Thanks for forwarding the article, Hugh.
Certainly what the article refers to as the "traditional" approach of setting aside areas off-limits to humans (national parks, etc.) is one way to protect biodiversity. It’s also true, however, that indigenous people and other local inhabitants can often do a great job of protecting biodiversity, provided that their cultures have worked out a way of achieving symbiotic relationships with their local environments. Once the big companies come in, though, and start razing old-growth forests to plant monocultures (palm oil plantations, etc.), everything changes. My idea would be that we need to preserve as much biodiversity as possible, by not converting any more biologically diverse land whatsoever into monocultures. In fact, we should be trying to rewild areas and to increase habitats, especially for endangered species. If indigenous people can be good stewards of biodiversity, then they shouldn’t be excluded from living in biologically diverse areas. But by all means keep out the companies rather than form alliances with them! We also need to think about ways to achieve human well-being that are based on meeting basic needs in ecologically sustainable and socially just ways instead of promoting economic growth, industrialization, and consumerism. Rather than revise the traditional approaches to conservation, we need to revise our approach to development. Focusing on new genuinely sustainable models of development would probably enable us to dispense entirely with the "new conservation."
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Hugh Paxton <paxton.bkk> wrote:
This is a very spontaneous spot poll to get your opinions on the following article.
Should wildlife conservationists be saving wildlife species or helping local communities to dig toilets? To possibly help diminishing wetlands becoming contaminated to preserve them? Or what?
A lot of ideas here in this article? What are your ideas? Please let me know! The world awaits your thoughts!