There is something of a revolution going on in conservation ecology these days. And since neither guns, cocaine nor Marx are involved, I am clearly not talking about that kind of revolution. I refer instead to something called "reconciliation ecology", and it is quietly gaining steam in the arenas of conservation biology, urban planning, and good old pragmatism.
In a nutshell, it is the simple admission that sticking nature in protected reserves and writing everything else off is a fundamentally flawed strategy. Reconciliation ecology is the study and practice of integrating nature into our cities, suburbs, and farms, thereby taking a few eggs out of the nature reserve basket.
This is, of course, not a new concept in much of the world. Rooftop and windowsill gardens have been a staple of European and Asian cities for centuries. But nature conservation in the United States is still informed primarily by the "big wilderness" myth popularized by the Hudson River School. But I think we're coming around.
That is not to say we shouldn't keep making nature reserves, only that we cannot rely on them to preserve the Earth's biological diversity in perpetuity. And besides, relegating nature only to nature preserves means that people aren't exposed to it, and if people aren't exposed to nature, why should they care about its protection?
Just a little something to think about.
Comments