Whenever I try to say that a basic standard/restrictions should be maintained everywhere, that is countered by saying that the primary purpose/main objective is to connect /engage people to nature, learning curve, mission is to engage as many people as possible with the natural world etc (no matter what they do even before knowing some basic things from books, Internet, experienced persons?).
I’ve posted comments in many threads that have indicated my personal views (strictly my views only) on the matter. Few examples:
May be my views in this respect are totally wrong. Maybe I’m looking at it from a wrong and negative angle.
Would love to know what everyone thinks about it?
You bring up an important issue. And I noticed that the occasional similar comments in the “Why do you think birds are so popular” thread didn’t get much engagement.
Mostly, people are keeping that thread positive. That was likely @AdamWargon 's intent as the thread starter; but now that we have this thread, there is no need to keep this one positive.
There is such a thing as “nature being loved to death.” I heard about that many years before the word overtourism became a thing; but it is the same thing. Overtourism is simply cities suffering the same effect that popular nature places have been suffering for a long time. Even cities that have been economically reliant on tourism are waking up to the adverse effects of overtourism. I do not think it is wrong to draw a parallel with people engaging with nature: you can have too much of a good thing.
We cannot really help or destroy nature, we can just help maintain or destroy the way it is now. Ecosystems will ultimately recover from any “wounds” we humans inflict upon them. They will look vastly different and we’ll have probably driven ourselves (and quite a few other species) to extinction by the point they have recovered, but still…
I think, both extremes (trying to keep “nature” as separate from humans as possible and terraforming the entire planet to suit humanities needs) are flawed approaches, though the latter perhaps more than the former.
Your views are definitely not wrong, and your examples show that, unfortunately, restrictions are necessary (and may need to be more strictly enforced by governments). I think for everything we do, both as individuals and as a collective, we need to ask ourselves what the costs and benefits are. As much as I can understand the lifelisters’ wish to see and document a rare species, I believe the benefit to be quite minimal. If it comes at the cost of endangering that already rare species, then the cost definitely far outweighs the benefits, so it should not be done. We should all think about the consequences of our actions and show restraint wherever necessary.
I remember in the first thread you linked to, someone (edit: it was dentalflossbay) said: “Foot access beats bulldozer access”
I agree with that, but not if the human becomes the bulldozer, flattening everything in their path to achieve their (selfish) goal.
Maybe your views are not wrong; just currently different from the generally stated goals of the iNat platform.
From my experience here, I would guess that our Forum discussions have little influence on changing how iNaturalist works. However, there is the opportunity to sway individual iNat users. FWIW, INat has more discussion groups on different platforms (Discord; perhaps, Twitter/X, FB, others). I only participate in this Forum, so I do not know if the other discussions are more active or influential.
I remember learning in physics about the observer effect which refers to changes that the act of observation can make on a phenomenon being observed. Other things come up in searches of the topic such as Hawthorne Effect, Reflexivity, and thought experiments such as Schrödinger’s Cat - the concepts highlight the act of exploration or observation can indeed impact the subject being studied.
Observing natural phenomena, whether in biology, ecology, or environmental science, can lead to various impacts on the subject being studied. I would agree that our footprint has an impact on that which we seek to understand. The greater the footprint, and the more footprints the more the possible impact.
Mass involvement everywhere could be destructive for some versions of involvement, but mass involvement everywhere isn’t a thing. Occasional agglomerations of nerds sporting weird hats and expensive optical glass are often annoying to the subjects of their obsessions; that’s an animal welfare concern that deserves consideration but I expect that the bird (or other critter) would rather be gawked at and disturbed than shot at, smacked by a speeding vehicle, asphyxiated by industrial emissions, etc.
The fact that a lot of people want to ogle birds (or whatever) means that there is a mass of people who want the places where birds nest, feed, migrate, roost and whatnot protected. That’s a good thing.
Anyway, life is about trade-offs. Anybody who is looking for absolute solutions to these sorts of issues with no downside is going to be disappointed.
No matter what you do it will simply change and take on new forms.
New Forms… New Forms- I’ll think about it some more and try to kill myself a bit more to realize whether it is just a comic and nothing else.
Observation-
I have seen an animal. I observed an animal. ?
I too love to believe it. However, melting of Himalayan Ice sheets, Warning ignored disasters occurring very often -every time these incidents cracks my faith.
Indeed, making a place a no-man’s land is an utopian wish. I do not mean anybody whose observations are really needed, who are educated travelers or having some other needs. No Extreme points like 0 or 100… There are several numbers in between- when I get 10, I want 20-when I get 20, I want 30 and so on…I went to any forest to see/learn/observe something (10), I demanded an AC Resort(20), When I got that by destroying a large portion forest and construction of several Resorts there, I demanded to celebrate my Birthday Party there(30)… and so on. Where should I stop?
The reason why the current three big environmental crises (loss of biodiversity, pollution and habitat poisoning, and climate change caused by manmade global warming) are alarming and have to be solved ASAP is because they are threatening the basis of our existence (alongside that of many other current species).
We won’t wipe out life on earth, at least not with our current technologies (nor hopefully ever). For life this is currently yet another mass extinction. It has had 5 of those in the past already, biodiversity has always bounced back. There have been periods with ice, without ice, with negligible oxygen in the atmosphere, with lots more oxygen in the atmosphere, etc. Life has survived all that, it will survive us.
The question humanity needs to ask itself is whether it wants to go on living on this planet or rather opt for, in the worst case, extinction. I’d much prefer the former, but, sadly, we are currently doing our best to reach the other option as quickly as possible.
There are no black-or-white answers to this question. Eco-tourism can be done well and benefit humans and the local ecosystem. It can also be done badly by companies and locals alike with little regard for anything beyond getting the maximum amount of money from the tourists in the shortest possible time.
I know there are many negative examples, but let me share some positive examples I have first-hand experience with. First, many years ago I was deployed to Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide. Many of my peers were lucky enough to get three days off to visit the wild mountain gorillas. The tour was expensive and the chances of seeing the gorillas were not guaranteed. Despite that everyone who had the chance spoke highly of the program. The fees that were paid went to ranger salaries and gorilla research but also to local schools and health clinics. That meant the locals knew they were better off with living gorillas than they would be if they were still selling bits of the gorillas to tourists and local witch doctors.
Closer to home there is an active whale-watching industry here. Many of my fellow locals despise it. They accuse it of harassing the whales, almost always without evidence. My experience is that the crews are highly ethical and understand that breaking the rules is counter-productive.
While I have never done one of the whale-watching tours I do get to see whales several times a year. Sometimes it is from shore. Sometimes it is from the ferry. Whenever I do, I point them out to anyone who looks like they might be a visitor. It gives me a chance to explain how the Southern resident killer whales are in danger of extinction. I’ve had people wipe tears from their eyes and ask how they can help. That is a big win in my books.
Finally, since someone mentioned ‘life listers’ I just had my first direct experience with some this week. When I went on my usual morning hike to the top of the bluffs I was stunned to see around 18 people armed with binos and long lenses. I usually only see one or two locals at most. There was a red-headed woodpecker spotted there earlier in the week. Since that would be far out of normal range it had all the birders in a tizzy. I was prepared for the worst but they all stuck to the trail and the local birds didn’t seem bothered by them at all. Again this morning I met a man on the trail who I assumed was looking for the woodpecker. He was, but he was also acting as a scout for other birders since he was already here visiting. The plan was that if he didn’t see the bird everyone else could skip taking the ferry to get here. A bunch of random people connected only by birding had self-organized to reduce unnecessary travel and thereby reduce their impact on the environment.
I know it is easy to give in to the negative but people are capable of doing the right thing given the chance. Anyone can be a steward of the land.
traditional healers. In the Western tradition we call them herbalists. Many of our pharmaceuticals are derived from plants and use that indigenous knowledge.
There was a recent post on FB where freshwater biologists explained to traditional healers about testing rivers for pollution. That knowledge and awareness fans out across the community, in the same way as giving little city based kids a chance to engage with nature.
My Swiss husband was a tour guide in Cape Town - so we lived Cape Town was and is a tourist destination. Nature is one of the reasons they come to us.
Gorillas are not plants. Anyone who sells you an animal part claiming it will protect you from the curse your neighbour put on you or make you more virile is deluded at best or just an outright conman. While I appreciate your desire to be culturally sensitive I used the term witchdoctor because that is the term I was given by Rwandans.
After reading all the discussions so far, the matter stands to me very much like this:
Almost all of us are aware that mass gathering (topic related areas) will definitely hurt nature. But we believe that nature can handle it by itself or will change accordingly (I don’t know whether that change will go in the positive form or negative form). So we have nothing to worry about or nothing special to do about it. Let it go anyway. We will wait calmly and see how nature takes care of itself.
I personally believe that much of what you and others have raised here probes questions of a fundamental nature about human nature. This hedonic treadmill that people seem to be on is a fairly recent development. For all of our technological advancements such as cheap air travel, the consumer-driven society, FOMO, social media platforms, seeking endless experiences, validation, and social approval, there remains a persistent gap between our external achievements and our internal sense of fulfillment. It seems to me that people nowadays make a life out of constant travel. No sooner have they finished one trip, they’re off on another, or at the very least planning their next one. But they never seem to be any happier.
I tend to side with Jordan Peterson on this one: we do damage the planet and the flora and fauna, but the world is possibly a lot harder on us than we are on it. It’s interesting to think that there are billions of galaxies, and here we are in this one called the Milky Way, about two-thirds of the way out on the edge. If our galaxy were reduced to the size of Australia, you’d be able to easily fit our sun into the ridge of your fingerprint. The entire Solar System would fit onto the end of your finger. So, while it’s important to be mindful of our impact on nature, we shouldn’t be too overwhelmed by it. Many aspects of life and the universe are far, far, far, far,far, far,far, far,far, far,far, far,far, far, beyond our control.
To make it short my take is that (mass) involvement is good ONLY IF there is respect and basic knowledge. Some species are very easily disturbed, other less…
Basic knowledge includes that humans takes habitats from other species, and transform it for its own needs. To build houses and cities, convert new land for agriculture, roads, infrastructures, mines, etc. That’s why deforestation is still growing everywhere.
Also human population is growing very fast, in fact almost as fast as in the 1970’s! Despite much lower birth and growth rates, these now apply to much higher numbers so the annual increment at a global level is similar, so far.
About 95% of all animals on Earth are now cattle, chickens, sheep, etc. (land vertebrates).
That’s reality…
because it was felt that otherwise mass involvement everywhere may destroy the nature
Adding the two, it becomes: “A basic standard/restrictions” should be maintained everywhere, otherwise mass involvement everywhere may destroy the nature.
My personal opinion is Yes
