Author Archives: Nicholas Nehaul

Posts by Nicholas Nehaul

Changes in Rodent Communities According to the Landscape Structure in an Urban Ecosystem

Posted on December 9, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

Source: Cavia, Regino, Gerardo Rubén Cueto, and Olga Virginia Suárez. “Changes in Rodent Communities According to the Landscape Structure in an Urban Ecosystem.”Landscape and Urban Planning 90.1-2 (2009): 11-19. Print.

In this study, the researches wanted to understand the community structure of rodents and the abundance of individual species based on local conditions and the landscape. Information on rodent distribution is important because rodents are carriers for disease and are often involved in the transmission of disease to humans and domestic animals. Since urban ecosystems are more prone to pest outbreaks, the researchers wanted to provide a study to assist urban planning in future.

Cavia et al. designed the study in Buenos Aries, Argentina, to test the population densities of various rodents based on an environmental gradient. The sites varied from tree cover, to low vegetative cover, to simply buildings. The researchers collected data from 9 sites in total. One assumption in the study was that rodent population did not significantly change based on the season in which the data was collected.

The results of the study showed that native rodents clustered in vegetated environments. R. Norvegicus, M. Musculus, and R. Rattus were the most common species. The most important conclusion is that urbanization resulted in the decrease in species diversity and richness. Specifically, the results form this study helps New York City because it can be useful in mapping the distribution of species. However, the researchers pointed out that New York City saw a slightly different distribution of rodent species because of the difference in geography (dominated by R. Norvegicus because of colder climate). Nonetheless, NYC can use this study to plan pest control and help protect urban residents from seeing an outbreak of rodents because they will have a better idea of how the landscape affects the rodent population.

http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/urbanizacion/files/CAVIA/Cavia%20et%20al%202008.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

Postel and Barton’s study outlines the risks that development poses to New York City’s water supply if its watershed is not protected. In addition, the study also compares the cost of implementing filtration plants against the natural protection provided by our watershed. Finally, they propose several programs that will help New York preserve the watershed and prevent it from further development and destruction.

According to the study, the continued loss of watershed services poses harm to human health by affecting the quality of water, the cost of supplying that water, and crop productivity. Studies have shown that vegetation and soils of forests have a great ability to filter contaminants and trap sediments that often end up in our water source. With this in mind, Postel and Barton analyzed 27 US water suppliers to understand the filtration cost that is abated through the watershed. Their data predicts that the treatment costs of drinking water will increase significantly as forest cover decreases. Hence, forest cover is a natural filter that reduces expenditure. To avoid future spending, Postel suggests a partnership program between landowners, loggers, and timber companies to better manage forests and keep the watershed intact. These goals go hand in hand with the environmental cause because they limit development to areas that are less likely to affect our water quality and supply.

In addition, deforestation, road construction, and poor farming techniques have all contributed to the contamination of drinking water. Without the forest, there will be an increase of sedimentation from hillside erosion. This will cause sediment to runoff into streams and continually reduce reservoir storage each year. Hence, the need for a new supply of water will soon arise. Likewise, fertilizers and pesticides used on crops also reduce water supply.  They enter groundwater, pollute a source of clean water and also disrupt aquatic habitats. As advocate against the deterioration of our environment, such practices should be penalized because they directly correlated to the reduction of clean water sources and the loss of habitats that rely on them.

As a result, this study supports the environmental cause because it shows that further development will hurt New York City’s water quality and supply. Furthermore, destruction of the watershed is also an economical problem because nature provides a free resource to help filter sediment, pollutants, and some toxins out of the water before it reaches our streams, lakes, and rivers. Consequently, aquatic habitats are also preserved in the process. Altogether, the environmental group his highly opposed to any plans that intend to alter the watershed for construction and development because the risks induce massive costs both to human health and to the City’s budget.

Source:

Postel, Sandra L., and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. “Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services.” Natural Resources Forum 29 (2005): 98-108. Web.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

1.  You seem to be very practical in your approach to conservation, so would you agree that the function of an ecosystem is more important than its composition?

2. Are you willing to accept the consequences (extinctions, loss of larger species, aesthetic beauty etc.) that come with abandoning the traditional approach to conservation?

3. If we embrace the idea of cultivating rambunctious gardens, does that give us licenses continue human encroachment on wildlife? Or is the rambunctious garden simply a solution meant for conservation in places where human disturbance is reeking havoc?

4.  Even if the idea of a Rambunctious Garden was implemented fully, isn’t there a limit to the amount of species these fragmented wildernesses can support within a city? If so, wouldn’t the cost of advocating and implementing the idea be of better use if geared towards a more all-encompassing approach?

5. You mentioned that some of your peers are slowly coming to negative conclusions in their attempt to achieve pristine wilderness by reverting to the baseline. How feasible is it that such attitudes will become published and supported in the near future? Especially since the government is already heavily invested in the more traditional approaches to conservation.

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

1. How does deteriorating buildings and houses affect the health of individuals living in a neighborhood?

2. How does poor living conditions (exposure to toxic chemicals, lead hazards) contribute to birth defects for babies born in New York City?

3. How does the amount of parks and the accessibility of parks affect the health of residents throughout New York City?

New Goals and Compromises – Chapter 10

Posted on October 6, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

In the final chapter of her book, Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris outlines seven major goals of conservation. However, her point is that there is no single goal that will be suited for all situations. Marris believes we need to let go of the pristine and focus on common goals for every piece of land.

The first goal Marris presents is the biocentric view of life, which aims to protect the rights of other species. This idea is also termed “deep ecology,” believing that all living things have intrinsic value and should be protected. Of course, ecologists do not agree on which species should hold more value than others. Hence, when choosing between the rights of cats and the rights of albatross nestlings they are destroying, there is a great deal of uncertainty among deep ecologists (221). As a result, conservation based on biocentric goals is going to differ depending on perspective.

The second goal Marris presents is the idea of protecting the charismatic metafauna, or the very large animals that humans love. Such species include whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, tigers, pandas, etc. While it may seem selfish of humans to prefer larger species, scientists have found that many of the most popular are keystone species. Meaning, these species are integral parts of the ecosystem and as a result, preserving them would mean helping to preserve the species that live alongside them. However, simply focusing on one set of species can get highly emotional and is not always guaranteed to provide an umbrella for the lesser-advocated species.

In presenting the third goal, Marris cites Hugh Possingham, an Australian mathematical ecologist, to show that slowing extinction rates does not always protect ecosystems. Possingham believed that the extinction value of every species was equal and as a result, we should focus on the more financially feasible protection projects. This means that some favorite species will be lost because it is too financially taxing to invest in their cause. It also means that protecting species is sometimes implemented through captive breeding programs to be efficient with resources. Hence, the mathematical approach to slowing extinction is not all encompassing.

Goals four and five focus on protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity. Defining these terms are crucial to developing plans for conservation. Some organizations choose to focus on protecting animals that are genetically “weird” in hopes of preserving millions of years of evolution. In the case of biodiversity, the complexity of ecosystems makes it difficult to pinpoint what needs to be preserved. As a result, there is a lot of gray area when tackling conservation from the perspective of preserving biodiversity and even genetic diversity.

The last two goals of maximizing ecosystem services and protecting the spiritual/aesthetic experience of nature provide contrasting approaches to conservation. Focusing on ecosystem services is a practical approach that realizes we have finite resources that need to be preserved. However, this approach does not account for biodiversity or aesthetic beauty. On the other hand, the idea of protecting nature for its spiritual and aesthetic qualities is an emotional approach that attributes value to the beauty of nature. Hence, we must once again choose between what is practical and what we value.

Altogether, these seven goals stress the need for compromise. We cannot simply view conservation through a single lens. Each party involved in the conservation effort of a piece of land must decide what their individual goals are and find common ground between those goals. This is the idea of the rambunctious garden, where there are different chunks of wilderness in different places conserved with different motives.

Marris, Chapter 8 & 9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

In chapter eight of her book, Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the concept of a designer ecosystem. The idea is to establish and achieve a goal for an ecosystem without expending a vast amount of resources in the process. In addition, Marris also discusses the notion that conservation can be implemented everywhere through a combination of designer ecosystems and other methods discussed in previous chapters.

To begin, designer ecosystems seem to be the most practical approach that Marris has described regarding conservation because it is cost effective and goal oriented. First, scientists decide what goal is most important to them concerning a specific ecosystem. Then, they go about implementing only the changes that will help achieve their particular goal. Meaning, they do not waste time and resources attempting to revert to the baseline in hopes of recreating an ecosystem that is not guaranteed to survive in our current climate (179). Instead, scientists are able to ensure that a certain species or ecological function remains intact by focusing on that specific species or function. For example, Dee Boersma, an ecologist at the University of Washington, wanted to protect the population of Galapagos penguins from introduced rats. As a result, he drilled nesting holes into the rocks of their ecosystem, making it difficult for the rats to prey on the eggs (183). Hence, by focusing on preserving the penguins, Brown was able to find a cost effective solution that allowed the penguin to survive predation without having to control the rat population.  Altogether, this idea suggests that there are efficient ways of achieving what we desire in an ecosystem without going back to the baseline or trying to achieve the pristine.

In chapter nine, Marris makes a general claim that conservation involves thinking beyond the protected areas by continuously adding lands to the portfolio. Meaning, we should consider nature in unlikely places such as industrial rivers, farms, and even our own backyards. Hence, the effort to conserve is always complemented by adding land to the mix. This is extremely beneficial because it creates larger natural areas, making it easier for big species to avoid extinction (196). Scientists don’t agree completely on the methods to use, but many advocate creating small reserves in private gardens, yards, rooftops, etc. as a way of starting the process without having to rely on big corporations or the government. However, Marris correctly points out that to create a movement behind such conservation, it will require both a change in aesthetics and a change in the values we hold toward nature. As a result, we need to embrace nature that is not pristine and begin to see value in nature that exists in the background of human lives.

Altogether, Marris’s description of designer ecosystems as goal oriented and cost effective makes it easy to support it over the traditional approach. In addition, her idea that conservation can be accomplished in the most unlikely of places gives hope to the movement because everyone can do their part by creating little reserves in the backdrop of their living environment.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapter 6 & 7

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

In chapter six and seven of her book, Rambunctious Gardens, Emma Marris argues against the culture of fighting invasive species and supports the idea of allowing novel ecosystems to flourish. Although Marris makes it clear that not all invasive species are detrimental, she still minimizes the severity their impact can have on certain ecosystems. In addition, her support for novel ecosystems faces huge opposition from the existing attitudes towards non-native species.

Marris argues against the traditional view proposed by ecologists, such as Charles Elton, without giving serious attention to the devastative effects invasive species exhibited in the past. Elton believed that exotic species that establish themselves in an environment are likely to cause damage. Marris tackles this idea by claiming that the enemy is humans, not exotics (141). She argues that humans are largely responsible for transporting species to various ecosystems and end up expending a vast amount of resources to reverse the consequences. As a result, Marris supports the idea of allowing non-native species to continue living in ecosystems to which they were accidently introduced. However, she does not give proper attention to the invasive species that have ravaged unsuspecting ecosystems. For instance, the accidental introduction of brown tree snakes to Guam has utterly decimated the bird population. Moreover, since the snake has no natural predator, its population has skyrocketed and caused major problems for residents. Hence, while Marris makes a point that it is counterproductive to fight against invasive species, we cannot simply allow non-natives to grow out of control because the consequences can be devastating.

In chapter seven, Marris suggests that we change the way we view novel ecosystems. She points out that many ecologists dislike these ecosystems, which are comprised of exotic species, because they are not pristine (165). Hence, they are typically viewed as artificial because they did not co-evolve over millions of years. However, changing the perception of novel ecosystems is no easy task. The government is already highly vested in eradicating non-native species. In addition, since the succession pattern of novel ecosystems is unpredictable, many are afraid of embracing the idea. Yet, novel ecosystems have just as much biodiversity as native ecosystems and have even proven to be more productive than their native counterparts. As a result, Marris makes a good claim for embracing novel ecosystems but still faces hurdles from the traditional views held by others.

Altogether, Emma Marris presents a valid claim that humans are largely responsible for invasive species and that not all non-native species are detrimental to the environment. However, her approach of simply embracing the growth of exotic species in their new environments overlooks the harsh consequences that some invasive species can have on certain ecosystems. Likewise, her position on novel ecosystem also faces hindrances because she goes against the traditional perception held by most ecologists. As a result, Marris’s ideas concerning invasive species and novel ecosystems are not likely to be embraced in the near future.

The Rambunctious High Line & Salter

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

The High Line seems to be the embodiment of Emma Marris’s idea of a “rambunctious garden” because it is an ecosystem that interacts, grows, and coexists alongside human development. For over 12 years, the park has been able to survive the destructive human hand and is currently flourishing in the backyard of New York City.

The High Line’s resilient nature and improbable location already distinguishes it as a rambunctious garden. The park is cultivated on top of an old railroad line that runs along the West side of Manhattan.  Along the elevated strip of land, nature is cramped and constricted by the boundaries of human development. Plants are confined to patches of soil that are bordered by fences and walkways. In addition, skyscrapers limit sunlight in some areas, while noise and air pollution add extra burdens to the ecosystem. Yet, plants and their pollinators have managed to bypass such substantial hindrances and continue to grow within the constraints of their new environment. As a result, the High Line matches the description of Marris’s “rambunctious garden” because it is cultivated in our own “backyard” and has withstood the harsh conditions of an urban environment.

Richard Salter’s study on the flora of the High Line mostly reaffirms my viewpoint that there is no better example of a rambunctious garden than the one embodied in the High Line. In addition, the study also allowed me to understand that rambunctious gardens are feasible and should be encouraged. For example, Salter observed that the High Line’s species richness was greater than four nearby New York City sites. Meaning, even on that narrow stretch of compact soil, the ecosystem was thriving more than some city parks. However, my only reservation is the fact that primary succession is limited. This should inevitably lend itself to more plant diversity. In addition, since a walkway runs through the middle of the High Line, humans inadvertently transport seeds and new species to the environment. Hence, the high species richness of the High Line could have less to do with the actual environment and more to do with external factors that promote its growth and diversity. Yet, regardless of what factors contributed to its development, the High Line still stands as a good example of what a rambunctious garden should entail.

Overall, our visit to the High Line helped to place Emma Marris’s idea of a “rambunctious garden” into visual perspective. I can now envision the possibilities of integrating a highly developed urban environment with nature that once seemed fragile. In addition, the pollinators of the High Line helped me pay close attention to interdependent characteristic of ecosystems. Regardless of Salter’s explanation for the high species diversity of the High Line, I believe that “rambunctious gardens” are plausible and should be supported in cities like NYC.

 

Alternative Assignment: NYC DOH Environmental Health Tracking Portal

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

This table breaks down the preterm birth rates in each borough of the City for 2008. According to the data, New York City experienced the highest percentage of preterm births in the Bronx. However, the actual number of preterm births was greatest in Brooklyn for the same year.

This graph depicts the disparity between preterm births in neighborhoods of low, medium, and high poverty. According to the graph, between 2004 and 2008 preterm births in areas of high poverty consistently outweigh preterm births in areas of low poverty. The data supports the trend that preterm births increase as we move from neighborhoods of low poverty to neighborhoods of high poverty.  Hence, preterm births seem to be positively correlated with poverty. Of the years observed, 2005 experienced the greatest number of preterm births across each category of neighborhoods.

 

This scatterplot examines the correlation between preterm births and presence of sulfur dioxide in the air. There is a slight negative correlation but for the most part, the graph shows that an increase in sulfur dioxide has little to no effect on preterm birth rates in neighborhoods across New York City.

The graph reveals that preterm birth rates have been very stable and consistent over time. There seems to be very little variation in the rate of preterm births in any of the five boroughs from 1999-2008.

This map depicts the concentration of preterm births in neighborhoods across the City for 2008. In general, the outer regions of NYC seem to have a higher percentage of preterm births than the inner regions. In addition, neighborhoods in the Bronx have consistently high concentrations of preterm births. On the other hand, neighborhoods in Manhattan appear to have low preterm birth rates.

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

Assisted migration is a fairly recent concept that attempts to relocate species that are struggling to survive by introducing them to ecosystems that are more conducive to their survival. However, while some scientists believe it is our responsibility to assist species that are on struggling to adapt, I believe the case against intervention is much more concrete. In chapter five of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses the reasoning behind both arguments.

To begin, the arguments supporting assisted migration hinge on the fact that we are responsible for creating environmental conditions that make it difficult for certain species to survive in their natural habitat. Hence, some scientists believe it is our responsibility to intervene in order to prevent these species from going extinct. Marris points out that the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and industrial gases that humans have pumped into the atmosphere has severely altered our climate (107). Our world has become hotter and more extreme; some areas get more rain, others get less. Consequently, some species can no longer survive in their original habitat and are forced to migrate to environments that do not exceed their threshold of tolerance. According to the ICPP (International Panel on Climate Change), the average species moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade (111). Those species that are unable to move, eventually die (and if they are the last of their kind, become extinct). As a result, some scientists view assisted migration as our obligation because humans are largely responsible for altering the atmospheric conditions to begin with.

Although it might feel like our responsibility to assist nature in its survival, it is not very clear that our assistance will have a positive impact. Marris makes the case that scientists have traditionally approached conservation from the standpoint of nonintervention. If they suddenly abandon this idea for the sake of their conscience, then scientists will start changing the very baselines they have fought so hard to preserve (117). In addition, there is not enough research to predict the type of effect that introducing a new species to a new environment will have. There is legitimate fear among scientists that some species will become invasive and ravage their new home. On the other hand, some may not survive at all. More importantly, it is not feasible to relocate every species on the verge of extinction. To do so would require financial resources far greater than any citizen or country is willing to spend. Hence, assisted migration comes with a hefty price tag, many educated guesses, and the prospective of unforeseen consequences.

Altogether, we are responsible for creating the climate change that makes it difficult for some species to survive in their natural habitat, but it is not our responsibility to assist them in migration. Our intervention is likely to disrupt other ecosystems, reverse our principles on conservation, and create financial burdens. Hence, it is more acceptable for us to refrain from assisted migration until our research can provide more definitive outcomes.

Rewilding

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

As described by Emma Marris in her book, Rambunctious Garden, the idea of rewilding consists of establishing certain main factors and allowing nature to rebuild an ecosystem that is similar to one that existed in the past. While the idea is intriguing, it is also very unpredictable and based on many assumptions. Hence, it might not be scientifically feasible to recreate a wild that existed thousands of years ago.

In chapter four, Marris specifically discusses the concept of Pleistocene rewilding, where establishing a few necessary factors results in an ecosystem that is resilient and diverse. This idea was presented by Michael Soule, a conservation biologist who wanted to restore the entire pre-Columbian set of Carnivores in North America as a way of preserving diversity (Marris, 88). The idea was originally to inspire people to support conservation through restoration of long-lost processes such as intensive grazing or population control by large predators (92). However, in restoring ecosystems where nature once again “lives wild and large,” we enter a region of uncertainty. For instance, Marris reports that there is a groundbreaking paper every six months detailing an unexpected ecosystem shift in Yellowstone National Part due to the reintroduction of wolves (large predators). If these findings are not uncommon, it stands to say that the reintroduction of large mammals to any ecosystem will result in unexpected ecological change.

In addition, over the last 13000 years, many large North American species have become extinct. Consequently, scientists are finding animals that fit the same ecological function as the extinct species, proxies, and introducing them to ecosystems as part of the rewilding process. This adds yet another variable to the equation and assumes that the proxies will have the same or similar ecological impact, growth, and development as the original species. While it may be intriguing to ponder the possibilities of such rewilding and measure its effects, the idea that we can recreate a wild ecosystem that existed thousands of years ago is not scientifically feasible because there are too many loose variables.

Altogether, the prospect of rewilding can provide hopes of recovering the nature of old, but it is more likely that the outcome will be unpredictable. Yet, there is something very fascinating about pursuing the unpredictable. Even though I do not believe rewilding is feasible, I found myself captivated by the work of Frans Vera in the Dutch safari Oostvaardersplassen. It seems that whether or not Vera’s hope of recreating a natural ecosystem is fulfilled, the results of such an undertaking will be worth studying. Hence, the concept of rewilding should not be disregarded, but instead, it should shift its focus from recreating to simply allowing nature to create.

Rambunctious Garden – Chapter 1 & 2

Posted on September 4, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

In her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris presents a new way of viewing nature. In her eyes nature is not limited to untouched ecosystems, but instead, it is everywhere. Marris rejects the conservationist approach of fencing off nature in hopes of preserving or attaining the pristine. Instead, she supports the idea that nature is in constant flux and consequently, proposes the cultivation of wild gardens alongside human development.

According to Marris, the typical conservationist fruitlessly aims for a retreat to the baseline, before human actions induced negative changes on the ecosystem. Using Hawaii as an example, she proved that restoring an ecosystem to its prehuman baseline is almost impossible.  Human activity on the planet has altered temperature, landscape, and even the air composition. Hence, when experimenting on the possibility to reverting Hawaii’s Big Island to its native tree species, Marris found that the results were discouraging. In addition, she noted that the cost burden of getting rid of invasive species, repopulating the ecosystem with its native trees, and maintaining the baseline conditions would be too expensive for any government to bear. As a result, Marris does a good job of affirming her point that returning to the baseline is not a feasible approach to conservation.

Likewise, Marris also makes a good case for approaching nature by looking to the future, where gardens sprout amidst the destructive human hand. She states that there is no scientific reason for believing that the baseline nature is better than the nature of today. In fact, she supports the idea that ecosystems have always been subject to change. Meaning, there is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that nature will be stable or static if reverted to its pristine state. As a result, Marris claims that we are better off focusing on the future ecosystems that will be most responsible for driving the Earth’s natural processes. Hence, the search for the pristine should be replaced with a desire to cultivate the “gardens” in our own backyard. In other words, Marris believes that we need to foster a new thought, where nature is embraced as being everywhere. Through this idea, we can begin the process of creating rambunctious gardens that encourage humans and nature to interact, grow, and coexist.

Overall, Marris made a good case for leaving behind the ideals of a pristine ecosystem to focus on a future where nature is conceived as being almost omnipresent. Her ideas have a clear logical progression that supports the incorporation of both the human hand and wild nature.

The Anthropocene and Conservation

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Nicholas Nehaul

The Anthropocene is the current geological age, where humans are the dominant species on the earth. In their respective articles concerning the Anthropocene, both Vitousek and Karevia make the claim that there is no ecosystem on Earth’s surface that is free from human influence. Hence, we live in an age where human modification on the environment has induced changes to ecosystems across the globe.

In “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Vitousek characterizes the Anthropocene as an era where human interaction with the environment has severe global consequences. For example, humans make land transformations and in doing so, divert resources and alter the habitat of surrounding organisms. Unfortunately, these consequences are not constricted to land. Vitousek makes it clear that our actions also affect the Earth’s geochemistry by altering biochemical cycles and spurring biotic changes. Marine ecosystems are no exception. According to Vitousek, many fisheries target top predators, which in turn changes the makeup of the ecosystem. In some cases, we have endangered species and made it difficult for certain organisms to survive in their original habitat. As a result, the idea of conservation has risen to prominence as a solution to preserving natural environments.

Conservation efforts are at an all time high. According to “Conservation in the Anthropocene”, Kareiva explains that approximately 13% of the earth’s land is protected. Yet, protected ecosystems are not beyond the scope of human influence. Kareiva also mentions that the pace of environmental destruction is also at an all time high. Meaning, human actions extend beyond our physical reach and as a result, our methods of conservation have proven ineffective. In trying to preserve these “pristine islands” amidst human development, we have ousted indigenous people, portrayed nature as fragile, and ignited a man versus nature battle. However, as Kareiva points out, nature is not fragile at all. It was resilient enough to have survived a nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl and deforestation in Indonesia. Hence, the more appropriate solution to avoiding environmental destruction is not to seal off wetlands, forests, and create parks. Instead, it is to see nature’s survival as something that is a part of human survival.

The continuous relentless actions of humans that have come to characterize this era as the Anthropocene, has taken its toll on nature. Dominance has blinded us to the fact that our survival is also dependent on nature, and that our actions directly influence ecosystems beyond our own. As a result, the more appropriate solution is one that Kareiva describes as an integration of nature’s benefits into our culture. The new version of the planet is one that will feature a designed mix of nature and humans where we work together, grow, and ensure survival. This is the future of the Anthropocene, where man is dominant but not disruptive.

Comments by Nicholas Nehaul