Conservation needs a clearer definition in 2010. It’s been in rehab. We’re talking about a term that has been associated with the environment for decades and decades. But throughout this time our physical negative impact on Earth has steadily risen. Conserving is still a critical behavior - with a different slant.
So, what are the historical vs. current distinctions?
From the beginning of our oil age (mid-19th C.) public concerns began to bubble up about cavalier use of land for urban, suburban, transportation and recreational purposes. The United States was growing rapidly. Red flags were raised about the human dominance attitude upon the natural environment. Muir, Roosevelt and others led the way to reserving massive tracts of land for national parks. Mainstream environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and Audubon Society, formed powerful and united voices. Ansel Adams produced black and white photography that spoke thousands of words in defense of simple and dramatic natural wonders. In the first half of the 20th century, the understanding of natural interrelationships among organisms and land matured. Leopold developed the science of ecology and land ethics. A bit later, Ed Abbey defended and ranted against the vandalism of natural landscapes of the West. Earth Day - 1970. “Save the Rainforest” and “Save the Whales” were cries in the 1980’s. GREENPEACE patrolled and monitored the seas. There were less patient and more militant organizations, such as EarthFirst! Environmental groups proliferated and set the foundation for the 21st century.
In general, the impetus for action and concern during this time was to preserve and protect the natural environment. A “Conservation Movement” evolved, which strived to keep nature natural; to protect the land’s beauty, its geological history, and its spiritual gifts to mankind. It meant conserving it from pollutants and the bulldozer. We “treaded lightly” and “packed it in; packed it out.” Endangered species and DDT took center stage. We conserved habitat for the timber wolf, the great blue, and northern spotted owl. To be sure, conservation of energy was an important component. So, where do we stand now; a decade into the next century? How has conservation morphed?
We are now in the land of a triple (at least) whammy. Fossil fuel emissions have jeopardized our futures with greenhouse gases. The extraction of fossil fuels has lead to peak oil constraints. Population numbers rise to ever more unmanageable levels. Our finite Mother will need a breather and she will take it. We will need to transition into consuming less of everything in order to maintain any semblance of sustainability.
Conservation, then, becomes a personal and universal movement that cuts back and down-sizes our current usage of every natural resource. This is where the visceral context kicks in. We are certainly protecting and preserving, but the preservation now involves insuring human sustainability. After a long period of unleashed growth and natural resource energy waste, we must now, individually and collectively, conserve in order to sustain.
I see two options:
Informed Conservation vs. Coerced Conservation
We can either voluntarily begin to create habits of less and pass them on to our young people, or we may be forced into consuming less without preparation.
Conservation, in this sense, has not yet taken on a critical urgency by the general public. For many reasons, comfort and denial being two, we do not conserve to any great extent in our daily routines.
We tend to depend on the future magic of technology and the erroneous assumptions of infinite resources to procrastinate our personal cut-backs. It is very difficult to change habits when everything appears to be clicking right along in our lives. As stated in the previous post, it’s incredibly difficult to turn an ocean liner. Behavior changes are in the same league. It's a tough mandate.
Conservation, then, has become more of an energy and consumption-based concept. And the elephant has entered the room.
