I recently came across an article on Wired.com regarding the rewilding of animals. Admittedly, I was not very familiar with the term prior to the article, but the writer, Andrew Curry, did an amazing job of capturing a small snapshot of the worldwide practice.
“...to restore an ancient ecosystem is called rewilding, and it goes far beyond conservation. In theory, we could re-create conditions that last existed when mammoths walked the earth and the environment was healthier and more diverse.”
Curry opens the story with the preparation of 3 young European bison for a 4 day trek from Belgium to Latvia. The bison were raised as what Curry refers to as an “audacious experiment” and to recreate the terrain of 10,000 years ago with a comparable ecosystem.
The ancestors of these specific bison were last seen in 1927, but have since been bred and grown to 3,500 bison. Similar efforts have also sustained the Bolson tortoise and the tarpan (or at least a similar replication of the wild horse). Rewilding also includes relocating non-extinct animals to an area that could benefit from them ecologically. For example, in 1988 beavers were brought to the Netherlands where they built dams and small lakes in rivers.
Within the concept of rewilding there are two dominant forces: those that are concerned with the ecological benefit and those concerned with the health of the breed. A disagreement between these two different perspectives can create damaging results: “It’s important that conservationists be aware of the genetic aspects, but geneticists should also be open to conservation and practical arguments,” said Joep van de Vlasakker.
There also seems to be thin line between keeping the bloodline pure and keeping the animals genetic disorders out of the way.
And while rewilding could very well become a real-life spinoff of “Jurassic Park,” we probably shouldn’t spend too many sleepless nights worrying over this worst-case scenario.
Why?
I don’t think it is very probable for the simple reason that humans would not allow it to happen.
Of course any sort of human interaction in the animal world creates ethical question as well as a prioritizing off what is important to us — which is essentially, well, us. When humans breathe life into things, they too feel it is OK to take life away.
And there are the obvious dilemmas: how do you control the population you have created; avoid genetic disorders; and what ultimately suffers when these animals start living like they did centuries ago? The article cited the example of the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone and the conflict it has caused between the wild animals and the ranchers.
I’m not quite sure where I stand on this particular issue but bioethicists will be in demand at this rate. I suppose its never too late to switch majors.
-Erin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey, Erin. Yeah, I read about the central-European bison a while back. The old "man vs. nature" conundrum, eh?
I'm sure no expert, but common sense, if not recent human history, would seem to indicate that deliberate, artificial interference with nature's processes can yield unintended, and unfortunately negative, consequences. (Back in the 19th century, Mary Shelley knew that when she was in her teens, when she wrote her classic, prescient novel Frankenstein!)
And this despite the best of human intentions. Because we can never anticipate the myriad ramifications of our actions relative to the larger balancing forces of nature, or even how our actions will bump up against other all-too human interests, as you pointed out about the wolves and the ranchers.
I'm not saying scientists and conservationists should halt their efforts with "rewilding"; just that they shouldn't go into it blind to at least foreseeable complications.
Doesn't it seem like the best thing we could do would be to live in accord with nature itself, and not overly upset or disrupt the natural course of its balancing mechanisms? But, then, that seems almost impossible to do now. Many old cultures did, and a few extant ones still do. Whereas, at present, we're in deep balance-deficit.
Plus, it's not realistic to think we can turn back the clock, as much as some would like. I think we can only take stock, and progress mindfully forward, conscious not to repeat our mistakes or at least minimize them.
It reminds me of an exchange from the Jodie Foster movie "Contact" from a few years ago. Did you see that one? There's a scene when Foster's astro-physicist character is asked by a panel of experts what she would ask an intelligent, sentient alien race, if she were to encounter one. She responds: I would ask them how did they do it? How did they survive their own technology?
That seems to be the umbrella question before us as well, doesn't it? Technology is inseparable from its dual personae: on the one side, the darkness of human flaws and weakness, and on the other side, wondrous human creativity and inspiration. Indeed, science and technology are representative of both our dreams (the polio vaccine, extraterrestrial travel, the Internet, e.g.) as much as our nightmares (bio-weapons, nuclear bombs, the dark side of cloning, e.g.).
For that, certainly journalism has a special obligation (and privilege) to be highly and ethically attentive to both. Are we up to it? Hmm, I think you are!
- Misako M.
Post a Comment