preservation+vs.+conservation


 * Preservation vs Conservation **

**The goal for this page is for you students, in character, to post comparing and contrasting these two views of environmental issues. If one of you would like to create a visual that would be great.**

**AL GORE(Nick): Preservation and Conservation of ecosystems are methods that involve the kind of thinking we need to see more of ** **in this world. Humankind is progressing rapidly, and in doing so, other species and the Earth itself are paying the price for our carelessness. Preservation- A bold idea. Leaving an ecosystem entirely untouched by human hands, trusting nature to maintain itself. This idea has the best intentions behind it, but it must be acknolwedged that the world we live in now is a very different world than that when which the ecosystems of this planet started. For this reason, we cannot be sure that ecosystems are able to take sustain themselves, as humans may have influenced them in ways we are unaware. They may even have become dependent on human interaction. This truth is inconvenient, as it places the responsibity on us to ensure that these ecosystems are thriving. This is why i personally prefer the method of conservation- aiding an ecosystem so that it may continue to exist healthily. An example of such a method can be found in the city of Concord, New Hampshire. In a conservation area along the Merrimack river in Concord, nesting areas of bank swallows and snapping turtles have been roped off and prohibit humans from interacting with the nests. This is preservation happening within conservation, in that humans are allowed to interact with the ecosystem along the riverbank, but not in certain areas. These are the kinds of things that we need to see more of in our ever-expanding socieities.**


 * Rachel Carson** (Alex): I agree with Al Gore's take on the situation. For many years, people were unaware of the effects they had on the surrounding environments. Because of this, those envionments and ecosystems changed, and now have some dependence on human interactions, whether direct or indirect. I believe that transitioning straight to preservation for some ecosystems might actually hurt them more than harm them. For this reason, conservation is the better path to follow to help keep our current environments healthy, becuase it allows the ecosystems to regulate themselves and follow their natural courses with just enough human interaction to enjoy them and keep them safe.


 * E. F. Schumacher** (Max): Both Al Gore and Rachel Carson have valid points on this issue. As an economist, my thorough studies have lead me to come to the conclusion that people are the answer to this conundrum. As societies, we must learn to become independent from the rest of the developed world. Communities must learn to be able to survive off of the ecosystems around them while preserving their natural state. Production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life. Local governments must have self-reliant economics and intermediate size coupled with intermediate technology and development make sure we keep the environment around us in a healthy state.


 * Aldo Leopold ** (Freddie): Rachel Carson and Mr. Gore have reasonable and well defended points, I do not agree. For hundreds of thousands of years before human civilizations, the Earth thrived. The myriad of ecosystems around the world were completely self preserving. I do not believe that any ecosystems are dependent on human interaction. We are an obtrusive, and invasive society, that only disrupt that natural and self renewing and preserving cycle of life. I was once assigned to hunt dangerous animals such as mountain lions and bears so they would not harm the farmers live stock in New Mexico. I quickly realized that we have no right to force ourselves upon an ecosystem, and change the makeup of life cycles to fit our own wants. I completely understand how Ms. Carson and Mr. Gore see this issue. I believe that if left alone, all ecosystems will recover from the damage of our society, and once again be healthy self preserving communities.


 * Chico Mendez** ( Keagan ): While I understand the points made by Mr. Leopold, I find that the idea of conservation is one that makes much more sense in our society today. As a lifelong Rubber Tapper(Including being elected president of the Rubber Tapper's Union upon it's creation in 1970), I have lived a life working and living as a member of the Amazon rainforest. While I feel that it is vital that we do not drain nature's resources for profit. This is especially dangerous to society when it is used as an excuse to abuse the workers of the world, keeping them uneducated and unable to make decisions. But I do feel that, if gathered responsibly, there are many resources provided by nature that have great benefit to society, as well as providing jobs and funding education. Because of this, I feel that conservation is our best option as it allows for the best of both worlds: humans can use natures resources as long as they do their part to take care of nature. But this does not mean that I completely disagree with the concept of preservation. I hold a very similar view to Al Gore, valuing the importance of establishing sites of preservation within the greater area of conservation. I was in fact assassinated after trying to protect a reserve from being logged for profit and land by a cattle rancher.