In Conservation in the Anthropocene, authors Marvier, Kareiva, and Lalasz question the integrity of most popular, and largely corporate, efforts being made to conserve nature, as the authors suggest that nature “has always been a human construction” and that it has displaced millions for purposes of protecting the pristine image of nature (6). While the authors in this article took a more sociological approach to justifying their theses, Vitousek, Mooney, Lubcehnco, and Melillo write from a scientific perspective in Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Despite the differences in writing, the two articles express similar ideas and deal with two main themes, the Anthropocene and urban ecology, discussing them in great detail and trying to solve the dilemma of a growing human domination, expanded urbanization, and severe and potentially permanent alterations in the Earth’s ecosystem.
Kareiva et al. call this era of human domination on Earth the “Anthropocene – to emphasize that we have entered a new geological era in which humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry” (6). The Anthropocene has changed ecology by essentially urbanizing it permanently: because there is no place on Earth left untouched by humans, as both articles state quite clearly, we must understand that “most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity” (Vitousek et al., 1). For example, humanity has had a very large impact on land by transforming it and thereby altering “the structure and function of ecosystems, and…how ecosystems interact with the atmosphere”; however, the impact is not positive, as Vitousek et al. clearly demonstrate through many examples and facts, such as “the loss of biological diversity worldwide” with land transformation or the unnatural and harmful human fixing of nitrogen in the atmosphere (495, 497).
One would be led to think that humans should work to conserve more and reduce our dramatic impact on the Earth’s ecosystems in order to protect and preserve it. However, Kareiva et al. counter that conservation is outdated, harmful to the economic development of indigenous and developing peoples around the world, and that it needs to be more “people-friendly…to attend more seriously to working landscapes” (2). Kareiva et al. do not suggest in any way that we should stop efforts of conservation – rather, they see conservation as ineffective, and both articles would probably agree that current methods of conservation should account for urbanization for every step of the way.
Both articles struggle to help find “the right kind of development” for today’s world – that is, how do we conserve while still growing and urbanizing? While Kareiva et al. don’t see typical wildlife parks and hiking trails as major positive steps towards conservation, they may still be valid, and the old-school conservationists, portrayed as stubborn by Kareiva et al., may have a point. Rather than seek to overhaul this approach, society should absolutely work towards “economic development for all” without having to displace any people or harm Earth’s ecosystems severely (8). Hopefully, we can work locally with communities to avoid the terrible trade-off of letting people live harmfully versus displacing them and protecting nature; perhaps more effort should be taken in New York City to do exactly this.
