The erosion of biodiversity is extremely prevalent to members within the science community, however, people outside that group know little about this occurrence, and those that do know, don’t care enough to take any sort of preventative measures. Miller puts some blame on conservationists, and says they have failed to effectively convey the “importance, wonder, and relevance” of biodiversity. I don’t necessarily agree with this accusation, because it implies that the primary reason people aren’t more engaged with wildlife and conservation efforts is because they simply do not know that there is anything wrong. On the contrary, I think that many people know about the decline in biodiversity, but merely choose to turn the other way and not take any responsibility. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t one of those people- despite my awareness that society is drifting farther and farther from the simple things in life, I choose to just go along my merry way and not do anything about it.
Many people are aware on some level that species are being endangered, massive deforestation is taking place to make way for infrastructure projects, and the gap between humans and the natural world is widening. People especially in urban environments, where loss of biodiversity is at its highest, choose to not make the time or put in the effort to engage in conservation efforts because they don’t feel like these occurrences are pertinent enough to them personally. While I acknowledge that that’s a cynical idea, I think it’s human nature to behave on a sort of selfish level and not make time for anything that we don’t have to make time for. The idea that “loss of biodiversity has no effect on me” is flawed because everything in every ecosystem is related in one way or another. It’s like the domino effect- an insect that cleans off the bacteria of plant leaves gets endangered and ultimately extinct, then the plants that get cleaned by that insect are infected and die, then a specific kind of animal that acts as the primary food source for some nomadic tribe is affected, and finally the people themselves are affected because there’s a problem with their primary food source. Sure, that’s an extreme example for the urban environment we are accustomed to, but there are people who live simply that are much more nature conscious than us for that reason.
Honestly I can’t think of a solution that’ll make people want to be involved in conservation efforts. People aren’t going to do things that they don’t want to do, especially if those things hold no meaning to them. During our discussion today, I liked the concept of incorporating nature-friendly ideas into things like city buildings, by either adding solar roofs or adding a garden somewhere. As a society we place a lot of value on aesthetically pleasing things, so if we could offer incentives such as helping out with cleaning up an abandoned park will grant you exclusive access to the final product, I think more people would be willing to participate in conservation efforts. Additionally, I think conservationists should be targeting people who have more free time to invest- so maybe high school students or retired individuals who are in good shape to do some small work in an outdoor environment. Trying to get a middle-aged person with a family and a full-time job involved in wildlife is a futile effort, but reaching to someone who may be looking to fill their free time seems like a plausible option.
