Kader Asmal began allocating money for Working for Water. That was so successful that they extended it to Working for Fire. Yes steady work, skills training, and also supporting teams of women.
But that needs government / municipalities willing to allocate money for employment in nature.
Controlled maintenance burns here are by a combination of professional and volunteer firefighters.
I learned about that in undergrad. My last academic quarter was in Costa Rica. Lots of fauna in the Reserve. But our professor told us that over the decades that he has been coming to Costa Rica ā the fauna used to be not just in the Reserve, but around the village at night, too. He used to see kinkajous, olingos, but by the time I was in his course, it was nothing but dogs and cats.
And I know people who work in conservation who can vouch for that. As in, they got their start working for an environmental consultancy firm doing wetland delineations. Not that delineating the wetlands would stop the development; it just defined what āmitigationā would be done. They themselves describe it as a āfeel-badā job, knowing it was not making the difference they went into the field wanting to make.
No, your opinion is not a popular one. But unpopular opinions can still tell important truths.
And the ones who do not support the status quo are labeled eco-terrorists. (In my mind, that is a clever bit of doublespeak; eco-terrorist ought rightly to mean those who do terrible things to ecosystems.)
I had one of those jobs for a while, somewhat like what youāre describing. We were basically āgreasing the skidā for development to proceed. The term used half-jokingly for that type of position was ābiostitute.ā I didnāt stick with it, although it paid very well and I took a financial hit by leaving it.
The ecology field is a mess itās true. But things like fur trapping and agriculture are probably even a worse bet than ecology. And oil and gas is a gamble, because even if we donāt care about climate change or pollution, it will run out eventually anyway. Itās hard to predict what will be profitable in 10 years. Tech stuff is always changing. āBusinessā is a mess. The truth is the entire global economic system is unstable and far from merit based. Ecology and science can be a tough place and despite all my luck and privilege to be able to do this as my job, Iāve considered leaving it several times for various reasons. One of the main ones being mentioned by others here is working as a consultant when I did that may actually be doing more harm than working in an unrelated field. To be honest the other things I looked into doing seemed even iffier. The world is a mess.
you seem to be an incredibly driven person, which is just what the research world needs. as a much younger person whoās also familiar with the feeling of despair (though among different contexts), please donāt give up. I can echo what other people have said here alreadyājob counselling would be a good thing to seek out, but in generalātake breaks for self-care and as others have said, step back from things. It can mean the world to allocate some time to treating yourself well in any little way. I donāt want to be presumptuous or overstep any boundaries, but you should know that you matter and the work youāve already been doingāthatās what causes change. others sometimes make it seem that in order to succeed you have to carry the world on your back, but any contribution you make is important. the anger/frustration/sadness in the feeling of rejection itself is completely valid and warranted, but I donāt want you to feel that itās the end of your endeavours. it may be incremental and take time, but things will get better. my unsolicited advice is to first work on stability through caring for yourself and then build up from there. you are ambitious to a fault, as Iām sure many of us are (I definitely am).
In relation to the threadāin my occasional waves of optimismāI think this human drive to learn under the greatest stressors and hardships is exactly what helps us stay afloat. itās the mindset of pushing forward when everything seems to be against you instead of admitting defeat that will save us. and sometimes itās one of the hardest things for a person to do.
Aside from the really important conversations being had about facing crises, finding work, environmental destruction of all types, and the incompatibility of capitalist profit interest and our capacity for wisdomā¦
I am interested in any of the climate deniersā and anthropogenic skepticsā opinions on the disinformation and wealthy interests backing your own āsideā, and what your experience looking into them has been. Hereās one article I saw for example - https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
And hereās a simple starting point for your own research- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change+denial&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
If you get paywalled I canāt say more here (I assume) but there are ways around it if you look.
Iām a geologist also and I am not remotely qualified to assess the bulk of climate science.
Geology is a very large field of study.
āIām a geologistā doesnāt make one qualified on climate change.
Thatās like thinking any IT professional can fix your laptop.
I think the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real is most compelling, but at the very least, we are screwing up our planet in pretty clear ways.
I almost didnāt read this far down. Thanks for restoring a mote of confidence in the Forum.
I donāt think that was the ONLY note of truth, good science, common-sense or humanity in this thread, which is an unusually wide-ranging one but mostly retains relevance to the original post, with lots of contemplation, consideration and a great range of input from scientistsā own experiences, I thought.
I particularly liked the researchersā accounts of their bad experiences of the truth being rejected, and dearth of employment in true and useful fields. Not a scientist, this had been my impression anyway, and it was good to know I wasnāt being too cynical.
I have often tried to find specialist advice in ecology/biology fields, to guide/improve my restoration work. There arenāt any available to me, other than by bothering one Botany curator yet again.
In the past I have been privileged to receive the benefit of the experience and knowledge of several, by email, in site tours, including general guidelines and principles (eg the recognition of plant communities blew my mind), tips, identifications etc ā¦ but that was an unusual situation I had arrived in at the time.
Other than these people, most biology-type scientists I have met seemed to me to be paid only to authorise destruction. and they were great people, who loved Nature. I used to wonder why they did those jobs, till I realized that those are almost the only jobs there are in Nature. (Its actually the same in many of the diverse fields of employment I have been in or investigated - eg how many musicians find work making real music? cf making background noises, jingles, etc.)
Like Charlie said, the worldās in a mess.
So I think this thread does a fine job of acknowledging and cheering on all the āstarving artistsā of the science world.
Regarding the biostitutes, biologists working for the property developers: it is better that the surveys are done by people who know about wildlife and will write reports that explain the damage. The alternative is that the surveys are done by incompetents and help the developers and the authorities to pretend there will be no environmental damage.
I can provide at least one counter-example that might make you feel a little better about biologistsā professional impact. I am not a biologist myself, but I work with them as part of a government agency responsible for the remediation of Superfund and formerly used defense sites. These are generally areas that have been affected by chemical releases, old landfills without proper safeguards against chemical leaching, bombing and firing ranges with old munitions, explosives, or explosive constituents still present, etc. Biologists write biological opinions, environmental impact assessments, and perform field oversight to ensure our remediation activities have minimal impact on protected biological resources. In the short time that Iāve been here (two years next Feb.), Iāve been a part of two projects that have successfully completed remediation activities and achieved closeout (and many more that are still in the process). While the government as a whole or even at the agency level is definitely a mixed bag when it comes to environmental impact, Iām confident that at least my little division has a net positive effect. You do have some freedom to choose what projects you work on as well. It takes a long time to fill government positions and itās an expensive process. Once youāre in, itās in the governmentās best interests to keep you happy and working, so in general, if you find something objectionable in a project, you can decline to work that particular project. There is almost always plenty of other work to keep you busy (Partly because weāre understaffed and spread a little thin. Pluses and minuses). I would also say that many of the contractors that Iāve worked with while on this job also have a net positive environmental impact.
Thatās a good example of work that actually does provide some satisfaction, although itās often not very glamorous. I did some of that ā remediation of a mine waste site that was a candidate for Superfund listing ā years after I had another job working as a biologist on new construction projects that resulted in a net loss of natural habitat. Both jobs exposed me to engineering, hydrology, geology, and heavy machinery construction ā professions that, as a biologist,I was never trained in.
In the end, I could feel good about the remediation work because it helped make the environment a little better. I didnāt feel that way about the previous job.
But the fact is that scientists are used to do that, e.g. Iāve heard about Greenpeace work and how two groups of researchers came to two different results in their surveys, one for one company and one for another one, that way everyone was happy with what they got and destroy was justified. Not even touching the part about using scientists in gathering data, sometimes for their government, sometimes for the foreign one, like if they were spies.
Politics is tied to everything and I think itās best to acknowledge that and address it, as you have done here. Thanks for the link to the article.
As an old friend used to say, lifeās a b**ch and then you die. If you somehow manage to navigate this vale of tears without making ethical trade-offs or any of the other usual, myriad compromises that make up most lives then you are a profoundly privileged part of a minuscule fraction of humanity.
The word science gets thrown around in some pretty questionable ways by people who are often hard pressed to give a coherent definition of the term. Tart up some geeky looking person in a lab coat, say the word science a lot and you can sell a pile of soap/cars/toothpaste/shoes/acne medication/whatever. As a rule, I try to confine its use to the meanings that attach to the term scientific method. The scientific method is no more and no less than a way of asking questions of the universe. It is a tool, not a value system. Like a scalpel, a hammer or a chainsaw it can be used to whatever ends the āscientistā wants to use it. The fact that there are people using it to do things that some others consider bad is not a surprise.
When I was an undergraduate most of the sciencey jobs were in academia or government agencies. Since the 1970s, successive rounds of ideologically-driven cuts in government agencies have moved most of the agency jobs into consulting and reduced agency oversight of the consultants to the point of being a bad joke. Thatās a political problem not a scientific problem. If itās angering you that much, think about it the next time you vote and maybe get involved politically. Donāt blame people who are mostly just feeding their kids using the skills they are trained for.
Universities and community colleges (Canadian terminology may not scan elsewhere) sell their services based on demand from students (who pay tuition), not on the actual needs of employers. Far more people want degrees and diplomas in environmentally-related fields than could ever be employed in them. The corollary to this is that a diploma or degree may be a requirement for employment but it is not a guarantee of employment. This is true for most areas of study. Iāve had 200 people apply for an admin assistant job and fully half of the applicants hold office administration diplomas. The one exception is regulated professions (medicine, law, engineering, etc.) and even there you can mess up your chances if you go out of your way to be foolish.
A diploma/degree is an item on a checklist. Other items include (but are not limited to) (a) good interview(s), appropriate experience (work or voluntary), good references, a professional public profile that fits the employersā requirements. In the age of social media this last item has become an easy first cut for employers seeking to expedite the shortlisting process. Everybodyās social media accounts are sought as soon as their name is considered for an interview. HR folks are savvy enough to take common names into account but if an account is a solid match for an applicant and it is full of angry putdowns, inappropriate sharing, vulgarity, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., theyāre going to be looking very closely. If your other qualifications seem extremely good you might get an initial interview but you can be sure that the interviewer is going to be seeking information that confirms or contradicts a match with the social media account. Social media includes iNat, by the way. If you seem like somebody who is going to be a problem or a poor fit you wonāt make the cut.
Just checkingā¦was this a reply to me? I hope not, as thatās what I was saying!
And while anger is a poison to oneself, a destructive state that has to be overcome before acting usefully, as an initial response to destructive policies and practices and beliefs it is better than denial, surely?
Right. There is so much need for the public, ie me and my neighbours, to have access to, or be routinely, proactively addressed by, the environmental scientists who have done the work of absorbing and honestly assessing the data. Yet in my region, that access has been radically reduced from little to almost nothing over the last decade (EDIT or two decadesā¦I wasnt involved between 2000 and 2018) by political changes and staff cuts.
Plenty of jobs in marketing under the same overall employer though. At much higher salaries.
No. It was a reply to the topic.Thereās so much going on in this topic I figured some context for my response would be helpful. I could have included others but two seemed like enough.
Edited to add: Rereading, it seems that the post started out being about one thing and ended up going other places. The context is mostly used up in the 1st paragraph. Stream of consciousness will do that. 
Ah, good, thanks. Your first para landed nicely, the next gave me a bit of a jolt, and I wondered if I had appeared to be bio-stitute bashing, ( if its not impertinent to use the term used sympathetically in a comment above)
Yes, the climate has changed dramatically in prehistoric times BUT previous fluctuations have, for the most part, been gradual such that biological systems have mostly been able to adapt but today WE are forcing a very rapid change such that species are being severely affected and many are at risk. A plant cannot pull up its roots and head northwards as its environment gets too hot for it for example - a species can move northwards by seed dispersal over millennia but that chance is not give with todayās changes. All of that plus the dramatic increase in major weather effects that are literally blowing us away. We can control this change and we must start doing so.