IN THIS SERIES:  Climate, Conservation, Extinction, Mankind and My Contribution.            Main Page

BIHRMANN's THOUGHTS                  
   ABOUT NATURE CONSERVATION

 This is a collection of basic thoughts and facts around conservation.

What have been done, what  need to be done, suggestions to how to reverse this unlucky trend.

WHY? I see the earth as a house of playing cards: You might get away with removing a few, but one too mush, and it all tumbles down!
Preserving the Earth as it is, sounds like a glorious project. On the other hand; the climate and inhabitants of the earth have changed a lot in the past 4.5 billion years.

 It seems like the nature of the Earth is changes, and mankind and the species we find around us is here for a short time.  It is only seen in the micro quantum-like perspective we matters at all?

THOUGHT:
There are two kind of people: Those who care about the nature, and those who can afford to care.

 Money runs our world, and in the same time, it destroys it.
 To preserve the nature, you need money. Good intentions don't seem to do it alone. 
On the other hand: Mankind have wiped out numerous species, in a way no other species have ever done before. Are we really aloud to do that?
 It have happened before, but caused by changes in climate due to natural occurrences. (More on Climate.)

We are only here for a short time. As guests, we are not aloud to make any changes. We don't seem to be able to act with enough courtesy, and we have to change that.

One simple solution: An airborne Ebola, which wipes out all the "civilized" people, leaving the few remaining Indians who still live in harmony with Mother Earth.

 I hope I can come up with a better solution!

 WHAT WENT WRONG?
Those massive areas without protection, have been the victim of human greed. The individual person want more and more material goods, and we are using more, than the earth can provide. To add worse; we are multiplying in an unseen rate.
 The mega fauna was hunted to extension by the first people immigrating new areas. Entire countries have been chopped down for either charcoal or the few precious hardwoods, hiding among the rest. I better stop this endless here....

CONSERVATION
 To preserve through conservation seem easy, but not if hunger or greed are present - which usual seem to be the case.
 To solve this conflict, the nature could be made into some sort of commercial interest. Either by giving big companies the urge to hire guards, or by giving the local inhabitants an income as i.e. guides and guards.
 A few countries seems to thrive quite good with this construction, South Africa and Kenya to name a few.

  
 Another way might be to grow the crops that are natural occurring in the area. The baobab; Adansonia  digitata are a great source of food. The leaves can be eaten raw of dried up and made into powder, and the fruits are so rich in vitamins. If these giant trees are grown more intense, but not in mono-cultures, there will be a good habitat for other indigenous fauna and flora. 
 Another example are different medicine plants that can be grown more intense in their natural habitat, forming a rather good income for the local inhabitants.		    RE-ESTABLISHING  NATURE
To establishing damaged areas take a huge effort. Some areas can even be without salvation due to i.e. huge climatic changes made by de-forestation. Madagascar is a  scary example on that!  A much more positive example is Galapagos, where there finally are done a huge and successful effort to re-establish the original fauna and flora. 
 At first, the invasive flora and fauna have to be controlled or at best; eliminated. Then the indigenous have to be re-established, aiming to the right balance. But where do you get those animal and plants from?
 MAINTAINING THE SPECIES
Maintaining the diversity "on site" is, without any doubt, the best. But so fare, experience have shown the error in that. Just look at the extensive list at the page: Extinction!
 Plan B must be some sort of "Noah's Ark". Already, some species are only found in zoos and botanical gardens.
 Bringing those species in, must be done without damaging the natural population on one side, on the other; there have to be enough to preserve a substantial gene pole and represent the diversity within the species.
 REPRODUCING
 To produce sufficient numbers of plants and animals are extreme expensive. Where the zoos and botanical gardens usual only have a little number of individuals, the reintroducing of these species to the wild demand significant numbers. Further more, it might not take only one species but many. To introduce a predator, you need its pray. That animal might need a specific plant which again is depending on a specific insect for pollination. 		   CLEANING THE WILD
 Reintroducing the species might call on some extensive "cleaning" of the area. Introduced species might hunt down the reintroduced. Plants might create way too much shadow. Birds might eat its fruits without leaving the seeds. The competition on plants might be won by the invasive.
 A lot of species have not been directly wiped out by mankind, but by the plants and animals we have brought with us. These have to be controlled before any reintroduction.
 WHO WILL PAY? 
 Unfortunately, money runs the world, and good intentions don't make it alone. If any nature should be re-established, there have to be a "carrot".
 National parks with an entrance fee seems to work fine.
 It would be great if the governments and people of the areas would take a pride in conserving their natural environments. Well, that might be a bit too late for the rich countries, and the poor have more pressing problems - they think.
CAN IT BE DONE?
 I sure hope so, and I am contributing as much as I can. I work with inventing different ways to propagate rare plants in huge numbers and maintain threatened species at the University of Copenhagen.
 I have been working on i.e. Galapagos, and the things I saw there, gave me an indication on: It is possible! Unfortunately, I have to add; not everywhere.  
 More about what I do on My Contribution.		    

THOUGHT:
 Are you rich, if you have 100 acres with only cows? Or are you rich if you can walk in the wild, seeing 100s of species of animals?

 Are you rich if you have 100 acres with one crop? Or are you rich if you have one acre with 100 wild species?
IN THIS SERIES: Thoughts about; Climate, Conservation, Extinction, Mankind and My Contribution.