Science and Technology in NYC

When I started reading this article, the first things that came to my mind were a Geology course I took in high school and the first IDC last fall. In this geology class, I had a class trip to Fort Tryon, the highest elevation point in Manhattan (located near Inwood). As I was reading the article, I pictured myself standing at the top of that park overlooking Manhattan, trying to imagine what it had looked like prior to all the human developments. Additionally, for the IDC class last year, I went to the New York Historical Society, where I got to see maps of Manhattan dating as far back as the one discussed in this article. Having a visual representation changed my outlook on the Manhattan landscape — the way it looked hundreds of years ago and how developed it is today.

What I found most interesting in the article is how much human settlement changed the island; not just in terms of removing essentially all of its biodiversity, but expanding the island. This past summer I would walk through Battery Park to get to work and see how certain parts of the park have indications and markings of the shorelines dating to the 1800s. As this article states, people have been expanding the shoreline, but I don’t think anyone can really imagine the magnitude to which this was done. We’re not talking about adding a few extra square meters to the shore — from what I saw at Battery Park, it may be said that maybe as much as a street block has been expanded out into the river.

With that said, what I found most difficult to imagine was that certain parts of the island, such as Tribeca, used to have sandy beaches. When we think of New York beaches, usually we think of Coney Island or Far Rockaway, but imagine what the city would have looked like if there was a beach on the shores of Manhattan. Taking a different direction, the authors write about swamps, streams, rivers, and other bodies of water that once populated the island. If you were to ask anyone who doesn’t know much about the island’s ecosystem about these bodies of water, they wouldn’t be able to picture such a landscape. That goes to show how much human development has shaped one of the world’s largest cities.

I agree with what others have stated regarding “providing a vivid, ecologically sound, geographically referenced reconstruction of Mannahatta, we can encourage interest in conservation of wild places and wildlife in the city.” Manhattan is known for its impressive architecture, and there is no space available to reconstruct it to what it once was. If people want to reconstruct and show what Manhattan once was, all they should do is look to another borough. Staten Island, for example, is known as the “borough of parks” and there is enough space there for such a massive project. With that said, the concept of Not In My Back Yard applies. I think that New Yorkers would be appreciative of this project, but no one would like to make the effort of giving up Manhattan real estate.

It’s difficult for me to believe that the Manhattan I know and love used to be an area of beaches, wetlands, and forests. Not to say that I’m questioning the validity of Sanderson and Brown, it’s just that I solely recognize Manhattan as the city that never sleeps, and to see someone talk about how it used to be this untouched land seems bizarre. One of the big reasons that humans and animals differ is that humans are able to adapt their environment to their needs, as opposed to having to adapt themselves to match their environments. It’s never a unexpected to see a population enter untouched grounds and turn it into a bustling destination that no longer resembles anything close to what it used to prior to human interference.

I completely disagree with the idea that “by providing a vivid, ecologically sound, geographically referenced reconstruction of Mannahatta, we can encourage interest in conservation of wild places and wildlife in the city.” I’m sure on some subconscious level, every New Yorker is aware of the fact that the city was not born with a skyscraper on every block. We know that these developments are fairly recent- and for the most part we’re perfectly comfortable with that because we acknowledge that with technological advancements and an increasing city population, we should comfortably resort to further modernizing Manhattan to accommodate everyone. I don’t think that by showing people what Manhattan used to be like, people will all of a sudden begin to care and appreciate the conservation movement.

I acknowledge the growing depreciation of wildlife conservation but I think Miller’s article did a better job of solidifying that it’s an issue. I can’t seem to follow the logic that showing people a before picture of what the city used to look like, will make them care more. People will only care if you can convince them that these changes are relevant and directly impact their lives somehow. Without pointing out some direct, interactive correlation between individuals and the loss of wildlife, people will continue to disregard the issue.

Sanderson and Brown’s article felt much like reading a eulogy for New York City’s ecology. Like reading any other eulogy, I felt a sense of sadness for of all the diversity, lushness, water, and resources lost. At the same time, I questioned if the city’s development over the years is really all that bad? New York City is notorious for its skyscrapers and urban lifestyle. People travel across the world just to see it, because there is no other place like it. The New York City I know and I love was unidentifiable in these pages and pages describing an area filled with biodiversity.

While I found it interesting to read about what once was, I do not believe “by providing a vivid, ecologically sound, geographically referenced reconstruction of Mannahatta, we can encourage interest in conservation of wild places and wildlife in the city” (547). In many people’s eyes, New York City is not meant to be a natural oasis and they do not long for that in place of what exists. Also, it is very unlikely that the city will ever be what once it once was unless God forbid it is destroyed, which we do not wish for either.

Are ecologists asking for such commercialized areas to be natural? Is that their ideal? Of course, we must preserve the environment, but to what extent? Just as nature provides benefits, a developed city also brings along its own perks. After all, New York in part became what it is today in 1825 when the Erie Canal allowed for goods to be imported from the Midwest and Europe. Such developments played major roles in enhancing quality of life. As much as I value the environment, it is important not to lose sight of human’s accomplishments and progression. It may not be perfect and come along with catches, but thanks to cars the fields are not too far away.

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.

As a follow-up to our class discussion this past Wednesday, I thought I’d write a response that detailed what aspects of Miller’s article really resonated with me. The first idea in the text that immediately jumped at me was actually that of Robert Payle’s who stated that “collective ignorance ultimately leads to collective indifference” in regards to conserving biodiversity. It seems as though the disconnect between the general public and the natural world is a reflection of the values and attitudes society possesses; societal emphasis is placed on far more monetary and profitable sectors whereas disciplines like ecology or environmental sciences on biodiversity become trivialized or sidelined. Growing up in cities, Miller remarks, has triggered greater estrangement from wildlife as we are disconnected from nature in both proximity and figuratively. In addition, studying ecology and biodiversity has become stigmatized, as these areas are unconventional and do not conform to the lifestyle and values that accompany urban life. Furthermore, Miller notes that the “shifting baseline syndrome” within “biological impoverishment” exacerbates existing issues. As people in cities grow up less connected to their surroundings and nature, they are less attuned to losses in biodiversity and are vastly unaware of the repercussions that follow. Speaking from personal experience, it was only until I started spending my summer vacations in India (within the village, immersed in the forest basically) that I realized I, too, had fallen victim to this phenomenon. Miller asserts that “expenditures on open spaces and greenways are too often viewed as a luxury” because political agendas are based on pressing financial or social issues, where biodiversity conservation falls through the cleavages. This idea is directly relevant to NYC where so many of our parks are man-made and we must carve out minor, natural landscapes in our city to offset rapid urbanization.

In the article, Miller mentions a few different, albeit general, ways in which the problem with biodiversity loss may be addressed. It seems as though a two-tier approach is required to truly fight the loss of biodiversity in urban environments. Miller remarks that the current ‘educate the public’ model is simply not enough to garner support for conservation, an idea that I wholeheartedly agree with. People, especially adolescents, do need to be made more knowledgeable about biodiversity and urban ecology; however, this schooling must be supplemented or complemented by meaningful interaction with nature. Education may lead to awareness but awareness does not necessarily translate into substantial action. As people grow more estranged from nature and issues with biodiversity conservation become increasingly marginalized, children start to embody the “extinction of experience” model more. From personal experience, I know that whatever I had learned in Environmental Science in 8th grade, I immediately forgot because it didn’t see relevant to me. There has to be a significant connection established between what kids are being taught and the experiences they are having. Often times, children are being educated too far into their youth where there is no time or desire to have valuable experiences with nature. Thus, the elementary school curriculum should revolve more around ecological sciences that could be further enhanced with field trips to zoo’s and “unmanaged lands”. Schools could offer a wider variety of after-school programs that fostered open interaction and encouraged volunteer work that would submerge students into nature. However, approach must be enforced or followed by a stronger political agenda that creates open dialogue about urban ecology; if political leaders and groups were to shift public focus on to conservation efforts, more opportunities could be created. Local political leaders could partner up with ecologists, city-planners, educators, and more to plan opportunities and create experiences for the general population. Inevitably this would trickle down to the public who would be more aware and willing to take action to conserve biodiversity.

James R. Miller’s article opened my eyes to the fact that I, as well as most of the people I am surrounded by, am part of the problem causing this current erosion of biodiversity and increased extinction. There is a major disconnect between people and nature, and this gap has only been widening. The problem is that many people are ignorant to basic things in nature and how our ecosystem works. In a U.S. high school, students could not identify common mammals! I can relate because we had a similar issue in our first class when a room filled with honors students could not even identify basic fruits and vegetable that we eat. We can probably identify more corporate logos than species of plant, and there are probably a lot more plant species than corporation on this planet. This ignorance causes people to not care about nature.

Part of the reason for this disconnect and ignorance of nature is that more and more people are moving to urban areas, where nature is hidden. 48% of the world population lives in the cities and open spaces and greenway are seen as luxuries as opposed to a necessities. There is also the issue of “shifting baseline” syndrome or environmental generational amnesia. People’s view of nature is narrowed to the areas closest to home and work, not open to the different areas of untouched land that exists. Technology and TV is keeping people indoors instead of being active outside in nature. If nothing is done, these problems are only going to get worse as more cities will be built and more technology is developed.

The public must relate and connect to nature. In order to conserve biodiversity, nature must be relevant and become valued by the general public. However, I agree with Miller that preaching science to people who are uninterested in our ecosystem is not the best solution to this problem. As a teenager, who unfortunately knows little about the ecosystem and our current problem, I do not believe that overwhelming people with scientific facts about the many species in nature will get people to care. Instead, we need to start by simply exposing our youth to nature- not just parks and playgrounds, but areas of untouched or undamaged land. People who are exposed and have more of a connection to nature are more motivated to protect the environment. Miller also suggests that getting children involved in dialogues about nature and restoration efforts can make children more empathetic towards our environment. Another solution is to get government officials and policymakers involved in conservation efforts, since ecological projects are the first things to get cut from municipal budget.

Biodiversity is important not just for the plants, but also for helping humans. According to Miller, contact with the environment can better human conditions and health. One of the most effective ways to get more people connected and interested in nature is to emphasize quality of life and health benefits. Lastly, I suggest that there should be more activities like BioBlitz that is not just exclusively for honors students. At BioBlitz I was able to learn a lot about plants on the side of the road that are hidden in the city. I also think there should be more classes like this in all schools to get more people aware of the problem.

Speaking of nature, it is important not to overlook human’s natural tendency-to ask what is in it for them? Yes, people are self-centered and we must come to face with it and cater to it. However, as Miller mentions, informing people about the negative affects the collapse of the environment will have on them is not an efficient method to gain their support. Hawken even brings strong evidence that hysterics over future environmental issues do not bring people to take action. Love in this case is the answer; people must develop a positive relationship with nature, if they are ever going to defend it. In order to do so, people must be aware of the extensive benefits. Are you stressed out from school or work?… Well nature can actually help ease that anxiety. Miller shares other “quality-of-life enhancements” such as “high-order cognitive functioning, enhancing observational skills and the ability to reason…. children’s emotional and intellectual development etc.” By raising this awareness, people are more likely to act and eventually foster a connection with the environment.

If not, how can you expect people to mourn the loss of something they never had a relationship with? The schooling system does not help. This idea had me reflect on my own childhood experience with nature. At home, I did things such as spend a lot of time in my backyard, decorate plant pots at my five year old birthday party, hike with family, and attend summer camp in the woods. I was lucky enough to have access to these resources, but especially in age of heightened urbanization, I believe schools bear a burden of emphasizing this subject. So what role did my formal education play in this relationship? Close to nothing. I recall taking home a miniature plant in nursery school and going on a class trip to the Botanical Gardens in elementary school, however, these hands on programs stopped there. History, biology, and chemistry were retaught multiple times over to everyone throughout the years, but environmental studies was optional in high school. The environment is overshadowed by other subjects that schools prioritize and other causes like poverty, world peace etc. A park ranger at BioBlitz reaffirmed this reality when she told me that she runs programs for elementary school students. When I asked why such programs do not extend to older children, she asked herself the same question. Although attitudes towards nature may form during childhood, just like another relationship, this too requires consistent and conscious contact and without that it is no wonder many experience disconnect with nature.

 

 

 

First of all, before even really responding to this article, I have to point out one interesting fact near the beginning of this paper. In the article, it is noted that teenagers in Los Angeles are more likely to correct identify an automatic weapon that a bird by its call. Just as I read that, I noted to myself that the idea of identifying birds by the sounds they make sounds incredibly pointless. Just after I thought that, ecologist Robert Pyle states “collective ignorance ultimately leads to collective indifference.” It was very interesting to note that my thoughts prior to reading Pyle’s statements seemed to confirm his belief over the importance that people now a days place on nature.

I had many thoughts on Miller’s suggestion on how to reduce the gap that people in urban areas have from nature and through that, encourage conservation efforts in those urban centers. One thing that Miller mentioned was the notion of ‘shifting baseline syndrome,’ the idea that individual only notice differences in the present when compared to their experiences in the past. Naturally, as more people spend most of their lives in cities, these people have less exposure to nature and as a result, notice less of the negative environmental changes that are going on around them.

The clear way to address this ever more present issue is to somehow educate children and more importantly expose them first hand to the environments that they so often ignore or unaware of. The problem with this however is this is no easy feat. Most people, including children, are ignorant or uninterested in nature. Miller points that modern advances in entertainment have grabbed the attention of the younger population and made it more different to them to get exposed to nature and thus be more aware of it. Simply trying to encourage kids to be more active and spend more time outside would be beneficial, but realistically that is not enough given how much urban areas are separated now a days from nature.

Miller’s article notes that one example of perhaps exposing more adolescents to the world is through volunteer service. However, the problem with that is inherent in that people often have to have the desire to volunteer for them to actually participate in conservation efforts. One potential solution might be make volunteer service at conversation related organizations a requirement for students in school or something that gives an extra benefit to those students, such as extra credit. Some might argue that this does not convince children to help conserve the environment. However, at this point, the goal should be to get as many people aware of their surrounding nature rather than trying to indoctrinate them into the idea of conservation. When it comes down to it, there really are not easy solutions to this problem of ignorance.