![]() A book recommended by Alex that explains a novel definition of wildlife that reshapes perceptions on conversation politics. This is particularly relevant to my interests and career interests, but it utilizes a scientific voice that made me feel a bit under qualified as a reader. In fact, it provoked this need to educate myself on the biological and geological aspects of environmental science, as the author expresses such expertise. I do not believe that such knowledge is a prerequisite to participating in the environmental political field, but it sure would help. It would alleviate the discomforts of inadequacy that this book often brought. This is not particularly noted to criticize the book, although it sure could use some revisions if it is meant to be approached by the layman, but to explain my takeaways. Concepts such as dramatic, shocking, and horrifying and imagery and campaign strategies is something that I have previously studied. I agree with Jamie Lorimer that although it is effective at grasping attention, it motivates apathy and pessimism that is counterproductive. In fact, I wrote a paper on the environmental communication strategies of PETA that explores this idea, I will make sure to link that at the end of this post. But to continue, I enjoy the commentary on the commodification of wilderness that may lead to advances in conservation, but still are "masking the socially and ecologically disastrous relations of their production," (133). Such is why I implore conservation and environmentalism through ecological altruism, but I am not certain Lorimer agrees (although I am confident the foundations of his ideology are similar). This book has made me even question my own ethical perspectives, particularly when discussing the criticisms of the management of the OVP in The Netherlands. Animals were introduced to an human-made island, a form of rewilding, in conservationist. My initial reaction was positive, but the author explains the international criticism it faced from animal rights groups that detested how these animals were left to die of starvation since they did not come to this habitat on their own volition. Advocates believed that these animals should be given the same rights as those in farms, zoos, or laboratories. Initially, I agree, but what if it is for the greater good of the global ecological community? I wonder if anyone will be able to make that call. I found myself more comfortable in the later sections of the book, where the author employs ideas of exploitation using through Marxist theories to explain our relationships with other species. The commodification of charisma in species plays an interesting role on their domestication, treatment, and advocacy. I wonder why certain charismatic animals, such as cows, seem to be an exception. He says that less captive, captivating charismatic species "might fare better than their non-charismatic, undomesticated, or non-resilient kin," but what does it mean to fare better (156)? Is that relative to treatment from humans or their existence, which is quite subjective. The notion of charisma and encounter value makes sense conceptually, but I find too many gaps in the argument when I think of animals we consume. Overall, this book provides a different outlook on what it means to be natural and wild, particularly in the context of the developing world. We cannot over simplify the multilateral nature of wildlife, but the complex care of the subject seems much more difficult the the author makes it seem. The cosmopolitics, as it is called, of the dynamic process of conservation is going to inherently be flawed to the perspective of the researchers and spectators. The role of capitalism mentioned is what I found most compelling, but the recommendations provided seem to ail the symptoms of the issue at hand rather that suggest an overarching solution. Perhaps that is too big picture of me, and these are the suggestions for those involved in the conservation politics of the status quo. I look to shift the entire structure which biopolitics exists on, how daring of me. At least now I can understand the complexities that exist in the now. ![]()
1 Comment
AR
1/18/2022 04:42:28 pm
I’m glad you read it!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories |