These are all important species to save, and the tools are available. It takes the will of the governments, the locals, and the international community. Of course, scaling down would be a primary solution overall for conservation. Thanks for helping increase awareness.
Thanks, Tony, for the excellent article! Scaling down is a good tactic we can all practice. I wonder about how we can shift the bigger forces of policy and governmental organizations. Sometimes it feels like we are pounding our heads against brick walls. Your writing is compelling and exceptional, by the way…
Much appreciated, Nikki. I'm encouraged by the number of people I'm hearing from who understand the need for humanity to scale down. Therein lies hope.
Scaling down will result in increased wildlife death and habitat destruction. The poverty stricken will kill wildlife and destroy the environment in a struggle for survival. Creating wealth through industrialization and plentiful energy will motivate people to preserve and protect the environment. Although certainly we do want to continue the trend to zero population growth. Apart from that, only a highly industrialized, high energy society can live in harmony with our wonderful natural bounty. Those are just the facts, facts that the Malthusian Rent-Seekers don't want anyone to know.
One example used in my essay (grizzly bear) involves a very industrialized, affluent country. It's not just about an extinct grizzly bear. The U.S., in fact, has a long list of threatened species, many with little or no hope for recovery. As for Chile, human overdevelopment in the huemul area has nothing to do with helping poverty stricken people. In fact, some less affluent people there were recently forced off their land to make way for a huge industrial dam and reservoir that will destroy a vast area of native forest and all the wildlife in it. Scaling down consumption of land and population growth in both countries would definitely prevent wildlife dead and destruction — certainly not increase it. You may be referring to parts of the world where there are impoverished people and so, improving living standards by say providing renewable energy, may lessen such things as deforestation. Madagascar is one such place. Yet it's hard to imagine there will be much of nature left there unless the human population quickly stabilizes. As for "highly industrialized, high energy" societies living in harmony with nature, I know of none. Perhaps it depends on how one defines "nature," but certainly not in the way I define it as a wildlife biologist with deep concern for all life. In my view, the Earth's "wonderful natural boundary" doesn't just belong to us.
Feb 3, 2022·edited Feb 3, 2022Liked by Tony Povilitis
Hola Tony, Indeed. Thank you for the emphasis on transformative change - that's where its at. The conservation community gets it, as we are aware of our responsibility, our role and our place on this planet. It's getting our governmental leaders and land use policy writers to create new meaning on protecting the environment and the wildlife in it, by personally and whole heartedly seeing themselves in the world and how their actions play out in governmental leadership. To create a new meaning and create a transformative change, there needs be a personal encounter or a hands-on engagement to create that change and bring personal meaning to our everyday actions. I can say, by experience, that being involved in volunteer conservation projects has heighted my global awareness of my place on this planet. Gracias, Tony for a great essay on bringing awareness to this matter.
Great essay, Tony. It's so hard to be aware of such a fast and enormous decline in nature since the 1950s. I guess it's the price of being alive during the massive exponential growth of the human enterprise. Holding out hope for the giraffes.
Thank you, Tony! Very well said and a moving appeal to scale down!
Much appreciated!
These are all important species to save, and the tools are available. It takes the will of the governments, the locals, and the international community. Of course, scaling down would be a primary solution overall for conservation. Thanks for helping increase awareness.
Thank you, Walt! I draw inspiration from conservationists like you who never give up. Cheers.
Thanks, Tony, for the excellent article! Scaling down is a good tactic we can all practice. I wonder about how we can shift the bigger forces of policy and governmental organizations. Sometimes it feels like we are pounding our heads against brick walls. Your writing is compelling and exceptional, by the way…
Much appreciated, Nikki. I'm encouraged by the number of people I'm hearing from who understand the need for humanity to scale down. Therein lies hope.
Yes, every bit helps, for sure. Thanks for encouraging people to take action.
Scaling down will result in increased wildlife death and habitat destruction. The poverty stricken will kill wildlife and destroy the environment in a struggle for survival. Creating wealth through industrialization and plentiful energy will motivate people to preserve and protect the environment. Although certainly we do want to continue the trend to zero population growth. Apart from that, only a highly industrialized, high energy society can live in harmony with our wonderful natural bounty. Those are just the facts, facts that the Malthusian Rent-Seekers don't want anyone to know.
One example used in my essay (grizzly bear) involves a very industrialized, affluent country. It's not just about an extinct grizzly bear. The U.S., in fact, has a long list of threatened species, many with little or no hope for recovery. As for Chile, human overdevelopment in the huemul area has nothing to do with helping poverty stricken people. In fact, some less affluent people there were recently forced off their land to make way for a huge industrial dam and reservoir that will destroy a vast area of native forest and all the wildlife in it. Scaling down consumption of land and population growth in both countries would definitely prevent wildlife dead and destruction — certainly not increase it. You may be referring to parts of the world where there are impoverished people and so, improving living standards by say providing renewable energy, may lessen such things as deforestation. Madagascar is one such place. Yet it's hard to imagine there will be much of nature left there unless the human population quickly stabilizes. As for "highly industrialized, high energy" societies living in harmony with nature, I know of none. Perhaps it depends on how one defines "nature," but certainly not in the way I define it as a wildlife biologist with deep concern for all life. In my view, the Earth's "wonderful natural boundary" doesn't just belong to us.
Excelente reflexión querido Tony, estamos destruyendo toda la biodiversidad de nuestro planeta. Es una pena.
Muchas gracias, Ana. Espero que juntos podamos hace la diferencia! Un abrazo.
Hola Tony, Indeed. Thank you for the emphasis on transformative change - that's where its at. The conservation community gets it, as we are aware of our responsibility, our role and our place on this planet. It's getting our governmental leaders and land use policy writers to create new meaning on protecting the environment and the wildlife in it, by personally and whole heartedly seeing themselves in the world and how their actions play out in governmental leadership. To create a new meaning and create a transformative change, there needs be a personal encounter or a hands-on engagement to create that change and bring personal meaning to our everyday actions. I can say, by experience, that being involved in volunteer conservation projects has heighted my global awareness of my place on this planet. Gracias, Tony for a great essay on bringing awareness to this matter.
Un abrazo, Susana.
Great essay, Tony. It's so hard to be aware of such a fast and enormous decline in nature since the 1950s. I guess it's the price of being alive during the massive exponential growth of the human enterprise. Holding out hope for the giraffes.