In their new paper, “Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions”, just published today in the Online Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Paul Ehrlich and Robert Pringle, two researchers from Stanford University, propose a “hopeful portfolio” of seven strategies, to remedy the global biodiversity crisis. One such strategy involves getting biodiversity onto the cultural radar screen. Here it is – I have highlighted suggested actions -
For decades, conservationists have appealed to aesthetics as a principal reason to conserve wild areas and species. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the 13-billion-plus beholding eyes of the world are drawn to many things that are hostile to biodiversity: large families, tractors, treasure, pavement, goats, and Cadillacs, to name a few. The processes of economic and infrastructural development help to divorce people from the natural world. Moreover, although outdoor recreation and ecotourism are still important parts of many lives in rich countries, biophilic impulses seem increasingly swamped by other stimuli. In the United States, the rise of electronic media has coincided with a 20-year downturn in National Park visitation, after 50 years of steady increase. Recent findings indicate that similar declines in contact with nature are common to developed nations worldwide. Such trends will not be reversed and the biodiversity crisis will not be resolved until nature can rival virtual reality as a source of entertainment, intrigue, and inspiration. Janzen offers a compelling analogy: as books are uninteresting and useless to an illiterate person, so is biodiversity uninteresting and useless to a bioilliterate person. People keep what they use, and increasing bioliteracy would enable more people to find uses for biodiversity. Demand for ecotourism and perceived ‘‘existence values” would increase and, with them, biodiversity sustaining revenues. In a world of stingy appropriations for conservation, we have a wonderful academic literature on how to maximize returns on conservation investments. But we have spent comparatively little effort figuring out ways to create a world of biodiversity fanatics and conservation voters, where conservation resources would presumably flow more freely. The earlier in the developmental process comes exposure to nature, the better the odds of inspiring devotion to biodiversity and its conservation. It is a rare conservationist who did not encounter nature as a child. Every one of us can go to elementary schools to show pictures of animals and plants and tell funny stories about ecology. The teachers will be happy to have us. More ambitious people might think about how to finance and institutionalize school field trips to natural areas. Those of us who work in the tropics can do these things there, too. Clearly, we can also use other strategies. One method is to appropriate the very technologies that are currently enforcing the divide between people and biodiversity. Biodiversity is increasingly on the World Wide Web via projects such as the Encyclopedia of Life and Wikispecies. But we can do more. We can upload science and nature shorts to YouTube and contribute our knowledge to Wikipedia and its offshoots. We can post our lectures online. We can work to add ecological dimensions to online virtual-reality platforms and video games like Second Life, which currently has 10 million registered accounts. These are obvious ideas; many more are possible. There is hope here. Online sales have helped to revitalize classical music which is like biodiversity in that its devotees have long been predicting and lamenting its demise. Some have argued that the key to widespread biodiversity appreciation is the ability to know immediately what is what in nature. Janzen believes that this requires a comprehensive library of DNA barcodes along with a handheld, nanotechnological, field-portable sequencing device. We are hopeful about this dream, as well as any other means of achieving the same end. Profound social transformations are not impossible or ‘‘unrealistic.” Shifts happen. They have happened in our lifetimes. We all know these terms: segregation, Iron Curtain, apartheid. ‘‘Anthropogenic extinction” belongs on that list. More than anything else, the long-term future of biodiversity will be determined by our success or failure in helping to precipitate such an overhaul in popular perceptions of nature and what it means.
My way of getting biodiversity onto the cultural radar screen is to blog here, and on other blogs, and to link back to this post in my comments on other blogs. Also to tweet, and digg, and stumble, as much as I can about the topic. What can you do?
Wow, fascinating post. “Some have argued that the key to widespread biodiversity appreciation is the ability to know immediately what is what in nature.” My father is an unbelievably organized and methodical birdwatcher, identifier of grasses, plants, insects (dragonflies + butterflies in particular) — and my SIL is an organic master gardener so appears on hikes to know just about every plant you could encounter. I treasure my time with them and love that my kids are going to be exposed to their appreciation and careful attention to the world around us. I might just need the field-portable device! Regardless, I think that the things I love to do outdoors — ie hiking, camping, gardening, walking dogs — are those that I naturally share just by virtue of loving them so much. Agreed that the earlier the better on exposure — so that valuing and appreciating our environment and the creatures/plants around us is the norm. To that end, I think that school gardens and outdoor/science ed programs are invaluable, as are adventure/leadership programs for teens. I think exercise is also a key to loving the outdoors….
Thanks for the sharing, Mama! Besides my grandfather, I too had a family friend who was a botanist and would take us with him when I was a kid. At the time, I used to be annoyed by his nature “lessons” about all the plants and the insects. In retrospect, I am thankful for Monsieur Rageau’s lessons.
I wonder why there are not more volunteer programs for nature enthusiasts to visit schools and take kids on field trips. It should not be so complicated. So many retired folks would love to share their knowledge.
Real story: I dropped biology as a subject in high school for a large part because I hated the assignment where we had to collect a diversity of leaves to make some kind of report by pasting the leaves onto paper, with small descriptions at the side. That was my first conscious encounter with biodiversity, and I hated it.
I think there’s no real need for bioliteracy. Just explain how the food chains and such work (which I don’t know because I didn’t took biology) and add to that the simple question: Do you like nature?
Let’s just give nature some, shall we? The nice part about nature is that you don’t have to know how it works for it to work. In that sense, it’s the opposite of agriculture.
Agree with you Meryn that schools in general are doing a poor job of teaching biology. Biology is the science of life. It should not be about dead leaves . . .
Maybe bioliteracy is the wrong word. A better way to think about this, is people need to understand the connection between their day to day behaviors and how those affect their natural environment. They need to see where they fit in the loop. Same problem as with climate change. The difference is, with global warming, most people now have a pretty good awareness of what ‘s good and bad in terms of their actions relative to their impact on GHGs. Not so with biodiversity loss. That’s a first step. Next will come the challenge of how to move them into action. Again, as with climate change, we want to focus on area of intersection between personal and global interest.
I just finished writing another HuffPo article, this time on “What the heck is biodiversity? And why should we care?” It should be up soon.
I agree with you, but I’d rather call that ecoliteracy – ecological literacy. I think Ecology should be a mandatory subject in schools. Of course, ecology would contain lessons about biodiversity.
It will also help in preventing people to think that neoclassical economics is the only way to reason about the world in exact terms (as I did when I was younger), and subsequently would make the Ecological Economics school seem far more legitimate.
I look forward to reading your next HP article!
I keep meaning to dig into ecological economics . . . You brought it to our attention a while ago, and it is definitely an understudied subject, worth popularizing.
Very informative post. I agree that schools do a lousy job educating our kids about biology. Mostly I believe this is because we start so late and then have no time to delve deeper.
Another great resource is the Biodiversity Project, based in Madison, WI. They’ve been doing terrific work, especially in the Great Lakes region, to mount public campaigns to raise awareness about biodiversity and change behavior. They’re having a conference in Washington, D.C. in December to continue to advance a blueprint to promote and protect biodiversity. Social media will play a big role.