact that is at work motivating some city dwellers to pay more for accommodation near green spaces. In research conducted in Vienna, Dr Shanaka Herath of the University of Wollongong found that apartment prices dropped by 0.13 – 0.26 % for every 1% increase in distance from the nearest green space. Similar findings have been reported from cities in the UK, Canada and South Korea, he says. Judging by anecdotal reports from buyers agents, the same is true of Australian capital cities with some buyers prepared to pay up to 10% more for homes with greenery around them.

Maybe this is telling us that biophilia is a more robust trait than it is generally thought to be.

Even if that is the case, we still must heed the call made by Sir David in Planet Earth 2:

Now, over half of us live in an urban environment. My home, too, is here, in the city of London. Looking down on this great metropolis [as he was at the time], the ingenuity with which we continue to reshape the surface of our planet is very striking.

But it’s also sobering. It reminds me of just how easy it is for us to lose our connection with the natural world.

Yet, it’s on this connection that the future of both humanity and the natural world will depend. And surely, [it is] our responsibility to do everything within our power to create a planet that provides a home not just for us, but for all life on Earth.

Read Full Post »

In Japan, this remarkable object could well be a wedding gift not because of its obvious delicate beautyIMG_0294 cropped but for what it signifies – love that lasts a lifetime.

Known as Venus’ Flower Basket, it is actually the skeleton of a sponge (Genus Euplectella) that is found on the ocean floor, at a depth of 100 – 1000 metres, off Japan, the Philippines and other western Pacific countries including Australia.

Looking more like a vase than a basket, the skeleton is made from glass produced by the sponge itself from silica it extracts from the surrounding sea water. Yes, this simple creature is able to convert dissolved silica into glass as genuine as any that human technology can produce from sand and quartz.

Not only that, the sponge fashions that glass into a structure that has the rigidity to withstand the huge pressures of deep water. It manages this by combining amazingly efficient microscopic building blocks called spicules (Think of three spikes intersecting at right angles to one another) into the geometrically elegant network that you can see in the photo. Fragile as it may appear, the resulting structure is incredibly strong and resistant to cracking. Architects and engineers have studied it in search of ways to build more robust buildings, especially skyscrapers.

Engineers in the field of fibre optics are also looking to the Venus’ Flower Basket for guidance, and in particular at the hair-like fibres at the base of the skeleton. These fibres anchor the sponge to the ocean floor. They also act like optical fibres transmitting light along their length. The intriguing thing is that they do this better than the industrial fibre optic cables currently available for telecommunication and other applications. Additionally, the sponge’s fibres are more flexible than the man-made variety. What is more, the sponge makes its fibres at very low temperatures using natural materials – a process scientists hope someday to mimic because the existing manufacturing process requires very high temperatures and has other limitations.

Beautiful as the skeletal Venus’ Flower Basket is, it pales in comparison to the living animal, which actually glows in the darkness of the ocean depths. The sources of this light are bioluminescent bacteria that live in the cells of the sponge. Attracted by the glow, male and female shrimp larvae enter the central cavity or atrium of the sponge, happily staying there to feed on the left-overs and waste from the sponge’s diet of plankton.

By the time the sponge has finished growing, the top of the atrium has been sealed, trapping the now mature shrimps inside. But everyone is happy. The shrimp have a perfect “love nest” for life, a secure home and a reliable source of food, and the sponge has a couple of resident cleaners. It is even an ideal set-up for the shrimps’ offspring, as these are small enough to exit through the walls of mum and dad’s sponge and set off on their own to find a mate and make a home for themselves in another sponge.

So there you have it. Because of a shrimp love affair, the Euplectella skeleton has come to be associated with Venus, the goddess of love, and to be adopted as a symbol of a happy married life.

But Euplectella, the living creature, symbolises something of much greater significance for human well-being and advancement. As mentioned, this simple creature has found the solution to technical problems that continue to tax human ingenuity, making it both an example and a symbol of the “genius of nature”. Engineers and scientists look to Euplectella as a source of insight and inspiration, valuing and respecting it for what it can teach them.

Surrounded as we are by the products of human ingenuity and creativity, it is easy to think that the problems of existence, big and small, will be solved only by the human mind. This view ignores the reality that nature has been addressing the same or similar problems for 3.8 billion years – and producing extraordinarily efficient, enduring and graceful solutions. We are privileged to live in a very competent universe.

One of the smartest things humankind can do in the quest for solutions to the problems that face us is to first “ask nature”. Doing this is far easier than you might imagine as there is a fascinating website that can be consulted by anyone. I urge you to go to this site right now. When you are there, try sampling what the site offers by exploring this question: How does nature maintain community? Do this by selecting the following links: (1) maintain community (left-hand column), (2) co-operate and compete  (central column), (3)within the same species (central column), (4) collaborating for group decisions: honeybees (right-hand column). This will lead you to a summary of the work being done by a team of scientists and engineers at the University of Illinois looking at ways to improve human collaboration during disaster relief efforts. And where are they looking for inspiration? – to honeybees.

This is one of almost 1800 examples you can find on the site of an approach to innovation and development called bio-mimetics. As its label suggests, the approach involves the conscious emulation of the forms, systems and processes of nature.

Perhaps the best known product of bio-mimetics is the Velcro fastener. The Swiss engineer, George de velcro burrMestral, developed Velcro by adapting the system some burrs use to cling to cloth and fur.

More than a very wise problem-solving strategy for scientists, engineers and other innovators, bio-mimetics is also a way of valuing and respecting nature for everyone. An underpinning philosophy of bio-mimetics is that nature has more to teach us about living well, harmoniously, sustainably and gracefully on the planet than we could ever imagine.

Humans are masters at exploiting the material resources of nature and dangerously abusing the planet in the process. We need urgently to extend our recognition and appreciation of, and our readiness and willingness to be guided by, nature’s knowledge, genius and wisdom.

Much is being said at the moment about building STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Manufacturing) capabilities within our society. The philosophy and method of Bio-mimetics need to be at the heart of that undertaking.

The beak and head profile of the Kingfisher solved the turbulence problem for the bullet train

The beak and head profile of the Kingfisher solved the turbulence problem for the bullet train

It is also essential that society as a whole becomes much more aware and respectful of nature’s capacity to inform, inspire and guide our scientists, technologists, engineers and manufacturers. This will require, among other things, the expansion of environmental education in our schools and vastly enriched communication between scientists, especially those in the natural sciences, and the rest of society.

In a following post, you will meet a gifted artist who is using her talents to help Australian scientists share their message – something to look forward to, believe me.

 

Read Full Post »

Please do not read any further until you have clicked on this link  and discovered (or re-visited) a very different and remarkable website and blog.

Josh Gross, the creator of the site and author of the blog, has channelled his love of nature in a way

Josh hiking on Mount Ranier 2012

Josh hiking on Mount Ranier 2012

that is both unique and inspirational. More than that, he has made his blog a powerful advocacy tool on behalf of a number of species of endangered or threatened animals. Needless to say, I was both delighted and honoured when Josh agreed to write a guest post for ourgreengenes. He has entitled his post “My personal relationship with nature: loss and recovery”. You will read how he had the common adolescent experience of disengagement from nature. But you will also be intrigued and even surprised by the experiences that restored his connection and indeed took it to new heights.(Make certain you follow all the links.)    

Beginnings

My personal relationship with nature has not been entirely smooth. As a child I was enamored with the natural world, as many children are. But unlike some children I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to foster this connection.

Northeast Ohio, where I grew up, used to be full of wetlands. This restored pond at Carlisle Reservation is a snippet of what once was.

Northeast Ohio, where I grew up, used to be full    of wetlands. This restored pond at Carlisle Reservation is a snippet of what once was.

My father frequently took me to one of the excellent metro parks near my house, which are oases in the sprawling Greater Cleveland metropolitan area. There was one park in particular that contained an enclosed wildlife observation area replete with bird feeders; as well as several miles of trails. I spent many hours there watching the birds, walking in the woods, and interrogating the naturalists.

In addition to exploring my local parks, I was an avid reader as a child. The vast majority of the books I checked out from the library concerned animals. I probably read every children’s book (and a few adult books) they had about wolves. But reading about exotic creatures paled in comparison to the thrill of seeing them at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo.

When I was young, I enjoyed nothing more than going to the zoo. Wolves, cheetahs, lions, tigers; all the animals I was enchanted by were there. Then, sometime in middle school I visited the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo’s RainForest location for the first time. I suddenly found myself immersed in an environment richer than any I had experienced before. Obviously it was artificial, but the RainForest was real enough to capture my imagination. I can honestly say that my childhood visits to the zoo helped make me who I am today.

Distractions

My love for the natural world never completely left me. But during late adolescence it faded into the background. It is at this point in Western society that one must decide how to go about scrounging for the social construct of money. I had a dilemma: my greatest interest was wildlife but my disposition and talents strongly favored people-oriented work. At first I tried to take the natural sciences route. But I found social science courses to be much more enjoyable, as I was captivated by the mystery of why we humans do what we do. Therefore I ended up majoring in psychology, and eventually entered a Master’s program for Clinical Mental Health Counseling. But it would not last.

Rediscovery

I never forgot my first love. I always returned to natural spaces whenever I needed to think, and my free time became ever more filled with television programs that featured wild areas. The more my educational life was consumed by Gestalt and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the more I escaped into the electronic world of Survivorman and River Monsters . I also kept working for the same parks district I frequented as a child, even though I knew it was in the ‘wrong’ field. It was as if my unconscious mind was aware of something I was consciously ignoring.

Then the façade came crashing down. My forays into electronic procrastination led me to watch several documentaries featuring the non-profit group Panthera. So out of curiosity I ordered a copy of Alan Rabinowitz’s An Indomitable Beast . I do not know why, but this book affected me like few others. It left me enamored with this creature, the jaguar, and I had to know everything about it. In a fit of desperation I e-mailed Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity , asking if there was anything I could do to aid in jaguar recovery in the United States. Unbelievably, he replied.

Since I was enrolled in graduate school, Michael suggested I could use the educational resources at my disposal to locate a number of hard-to-find texts. The goal was to uncover references to jaguars outside of their commonly accepted historical range in the U. S.

This work enthralled me like nothing before; everything about it felt right. I had to find a way to contribute more to jaguar conservation in the future. Imagine my relief, then, when frantic googling revealed that there is such a thing as conservation psychology . It might actually be possible for me to apply psychological knowledge to biodiversity conservation. Not only that, but there are actually graduate programs at respected universities that can prepare me to enter this field. The stars had aligned.

For my friend Mopana, who informed me that Ladies Love Purple. I recommend you check out her excellent blog!

For my friend Mopana, who informed me that Ladies Love Purple. I recommend you check out her excellent blog!

Moving Forward

Thanks to a combination of hard work, fortuitous circumstances, and human kindness; I am set to become part of Humboldt State University’s Environment & Community program this August. Not only will I get to study the human dimensions of conservation, but I will be living in an area inhabited by both people and mountain lions (Puma concolor).

My blog at thejaguarandallies.com has also opened up new possibilities. As it turns out, I have some skill as a writer. Given the importance of communicating scientific information to the public in a way that is both accurate and engaging, I cannot help but wonder if this will become a more prominent part of my life.

Conclusion

My story contains a few key points. First of all, urban green spaces should not be taken for granted. It was my local metro parks district that first allowed me to nurture my love for nature. Second, despite their drawbacks, zoos can have important benefits. My childhood visits to the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo enhanced my fascination with wildlife and taught me about the challenges they face. Lastly, every form of communication should be exploited in order to create a more sustainable future. Nature documentaries, River Monsters, and especially Survivorman served as lifelines for me when my relationship with nature became a peripheral concern. Live wildlife programs like Wild Safari Live are the future of this genre.

My relationship with nature has not been smooth, and at one point I nearly lost it. But unforeseen events helped me rediscover my greatest passion, and I finally feel like I am on the right path.

 

Read Full Post »

Trees New York

A 2007 study found that for every $1 spent annually on planting and maintaining New York’s street trees, there was $5.60 return. Some of this return was in the form of environmental benefits such as summer energy savings from cooling effects, air quality improvement and reduced water run-off. But almost half of the benefits came from increased property values and the associated growth of rate and tax revenue.

In a similar study using data from the city of Brisbane, Lyndal Plant found that street trees generated property value benefits of $29 million – more than twice the cost of planting and maintaining them.

Findings like these are bound to capture the attention of planners, developers and politicians because they make a “business case” for investing in urban greenery. And in our materialistic world, having a strong business case is a powerful incentive. It is all well and good to parade the environmental, health and lifestyle benefits of green infrastructure, but in a dollar-driven society like ours, what counts more often than not are “bank-account” benefits.

Well, if this is the way of the world, why not welcome the emergence of a compelling business case for greening our streets, apartment complexes and commercial centres? Why not go further and push business arguments for creating and maintaining national parks, for expanding venues that attract nature-based recreation and for greening work places to make employees healthier, happier and, “Ta-ra”, more productive?

Why not Indeed!

Well I can think of one very good reason why we need to use business arguments with great caution especially where nature is concerned.

That doyen of finance and economic commentators, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Ross Gittens, wrote about this risk only a day or so ago. He was commenting primarily on the way deteriorating business ethics and behaviour are eroding trust. One reason for the decline, he says, is the growth of economic fundamentalism or rationalism. At the core of economic fundamentalism is the assumption that the market finds the best resolution of the competing self-interests of sellers and buyers, producers and consumers. It also assumes that the market mechanism assures the most economically efficient use of resources.

But there is a moral problem with these assumptions. As Gittens says, by emphasising monetary value, economic fundamentalism views all things, including “labour” as resources to be exploited, as grist for the market mill. Worse than that, he reminds us, economic fundamentalism has had the effect of “sanctifying selfishness”.

When I put my interests ahead of other people’s, I’m not being greedy or self-centred or anti-social; I’m just being rational.

Economic fundamentalism, like ideological extremism of every kind tends to be blinding. It easily blinds us to values that lie beyond the economic or materialistic sphere. Not only that, economic fundamentalism is incapable of putting a value of many things including virtually all aspects of nature. The fact that a value has been put on urban tree plantings may seem to say otherwise, but any attempt to assess nature in dollar terms is doomed to be difficult, dangerous and demeaning.

  • It’s difficult because it presupposes complete knowledge, when in fact our understanding of what natural products and services could be useful is very incomplete.
  • It’s dangerous because economic calculations ignore social concerns about who benefits and who loses. It is dangerous also because market-determined values fluctuate as economic conditions change.
  • It’s demeaning because it is an invitation to act with ignorance and arrogance. How presumptuous it is to assume that natural beauty, serenity, tranquility or wonder, for example, can be measured in monetary terms!

Unfortunately, economic terms are the ones that dominate present-day public discourse. There are conservation and other organizations in our own society striving to change that discourse – to have all things in nature, including ourselves, seen primarily as ends and much less as means. All such organisations warrant our support.

At the personal level, we can help support the change by modelling, advocating and promoting the “I-you” rather than the “I-it” relationship with nature. And we can certainly resist trivialising nature by discussing it in marketplace terms. We do well to heed what the noted environmental ethicist Aldo Leopold said:

We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »