Preservation–A good idea for the present nature?

Conservation vs. Preservation (Scott Moats, Preservationist). (1:02 long video)

Extremely interesting argument is that of preservation vs. conservation. What exactly are the two? Preservation in its basic sense is an area untouched, unaffected by humans, while conservation is that of an are ” human management to ensure that the natural systems maintain the state they enjoyed prior to human involvement.”

Scott Moats in the video describes a prairie that is now under conservation during a time of turmoil for Iowa in dealing with energy efficiently and what lands should be allowed to be used for it. In the video he did make a very valid point about why preservation is not always the best option, “This area, if it was preserved for instance, would be nothing but trees and weeds. That’s definitely not preserving biodiversity.” the animals and the new ecosystem would be destroyed as just leaving it unharmed would in fact destroy the present organisms living there and now adapted to its habitat. Leaving the area be would set that balance of the ecosystem into distraught chaos, risking the lives of many animals and becoming completely overrun by the plants, killing each other off as they haven’t reached the every-so-sensitive balance of an ecosystem. This in the end would ultimately be a much worse evil than that of humans turning to conservation and backing off it from humans destroying it, but rather, allow the humans to upkeep it to prevent this.

He also describes the loss the humans would have if they couldn’t touch the prairie, “…wise use of the resources, we’re managing for biodiversity and we still have a landscape that’s usable by people. We have cattle out here grazing. The recreational benefit is here for people to come out and visit. There’s aesthetic value here in the northern Hills where you can really see the topography and the openness of the prairie.” Instead of letting completely go to waste, he views it as “why not let humans also benefit from it in other ways than just taking as many resources as possible from it?”

The prairie he describes is in the same turmoil Yellowstone National Park was at its time, but in another perspectives. While Yellowstone park was a beautiful place and it was wanted to be put out of the reach of the gripping hands of greedy business people, it couldn’t be put to waste by being put aside or by being emptied of everything it has to offer. With conservation, it gives both the wilderness, and humans an equal win-win.

In my previous blog, I hinted at how we are all technically animals, that just have fine-honed our best characteristics and advantages to technically be that of above other species. But, these lands that we put aside completely as preserved areas, are also our habitats too–we may be best at adapting to very severe or sudden changes, as we can in the same day move to another country–but not having any chance to be able to be a part of these lands hurts us too.

Think of it as locking yourself up in a concrete city. Sure you are comfortable with your technology, running water, social networking, and microwaveable meals you bought at the downtown supermarket–but in the end, we all still crave in our small part of our natural  wilderness inside of us to go back to where we came from. We can’t keep ourselves away from the physical nature too long. Therefore, we can’t preserve all of the land that hasn’t been taken over completely by humans. Again, we must go back to the balancing the scales of both of our ecosystems to make it so that it is the best for humankind and our neighboring wilderness so we can all benefit.