Goodbye to greed-centric conservation paradigms
Changing our perspective on nature is the priority. We must not consider nature to be a separate entity from whom we must reap benefits, but consider ourselves a part of nature itself, as much as any other species on the planet
We humans are known for our greed. Our greed for more, better, faster, and cheaper has, throughout history, led to cascading damages on the planet and other species we coexist with. So much so that greed has become a part of our basic instinct.
Yes, I know. I have heard all the excuses. “We are the apex species and our activities for our growth are bound to have an impact on other species.” “Survival of the fittest. Each species is responsible for their own survival.” But the most common question asked is “What’s in it for us?”.
Due to this mindset, anthropocentric approaches such as “ecosystem services” are being applied as it is the easiest way to convince decision-makers to undertake conservation efforts. This involves setting an economic value to a species to determine the financial viability of its conservation. For if something doesn’t have an economic value or serve our greed, why should it exist at all?
This is where humans are headed.
And it doesn’t end here. When we, humans, decide to work towards conservation, most often, it only materialises after realising its impact on us. Climate action, for example, although not to the tune required, has only become possible after realising the impact it is having and is going to have on us. Apart from mitigation, it is focussed on how we may adapt to its adverse effects. But do we really think about the impact that our climate actions, let alone the climate crisis itself, have on other species?
Changing our perspective on nature is the priority. We must not consider nature to be a separate entity from whom we must reap benefits, but consider ourselves a part of nature itself, as much as any other species on the planet.
The Supreme Court in Centre for Environmental Law (CEL), WWF-India v. Union of India laid down the “species best interest” standard and emphasised that “our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric”. The court also stated that “species (have) equal rights to exist on this earth”. Similarly, “rights of nature” is being adopted internationally, starting with Ecuador in 2008, under which nature is given legal recognition, equivalent to humans, with a right to thrive and be protected.
It is time for this shift from an anthropocentric approach to an eco-centric one. Conserve by understanding what is in the best interest of the species and not what is in the best interest for humans. Conserve because each and every species has a right on the planet as much as we do. Conserve because it is the right thing to do. Conserve because that is the humane thing to do.
Conserve for the sake of conservation.
Do we want future generations to look back at us and ask how and why we did this to nature? It is time for humans to be known for “humanity”, which must extend not just to our fellow humans but also our fellow Earth inhabitants. Let’s change the narrative and let history remember humans for being humane, not greedy.
Tejas Singh Kapoor is a lawyer currently working in the capacity of Programme Officer for the Centre for Environmental Law (CEL) at WWF-India. The views expressed are personal