The first thing that caught my eye was the Introduction. The authors explain that despite the fact that many of the species no longer reside in the city, there have been appearances of new species. This fact is somewhat difficult to believe, especially when they say the species are so new that they haven’t been named yet. However, reading further into the article, it makes sense. Despite to contrary belief that metropolitan areas are destroying all wildlife, there are some benefits. One example, which I did not know about was that one of the falcon species chooses to migrate to New York City and make skyscrapers their homes.
I agree with the article that there are many things we are doing that are harming our environment, but didn’t like the way authors phrased it. When they were talking about all the pollution we cause, it sounds like a very aggressive attack. Yes, we do pollute a great amount and yes, there are things that may be done to reduce the pollution, but the article is saying that basically every little action of ours destroys the biodiversity around us. Furthermore, the article says that we don’t have enough greenspace, and the greenspace that we do have isn’t that beneficial either. For example, they say that when people walk around the parks, on trails, and more “natural” areas, heavy foot traffic prevents certain plants from growing. However, at the same time, are people not allowed to enjoy the greenspace for the sake of some species of plants? They have designated areas in parks, etc. where plants grow, it’s not like people stop around every little square inch of space. Another aspect the authors critiqued was the architecture and planning of the city. Clearly there won’t be any wildlife on the cemented sidewalks, but how can we fix this? From the tone and position that the authors take, they make it sound like we should tear down all the glass buildings and tear up all the sidewalks and roads. Yes, the population of the city is growing and the city needs to undertake certain projects to accomodate the growth, and this comes at an opportunity cost. Everything we do and every choice we make is a trade-off. We can’t have a huge city and expect deer and other mammals and birds to roam down Fifth Avenue with us. There are greenspaces around the metropolitan area, such as all the parks in the Bronx and Staten Island, but the authors critique that too. I agree that perhaps the way people treat those natural areas, such as draining the wetlands to prevent mosquito populations from exploding, aren’t that great, but at least we have all this natural space around us. I think New York City is very unique in terms of its location, and despite all the arguments that go hand-in-hand with the loss of biodiversity, I think that New York is one of the more biodiverse cities. We have wetlands, greenspaces (such as certain parks) that mimick forests, we even have a marine habitat (though it’s true that too is being destroyed). Another aspect I did not like was when the authors explained the introduction of new species from Europe led to the eventual destruction of the biodiverse habitats. True, when the Europeans first came here, they came with the mentality to exploit the resources rather than appreciate them, but I don’t think that it’s fair to blame today’s society for it. We do contribute and admit to pollution etc., but we can’t just gather all the species that have been introduced and ship them back to Europe. I think we should find ways to better help those species live in tandem with the native species.
Overall, I think that projects that are undertaken today are making a greater effort to preserve biodiversity than we may realize. Additionally, we need to understand that this is not an overnight-type of project and that it takes years and years to somewhat restore the natural habitats. Yet, we should not be discouraged from helping out and expecting that it will be up to the next generation to fix the problems, because if we don’t start the change process, who’s to say the next generation is going to care more?
