The concept discussed in chapter 5 is assisted migration, which is exactly what it sounds like. It involves humans helping animals/plants migrate into lands better suited for their survival. Marris specifically focuses on those organisms that have been affected by man-driven climate change and need to find more suitable places to live. It is not a bad idea, to think of ourselves as superheroes and step in to help fix the problems we have caused.
The question I would like to ask most is, if this becomes an accepted practice, how much responsibility are we willing to take on? If climate change is to continue, weather will become more unpredictable and the world’s average temperature even warmer. Once we start assisted migration projects, would we not have to watch over them for years? And what happens to those creatures that finally have no cooler place to go? Yes, it is true that humans have interrupted Nature’s ways and are only recently realizing a full load of regret. The idea that we should continue intervening to correct our past interventions seems off. They will only serve to further involve us in projects for which it will be difficult to take full responsibility. Trying to fix one thing will lead us to trying to fix another, and honestly the idea of widespread assisted migration reminded me of plastic surgery addicts and their horrific resulting faces.
Considering the fact that plants and animals alike have been moving on their own, inching into outer regions of their habitat, assisted migration would only be a “speeding up” of the same natural process. Or so Marris claims. The truth is, this is far from natural. It is physically impossible for us to pay attention to every species that needs moving. As a result, we will only focus on those that are of value to us. This is a guess on my part, but wouldn’t those who would have enough economic punch to easily carry out projects most likely be large companies and corporations? Corporations, which tend to favor short-term results and profit, are not likely to take care of preserving ecosystems or taking the care necessary in such intervention.
The problem with only moving specific species feels like another layer of trouble. Animals and plants don’t exist in isolated conditions. It simply isn’t enough to have the right abiotic conditions of temperature, precipitation, etc. to promise a healthy life (but not too thriving lest it become invasive). Natural wildlife is connected in a great web of interplay, some of which are not obvious to us.
Despite these arguments (among others…), I do think assisted migration may not be a bad idea under certain circumstances. It may not be feasible for some areas, but perhaps the NYmetro can benefit from the increased biodiversity. I am simply wary of the matters of who is taking the responsibility and making the decisions about the relocation of the organisms.
Login
Join This Site
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
-
Professor Jason Munshi-South
jason [at] nycevolution.orgITF Ben Miller
benjamin.miller [at] macaulay.cuny.eduITF Kara Van Cleaf
kvancleaf [at] gc.cuny.edu NY Times Science Section
- For Older Unmarried Couples, Caregiving Obligations Can Be Murky November 10, 2024
- What to Know About COP29 and How the U.S. Election Affects Climate Talks November 9, 2024
- Richard Pazdur, FDA Cancer Chief, Discusses 25 Years of Innovation November 9, 2024