Talk:Conservation movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservation movement article.
Article policies
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Removed for possible incorrectness

Today, it is a moral goal that most people support - but not all people accept that ecology is the basis of human morality or that interactions with ecology necessarily form their basic character or ethos. Many simply regard nature as a source of beauty and diversity - not of moral example as Greens and the more radical Gaians do.

It's far from clear that most people on the planet Earth support conservation especially when it appears to conflict with economic development.

Sadly, true., although few will say out loud that they want nature not to be conserved, they'll act otherwise.

[edit] Islam

Another issue: is this the same concept as hima in Islam ? That was/is tied to religion too. Ibn abd as-Salam formulated a statement of animal rights in the 13th century. That predates this 19-th century origin theory.

[edit] Possible dispute on "conservation movement"

I think the word conservation is used incorrectly here on wikipedia. I am a hunter here in Canada, and when one says that they support conservation, it usually means they are a hunter or support it. On wikipedia this is not clealy stated, as many people will think that conservationists are tree-hugging hippies like Green-peace and all that. the MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources, commonly called "the ministry") is for conservation, and issues the hunting tags, so I believe this must be more clearly stated.

Also, conservation is about governing the natural imbalances of nature, such as the predator to prey ratio so that the population of a species stays at a relatively stable level, rather then there be mass starvation because of lack of food because of over-population.

--Jadger 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It is possible that it is correct to say the preservation and the environmental movements are parts of the conservation movement. KAM 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The conservation movement is part of the wider environmental movement. There is no preservation movement. Sometimes preservationist is used in a perjorative manner for a conservationist. Conservationists do wish to preserve ecologically significant areas from the effects of human activity. Alan Liefting 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word usage

We need to be careful with the use of words in an encyclopeadia. The words conservationist, environmentalist and preservationist can be used in a political and/or perjorative manner. The general international use of the word "conservationist" is to one who attempts to protect plant and animal species populations from the negative effects of human activity. Note that Greenpeace is an environmental organization and is not directly involved in the conservation movement. Alan Liefting 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "natural imbalances"

There are no "natural imbalances" in nature. Nature is self regulating. The effect of humans is not. Hence the environmental and conservation movements. Predator/prey ratios have been altered by human activity. Here in New Zealand introduced mammalian predators are causing havoc and all manner of techniques, including culling by hunters, are used to get an ecological balance.Alan Liefting 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

During the Progressive Era in the United States the environmental movement was considered part of the conservation movement ie conservation of clean air and water, conservation of workman's health etc. Some still consider it to be. The reverse is more common however and that is what the article says.
As to the preservation movement, it refers to efforts to save wilderness. For example: "The concept of a wilderness system marked an innovation in the history of the American preservation movement." —Roderick Nash "Wilderness and the American Mind", 1972. Today if you google wilderness preservation or nature preservation you will get millions of hits.
The article does use the word protect however, but… "the term protection has highly pejorative overtones, particularly in our country where reserved forests and other protected areas were set up by the colonisers who, in their efforts to "protect" biodiversity, marginalized indigenous people by using often inhumane methods, which have left an indelible scar on the local population’s collective memory." Gome (1999)
Your view of nature of being balanced and separate from man is one view. Some see nature as dynamic and always changing, the view of balance is seen as a holdover from the Age of Enlightenment, nature was seen as similar to clockwork, also Baird Callicott, about Man/Nature dualism says "nature is a distinctly modern notion, deeply rooted in ancient Western intellectual tradition, but that it is false and that its historical tenure has been pernicious."
Finally, urging to be careful with the use of words could be seem as an effort to limit discussion. I don't agree, of course we should take care not to offend however instead I think we should "Be Bold but not reckless" KAM 16:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The evolution of conservation

I work with a council of conservation groups and individuals and have witnessed the evolution of the conservation movement over a 20+ year period. To my mind, conservation and environmentalism are becoming synonymous in scope, with subtle differences lying in methodology. This is a reflection of society's growing understanding of it's interrelationship with nature and ecosystems and, most importantly, an integration of the values expressed in conservation into social and economic behaviour.

The history of conservation over the past century can be roughly grouped as follows:

1) Stewardship -- up to 1970s. Conservation was primarily nature and resource-focused with the lead proponents being naturalists, sportsmen, farmers, and other organizations closely associated with the land.

2) Environmental Awareness -- from the 60s through the 80s. The rise of the environmental movement was a distinct movement in scope and style, although many of the issues of pollution and waste were also being addressed by conservationists. For example The Conserver Society concept, proposed in the 70s, emphasized "doing more with less" and placed a strong emphasis on energy conservation, recycling, and reduction at source.

3) Applied Conservation -- 90s onward. Starting in the early 1990's much of the organizational energy around conservation and environmentalism has been centred on delivering solutions, including naturalization, energy audits, transportation alternatives, organic food etc.

While the underlying principles of respect for nature, and treading lightly on the earth have remained constant in the conservation movement over time, the understanding and application of those values has evolved to a point where the scope is as broad as can be and the focus is on transition strategies.

In this sense, the conservation movement is evolving and maturing, much as other social movements such as feminism and the civil rights movement have done. --Cwinter 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO taking it upon himself to decide the history of the conservation movement?

I added this to the history section:

    • In Nazi Germany (1932 - 1945) conservation and environmentalism were a fundamental part of the ideology.

With the following references for those intrested.

A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany], (Full chapter 1)

by Frank Uekoetter],

User:MONGO removed it with the statement

"er, links tyo some books you can buy and glorification of anything they did is hardly useful to this article"

Hardly worthy of a supposed encyklopedia editor. If we're not going to have an accurate history section containing all aspects of the history of the conservation movement instead of just the palateable ones then why bother with a history section at all?

For those out there actually intrested in history; I've been recomended "Blood and Soil" by Anna Bramwell, which discusses the darker roots of the green movement. And for those with access to New Scientist it might be intresting to read A darker shade of green...]--Stor stark7 Talk 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This website is not a Nazi propaganda tool for you. Besides, their grand accomplishments in the field of conservation were/have been well superceded before and after by numerous other governments.--MONGO 07:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Real mature of you, so I'm a purveyor of Nazi propaganda then? And as for your second statement, I havent seen you inserting anything to that effect in the history section. My previous opinion of you has indeed been strengthened. --Stor stark7 Talk 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, you're the one going around pointing fingers with this loud heading and accusatory tone, I see the addition you made as merely links to some books and a comment about their conservation. I can't imagine how their contributions were better than those initiated by the U.S. when they created the worlds first National Park, National Forests and the contributions made by numerous other countries.--MONGO 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with MONGO's removal because the addition looked like book advertisement. Perhaps if the National Socialist government's actions were significant there is more which can be said about what they did. And supporting material documented in a reference section rather than billboarded in the middle of the article. (SEWilco 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC))


I was pissed at what I saw as a member of the green movement’s attempts to whitewash history, as they have done on so many subjects. Read on and you’ll probably understand what I mean. The number of links I provided was simply to show that I wasn’t making it up, as I figured people would want to remove it as a reflex reaction without any brain-activity involved just because it contained the word Nazi. Anyway the rest of the text that’s there isn’t exactly overflowing with citations is it?

This link was not to a book by the way:

As to the books…

The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany by Frank Uekoetter Cambridge University Press (August 2006) ISBN: 0521612772

From the publishers comments: It describes how the German conservation movement came to cooperate with the Nazi regime and discusses the ideological and institutional lines between the conservation movement and the Nazis. Uekoetter further examines how the conservation movement struggled to do away with a troublesome past after World War II, making the environmentalists one of the last groups in German society to face up to its Nazi burden.

How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich by Franz-Josef Bruggemeier (Editor), Mark Cioc (Editor), Thomas Zeller (Editor) Ohio University Press (December 30, 2005) ISBN: 0821416472

From the book description:

The Nazis created nature preserves, contemplated sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature. Moreover, this landmark book underscores that the “green” policies of the Nazis were more than a mere episode or aberration in environmental history. ((BLURB))---"The environmental ideas, policies, and consequences of the Nazi regime pose controversial questions that have long begged for authoritative answers. At last, a team of highly qualified scholars has tackled these questions, with dispassionate judgment and deep research. Their assessment will stand for years to come as the fundamental work on the subject—and provides a new angle of vision on 20th-century Europe's most disruptive force."

And I felt compelled to dig up the article that launched me in this direction.

From New Scientist 2005-08-20. What if (the nazis had won)? 1943, A darker shade of green. By Steve Fuller , professor of sociology at the university of Warwick, UK. Pp 36-37.

Excerpt.:

This interest in preventive medicine, however, meant that research into the health effects of radiation, asbestos, heavy metals, alcohol and tobacco would have advanced more rapidly. The Nazis would also have mandated the production of organic foods, outlawed vivisection and encouraged vegetarianism and natural healing. What is more, the eco-friendly Nazis’ sensitivity to the world’s oil supply would have sparked an early scientific interest in curtailing carbon emissions and shifting to an alternative energy. In short, the late 1940s would have seen scientifically informed policies that only began to be pursued for real in the late 1960s.

And on some other “green” subjects, perhaps slightly of topic but in my eyes revealing a disturbing pattern….:

Excerpt: The pioneering role of the Third Reich had in developing modern understanding of the protection of animals is a tough spot for today's animal rights movement. For the brutal social experiment of the Third Reich was also an experiment of a society with a goal of executing a radical version of animal rights. Due to the awkwardness of the issue, many animal rights activists keep quiet about it. For instance, the whole issue is left unmentioned in the classic Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer. In the meticulous history section, he leaves the period 1880-1945 out completely. Because the writer is obviously well acquainted with the topic, it is hardly an accident. He refers to the nazis' human tests comparing them to the modern vivisection and brings up the Buddhist principles of protecting animals as a contrasting idea. This is troublesome reading to someone who is familiar with the subject, because also nazis appealed to Buddhism as the opposite of the animal hostility in Christianity - which they considered one branch of Judaism.

Some people resort to denial as a solution for the issue. It is typical to deny Hitler's vegetarianism with the suspicion that he once ate a dove. It is easy to find outright lies in different militant animal rights and vegetarism homepages where the whole matter is denied. However, this peculiar subplot in the history of animal protection will not simply disappear. That is why the Third Reich similarities with and particularly differences from modern animal rights thinking should be recognized, both by animal rights activists and their opponents

From the publisher:

Robert Proctor recently made the explosive discovery, however, that Nazi Germany was also decades ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as progressive and socially responsible. Most startling, Nazi scientists were the first to definitively link lung cancer and cigarette smoking. Proctor explores the controversial and troubling questions that such findings raise: Were the Nazis more complex morally than we thought? Can good science come from an evil regime? What might this reveal about health activism in our own society? Proctor argues that we must view Hitler's Germany more subtly than we have in the past.

Author of an earlier groundbreaking work on Nazi medical horrors, Proctor began this book after discovering documents showing that the Nazis conducted the most aggressive antismoking campaign in modern history. Further research revealed that Hitler's government passed a wide range of public health measures, including restrictions on asbestos, radiation, pesticides, and food dyes. Nazi health officials introduced strict occupational health and safety standards, and promoted such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans.


A darker shade of green ideed. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant here? Conservation != Environmentalism/Animal "rights". As a quick example, most hunters are conservationists. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice rant, as a rant. Anything which can be added to the article? (SEWilco 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
Reply To Revnarok:
Environmentalism builds on and is a closely associated with conservationism. The anmal-rights part of my (admitedly long) text was just for comparison/context, as i stated when I wrote "perhaps slightly of topic but in my eyes revealing a disturbing pattern…". I'll concede however that the topic might be more suited to the environmentalism article though.
Reply to SEWilco:
Jaja, I’m delighted to see that you’re truly taxing your resources to the outmost by making an effort to contribute.
--Stor stark7 Talk 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution by anti-hunting organizations

I thought to add this section, though there is scant evidence for any real contribution by such organizations.Trilobitealive 23:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this after thinking about it for a while. While it is fact I can't find any information to mitigate its harsheness.Trilobitealive 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem areas UK

This section has clearly been used as a scrapping ground between pro- and anti- foxhunting groups and no longer makes any sense. There has been clear vandalism such as the sentence about Mongolian tribesmen and eagles (which I shall delete now) and the whole section appears to serve no purpose whatsoever in informing the reader, and so I propose deleting it. If noone has disagreed within a couple of weeks or so, I'll go ahead and do that. Nom DeGuerre 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I fail to see what is so bad about that section. Isn't conserving wildlife part of the conservation movement? >Radiant< 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The title is not relevant to the topic. Sentence 1 is fine. Sentence 2 is OK but a bit of an odd thing to follow 1. Sentence 3 is OK. Sentence 4 - What?! What has that got to do with anything?. Sentence 5 is fine if we remove sentence 4. Sentence 6 is irrelevant. Sentence 7 is clearly politically motivated. The whole paragraph is introduced as a fiercely debated topic, but no anti-hunting information is provided. See what I mean? Nom DeGuerre 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. How about we remove the bad parts and leave the rest? Sentence two should state the fact (300 hunts), not editorialize ("in clear defiance"). 4 (David B) is irrelevant. 5 is ludicrous argument (see Godwin's Law) and should be stricken. 6 appears somewhat relevant but that depends on whether we have an article on that organization (see WP:ORG). 7 ("The reinvention appears to be") is original research. >Radiant< 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)