Conservation....

Conservation is a term used often. The meaning of it is something like this:

[quote]

Conservation \Con`ser*va"tion\, n. [L. conservatio: cf. F. conservation.] The act of preserving, guarding, or protecting; the keeping (of a thing) in a safe or entire state; preservation. [1913 Webster]

[end quote]

So conservation doesn't appear to be desirable at all. It seems to suggest keeping things in the state of the status quo, which after all is not only impossible but capricious. All things either evolve or degrade and/or erode, this is how evolution works. Trying to keep something as it is/was is a task both futile and unwelcome to any who would like to retain species and environments for future generations.

Victoria, Australia has more than 4 million hectares, or 14 per cent of the state, which are wilderness, state, regional park and reserve areas. The state government projects itself as protector and manager of these areas and they are evolving land and seascapes. The management appears insufficient because there is just not enough staff for the task, yet some would argue that's a good outcome, allowing these areas to constantly evolve; though many would claim they are degrading, but that depends where the person making the claim stands in opinion, thought and control tendency. Nature is working in these areas, it can't be prevented from doing so and the result is change and if this is degradation by natural means, then who would gainsay this? Only those that would control every aspect of what is happening, and create things as they see them, in their imagination, if only they could. But our ancestors as transporters of plants and animals from other countries have already created opportunity for the natural evolution with these new species.

So forget conservation for a moment and look more at protection. We can only protect anything from our own species and therefore society sets out rules and laws, and each of us have rules and laws, some more stringent and others more lenient than these of society that we also obey. For protection of any environment, and that's how all protection should be viewed, not like it has been n the past, as protection of an animal, which results in the animal in captivity in zoos, because its natural habitat has been desolated. A protection of an environment means all it contains, plants, animals, insects etc., from our species. With rules and laws we inhibit our species from taking what we think is undesirable action in the protected areas, and therefore hinder the application of what we consider undesirable effects from burdening or shaping the evolution of protected areas. Because nature will do as is intended and it cannot and must not be halted.

Protection of environments is important. Because it shows we are willing to allow nature to do what it has ever done, and even though we may see things happening that our ancestors have encouraged by the importation of what are often termed feral or weed species, we should trust natures ability to change and manage this change with what it discovers. Trust that animals will adapt, and trust that those which don't will be marked as obsolete by the same force which create them in the first place. It's a hard decision, which isn't ours to make and will be made if we interfere further, or not.

People mention pristine environments, but this usually tries to show an environment where man has not been the vector for introduction of animals and plants which were not discovered when the people who took away or colonised the environment of the native peoples first arrived. Prior to that, since the world began, other vectors and opportunity were created by nature to distribute plants and animals. These environments have evolved, and they are no more, nor will they ever be again. Time cannot be turned back, and land returned to uneducated, natural and enlightened native peoples is not possible either. It's not even natural that it should be so. Nature is the controlling force. Man is arrogant enough to think that its species has some control, but humans are unable to control anything, especially themselves no matter how hard they try. Humans are and will always be controlled by nature which created them, more evident now that the knowledge of global warming has registered its presence, even to science which created much of what has caused this phenomenon in all areas of human action.

Conservation should be replaced with protection, and evolution allowed to continue without interference, even though it may result in the destruction of the human species in the end. If we as a species were as clever as we thought, we would not be destroying what is already there, tried and tested, to rebuild it as we want, but rather build and live round all which was encountered and share the space and ambiance. Since we aren't that clever, we use force to shape natures tested landscape and formula with machines and flawed science, and get into more and more trouble every minute of day and night. Natures control is supreme, but we can try to curb the excesses of human habitation, not try to conserve what we have already destroyed.