The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-UK) recently held a conference entitled: Nature - "What's in it For Me?" Can someone explain what they meant please?
Was it: Nature - "What's in it For Me?"; come see how to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the natural world which enhances, enriches and contributes to well-being for nature and humans alike?
Or was it: Nature - "What's in it For Me?"; come see how to exploit the Environmental Conservation ‘cash-cow’ in new, (bio)diverse ways, while continuing to be as ineffectual as a Copenhagen summit?
Don’t get me wrong, I support good, honest nature conservation but I can’t be the only one who considers the IUCN’s chosen title to be ill-conceived & ironic, can I? In terms of a contribution to support the natural world, it is about as welcome as a working-class women asking awkward questions of a prime minister!
My picture (sorry!): It was taken about a kilometre downstream from my local 'RECYCLING' plant; I’m guessing that a good proportion of the plastic came from there! The plant boasted a 63% recycling rate last month!
We still have a long way to go before we save the planet, don't we?
Cheers,
Chris
1Ds3, 300 mm + 1.4x, 1/25@f16, ISO 50, tripod
Posted by John Robinson on April 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Good point Chris,
I have been involved with IUCN for a lot of years, for various reasons.
I think its a good valid question. Ask 20 people on this forum "whats in it for them"
The answers, if really honest could be surprising.
Me ? - I love all natural history and I love seeing new species for the first time. I've worked in it all my life but I never tire. The photography is a tool to remember things by. We often hear the phrase "I want to leave the planet in a better state than when I came into it "
When I am dead I won't really give a shit. - a lot of others don't anyway. I think if we are all really honest we must realise that the world is on a downward spiral and population growth is going up up up. Nature will take a second place because there are no economic rewards for enhancing it in todays world. Slushy TV programmes are all well and good but they are forgotten in a couple of weeks. Sorry to appear pessimistic but think about it.
JohnR
given that probably 90% of city based kids/people never visit the countryside its a rather obvious title I would have thought - how do we get more people involved in appreciating/saving nature before we all choke to death in a cloud of CO2
an alternative title could have been - Nature -Cool innit?
Chris A topical shot and one with which you could get the recycling rate of the plant up, just by the embarassment factor, local newspaper love nothing better than to prove failure !! Brown and Bigot" comes to mind!!!
As for whats init for us? nothing because as usual it is to little to late. The planet will clean itself but no humans will see it!
John: When I'm dead I hope I've done my bit to ensure my child and her cousins and friends have a natural environment worth helping to conserve. I haven't given up hope just yet!
Mike: Perhaps the money spent on the conference should have been used on introducing some of your 90% of kids/people to the countryside through organised events specifically aimed them?; that would be one way to get them "involved" (instead of preaching to the converted).
If kids were the target of the conference, your suggested title might well work - with a very small minority of kids! Maybe we should have a conference that kids/young people organise/attend themselves but is funded by the established 'Conservation' community?
Paul: The image was offered to local news outlets and members of the city council - no one carried it forward (but that is not a reason to stop producing such images).
Cheers
Chris
Posted by Mark Davies on April 29, 2010 at 4:53 AM
I 'm in the pessimistic camp unfortunately . Having seen what a city like Shanghai can do I fear our little island is pissing in the wind .Not to say that local causes should be unsupported I find some enforced criteria totally ineffectual in the overall scheme of things .
As to the statement I would consider it initially as optimistic and not a call to entrepreneurialism , but your valid point is fairly accepted.
As for the human race maybe we are not 'made' to be symbiotic.
A Thomas Midgely will be reincarnated but optimistically without him we wouldn't have made the 'advancements' in ecology .
Great spin on the title Chris at least its not bigoted .LOL
Posted by Brett Lewis on April 29, 2010 at 5:43 AM
What's in it for me..! Well, how much are you prepared to pay..?
Sometimes we have to contend with the economic aspects of conservation in the light of increased poverty at many of the world's biodiversity hotspots. We even see this at home when we look around our own countryside. We all enjoy the pleasures associated with NNR, SSSI, LNR etc.. but how much are we prepared to give to keep them that way..? Are we prepared to sacrifice the landscape for housing and industry and the associated infrastructure or are we prepared to put our hand in our pockets and say "actually I'd like to 'conserve' that area"...?
So an alternative look to the 'What's in it for me' question might be, 'How much will I get out of it in terms of enjoyment, longevity, and for future generations' if I part with a little of my time and money..?
Ask yourselves how many images in your libraries have been taken on nature reserves of one form or another and how many of those have made you a bit of money either by direct sales or through workshops, slide-shows etc..? Then how much money or time have you put back into those reserves or contributed to the organisations and people that do..?
Nature - What's in It For Me..? The possibilities are endless, let's keep it that way...
Chris, I am sure the conference people thought it was a catchy title. But why would anybody do something that had no benefit to them? All conservation in the future is going to based on consumer choice. If you can get people making money through conservation or green energy or whatever then it might work, if you rely on people doing the right thing then you will end up disappointed. There are lots of financial benefits in conservations.( Rain forests worth more in rainforest products than timber or soya) but the share holders of big companies don't know or care.
Back to photography take a look at the second one down on www.wildlifetales.net to see what a picture do.
Personally, I think the renaissance was the turning point where we started to consider ourselves appart from nature rather than part of it; we abstracted the human from the animal and started the process of losing touch. Over the past 6 centurys we have slowly moved along the seperation path, accererating te difference since the 1850's onward. I would hope what is in it for me is a symbotic, rather than parasitic, situation - and I am capiable of making a difference for the better. I haven't given up on that which sustains me.
T
Posted by David Taylor on April 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM
After watching Episode 2 of the BBC's Beautiful Minds series featuring James Lovelock. It's all academic anyway. Unless.............. (for my granddaughter's sake I have to be optimistic. )
Discussion
9 repliesThe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-UK) recently held a conference entitled: Nature - "What's in it For Me?" Can someone explain what they meant please?
Was it: Nature - "What's in it For Me?"; come see how to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the natural world which enhances, enriches and contributes to well-being for nature and humans alike?
Or was it: Nature - "What's in it For Me?"; come see how to exploit the Environmental Conservation ‘cash-cow’ in new, (bio)diverse ways, while continuing to be as ineffectual as a Copenhagen summit?
Don’t get me wrong, I support good, honest nature conservation but I can’t be the only one who considers the IUCN’s chosen title to be ill-conceived & ironic, can I? In terms of a contribution to support the natural world, it is about as welcome as a working-class women asking awkward questions of a prime minister!
My picture (sorry!): It was taken about a kilometre downstream from my local 'RECYCLING' plant; I’m guessing that a good proportion of the plastic came from there! The plant boasted a 63% recycling rate last month!
We still have a long way to go before we save the planet, don't we?
Cheers,
Chris
1Ds3, 300 mm + 1.4x, 1/25@f16, ISO 50, tripod
I have been involved with IUCN for a lot of years, for various reasons.
I think its a good valid question. Ask 20 people on this forum "whats in it for them"
The answers, if really honest could be surprising.
Me ? - I love all natural history and I love seeing new species for the first time. I've worked in it all my life but I never tire. The photography is a tool to remember things by. We often hear the phrase "I want to leave the planet in a better state than when I came into it "
When I am dead I won't really give a shit. - a lot of others don't anyway. I think if we are all really honest we must realise that the world is on a downward spiral and population growth is going up up up. Nature will take a second place because there are no economic rewards for enhancing it in todays world. Slushy TV programmes are all well and good but they are forgotten in a couple of weeks. Sorry to appear pessimistic but think about it.
JohnR
an alternative title could have been - Nature -Cool innit?
As for whats init for us? nothing because as usual it is to little to late. The planet will clean itself but no humans will see it!
Mike: Perhaps the money spent on the conference should have been used on introducing some of your 90% of kids/people to the countryside through organised events specifically aimed them?; that would be one way to get them "involved" (instead of preaching to the converted).
If kids were the target of the conference, your suggested title might well work - with a very small minority of kids!
Paul: The image was offered to local news outlets and members of the city council - no one carried it forward (but that is not a reason to stop producing such images).
Cheers
Chris
As to the statement I would consider it initially as optimistic and not a call to entrepreneurialism , but your valid point is fairly accepted.
As for the human race maybe we are not 'made' to be symbiotic.
A Thomas Midgely will be reincarnated but optimistically without him we wouldn't have made the 'advancements' in ecology .
Great spin on the title Chris at least its not bigoted .LOL
Sometimes we have to contend with the economic aspects of conservation in the light of increased poverty at many of the world's biodiversity hotspots. We even see this at home when we look around our own countryside. We all enjoy the pleasures associated with NNR, SSSI, LNR etc.. but how much are we prepared to give to keep them that way..? Are we prepared to sacrifice the landscape for housing and industry and the associated infrastructure or are we prepared to put our hand in our pockets and say "actually I'd like to 'conserve' that area"...?
So an alternative look to the 'What's in it for me' question might be, 'How much will I get out of it in terms of enjoyment, longevity, and for future generations' if I part with a little of my time and money..?
Ask yourselves how many images in your libraries have been taken on nature reserves of one form or another and how many of those have made you a bit of money either by direct sales or through workshops, slide-shows etc..? Then how much money or time have you put back into those reserves or contributed to the organisations and people that do..?
Nature - What's in It For Me..? The possibilities are endless, let's keep it that way...
Brett
Back to photography take a look at the second one down on www.wildlifetales.net to see what a picture do.
Harry
T