Should we control nature or should we let it control
us? This is more than a question about
practical conservation management.
On the one hand is control.
This may relate to our sense of responsibility and making best use of
assets in our care. Control means we
need to be clear about our objectives, make plans and then recognise when have achieved
them. This, however, breeds the
presumption that everything must be under our control.
On the other hand is nature out of our control. The word “nature” is hard to define but it
generally relates to that being outside the human. It relates to the wild, Wold and Weald – the
non-human, and also to “forest” which in one sense means “outside enclosure”. If we bring nature under our control it stops
being nature. From this we may develop a
view that we need to understand nature and work with it. Help it, maybe, but not control it. Sharply defined objectives are not
relevant. We need to recognise when good
things are happening and allow nature to take its course. It teaches us to appreciate surprise.
The first is about working logically towards a
pre-determined outcome. The second is
about building a system and allowing properties to emerge.
In a practical sense the first approach may be (for example)
to plant trees in order to create a planned wood. The second would be to put in place the
processes of regeneration and natural disturbance, let nature run and we
then appreciate the habitat that emerges.
Neither is right or wrong, each may be preferable in
different circumstances. We may need to
take a very controlling approach where we have a rare or sensitive habitat
which might disappear if things go wrong.
However, we may take a far more hands-off approach in low risk, perhaps
degraded areas where there is less to lose, and a lot to gain.
This could reflect two different attitudes for life in
general, not just our relationship to nature.
On the one hand is the need for control – the Controllers. On the other is the idea of putting good
things in place and letting the future just happen – let’s call them
Arcadians. The two different attitudes
can drive two different mind-sets, which find it difficult to understand each
other. “Untamed wilderness” to the
Controllers is the worst form of insult, but to the Arcadians it is the very deification
of nature. Controllers want to know the
objective and the plan. Arcadians want
to put good stuff in place and see what might happen.
Modern society is tuned more towards control. This is probably essential – with our
population levels and expectations we cannot just leave things alone and hope
it will all be ok. But the need for
control may lead to a view that success is only achieved through complete
control. The 1987 storm reminded us that
we are not the masters of the environment. It humbled us. And,
what is more, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Out of control does not mean “wrong”. Nature out of control can be brilliant!
Like so many extremes, their value is when they are
complementary rather than conflicting.
Control implies responsibility, care and sustainable
management. Sustainable management means
we need to understand nature, working within critical limits and so
recognizing limits on our ability to control.
So, in a few steps, we move from controlling to realizing the limits of
control. Working in the other direction,
appreciating nature for itself reflects a wish to understand nature, how nature
can be restored and if not restored then managed. So in a few short steps we move from
appreciating nature to managing it
We need to allow nature to work for itself and then learn
about natural processes in order to better understand how management (or
control) can be done more effectively. The
two approaches are different sides of the same coin.
No comments:
Post a Comment