Insomnia

I was just reading my newly acquired book titled 'Conservation Psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature', which will hopefully inspire a more serious (or at least more informed) post in this blog later on... but so far, it got my mind going and I might not be able to go to sleep before I scribble some words here.
I'm not sure I can determine what it is about biological diversity that I deem so valuable, intriguing and worth keeping. Very logically, it's hard for me to understand that other people just don't give a dam about it. But then, there are also things other people value, that I just don't give a dam about...
A few months ago I read a paper by William Sutherland (Nature, 273-279, 15 May 2003) where he paralleled the extinction risk of birds and mammals to the one of human languages. Using the same criteria we use to determine the risk of extinction of living organisms, he found that human languages are a far more a threatened 'group' than either birds or mammals. But (I thought then)...who cares about human languages going extinct??
Also a few months ago I moved to Oxford to read for a Master's degree, and I was lucky enough to end up in a class with people from very far distant places of the world. I've been enriched and surprised by listening to their perspectives (new for me) on environmental problems and, at the same time, by how similar we all are. It has opened a whole new world for me. So maybe that's what I find so valuable about diversity (of butterflies, languages, cultures): all that we DON'T know...and then we know it. That makes the world a richer and somehow infinite place.

Claudia S.

The Story of Stuff: teaser video

Just having words is boring.

One value that impedes conservation is our love for stuff, so here you go:

Refined Beauty: reflections from visiting gardens in Waddesdon Manor and Stowe

Walking in Stowe Landscape Gardens was an experience similar to walking in the Oriental gardens of Suzhou, China, in some curious ways. Gardens in Suzhou take great pains to ensure that the scenery changes with every step the observer takes. The shadow of bamboos dances on a white wall; a trickling stream pours out from beneath a tiny triangular pavilion; red carps swim under purple water lilies… No matter where you are standing or to which direction you are looking, what your eyes behold is guaranteed to be beautiful. Such exquisite craftsmanship and such relentless determination to perfect nature are shared by their Stowe counterparts. Their endeavor is not as obvious as in the case of Waddesdon Manor’s formal gardens, however. Gardens in Stowe and Suzhou look superficially “natural”—or at least much more natural than those in Waddesdon. But they are the products of strict manipulation of nature all the same.

People in general believe that nature is “not enough”—whether they are from the East or the West. Something has to be done to improve nature before it can be enjoyed by them. Take my mother as an example: she would be put in awe by spectacles like the Grand Canyon, but if taken to an average nature reserve, she would complain, “What’s here to see? It’s just trees.” If without exciting elements such as megafauna, waterfalls, showy flowers, and limestone formations, nature can be quite boring for some people. After all, civilization is to be proud of. By sculpturing nature, man’s creativity, craftsmanship, and resourcefulness are illuminated. No wealthy and influential guest would be impressed if you show them a simple patch of forest.

Can nature be valued as it is, no more, no less? Can unrefined beauty be as appreciated as are delicate works of art? Some may argue that recreational activities like fishing and bird watching do not require nature to be refined into gardens. But these also come with manipulation. Bullfrogs were introduced from Eastern to Western U.S. to entertain fishermen. RSPB reserves are micro-managed to please birders’ binoculars.

…Conservation has a long way to go.