Assignment 1, Part 4: Upload your final assignment answers
Due Sunday by 11pm
Points 45
Submitting a text entry box or a file upload
Available Mar 10 at 12:01am – Apr 23 at 11pm
Deadline: Sunday, March 26, 11pm
Maximum points possible: 45
5 Assignment Questions to Answer:
Your answers can be in number form, i.e. you don’t need to put your answers in essay form — you can just answer the numbered discussion questions. However, make sure to first consult the grading rubric below.
What is the main message that the authors of your assigned article are aiming to convey? Give specific examples from the articles. Write your summary for an audience who has not yet read the article but who will need to thoroughly understand both sides of the conservation debate. In other words, write as if you were teaching your peers what your side of the debate is about. In your answer, fully define the worldview that corresponds most closely to author (ecocentric or anthropocentric).
What evidence from the article supports the main conservation ethic (anthropocentric or ecocentric) of your authors? Kareiva and co-authors represent a more anthropocentric worldview; Soulé / Doak and co-authors represent a more ecocentric worldview.
Do you agree with the author(s)? Why or why not?
Answer questions 4 and 5 after you have engaged in the online debate.
What is the main argument on the other side of the debate? In your answer, fully define the worldview of your author that corresponds most closely to your author (ecocentric or anthropocentric).
How can we reconcile the two perspectives (your article and the article from the other side of the debate) to strengthen and build a cohesive conservation movement?
Remember: You are allowed to cut/paste the numbered discussion questions into your document if you’d like to answer them that way (i.e. it doesn’t need to be in full essay format, but see the rubric below).
Your answers should be formatted as:
Single spaced
12 pt. Times New Roman font
1-inch margins on all sides
1 page minimum; 2 pages maximum.
Grading Rubric for Assignment 1, Part 4 (45 points total):
Answers to all 5 questions, with evidence of comprehension and analysis of article topics (35/45 points)
Clarity of answers, with demonstration of college-level writing (incl. grammar and punctuation) (10/45 points).
++++++
The main message that the authors of the assigned article “Conservation in the Anthropocene” aim to convey is that the conservation movement should shift from focusing on preserving pristine nature to managing and adapting to the human-dominated landscapes of the Anthropocene. They argue that traditional conservation approaches that prioritize wilderness and biodiversity protection are inadequate in the current era of rapid global change, where humans have already transformed over 75% of the Earth’s land surface. The authors emphasize that conservation should prioritize human well-being and societal needs while balancing ecological concerns. As they state, “Conservation in the Anthropocene must also embrace the reality that Earth’s ecosystems and their biodiversity are now inseparable from the workings of the global economy, societies, and cultures” (Kareiva et al. 2018).
To a novice audience, the article argues that traditional conservation approaches are outdated and cannot address the current environmental challenges effectively. Instead, the authors suggest a new approach to conservation that is more pragmatic, recognizing the need to balance environmental concerns with societal needs. They propose that the conservation movement should shift its focus from saving pristine nature to managing and adapting to the human-dominated landscapes. In doing so, the article argues that conservation will be more relevant and effective in addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene era.
The authors’ worldview that corresponds most closely to them is anthropocentric, which emphasizes human interests and needs. They argue that conservation should prioritize human well-being and societal needs, even if it means compromising ecological objectives.
Kareiva and co-authors’ argument is primarily anthropocentric, as they emphasize the importance of balancing human needs and ecological concerns. They argue that conservation should prioritize human well-being and societal needs, such as food production, energy, and water security, while balancing environmental objectives. The authors suggest that embracing human-dominated landscapes and incorporating economic and cultural factors into conservation planning is critical for achieving conservation goals. For example, the authors state that “such a conservation ethic will enable societies to achieve their economic, social, and environmental goals simultaneously, rather than sacrificing one for the others” (Kareiva et al. 2018).
I partially agree with the authors’ argument. While I acknowledge the need for a more pragmatic and adaptable approach to conservation in the Anthropocene, I am concerned that prioritizing human well-being and societal needs may lead to a short-term focus that overlooks long-term environmental implications. I believe that conservation should balance both human and ecological concerns, prioritizing long-term sustainability over short-term gains. Moreover, I think that conservation should not solely be a human-centered issue but should also acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature, irrespective of its usefulness to humans.
The primary argument on the other side of the conservation debate is that conservation should prioritize the protection of wilderness and biodiversity, irrespective of human needs and interests. This perspective, known as ecocentrism, emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature and its independent right to exist. According to Soulé and Doak (2019), “The health and welfare of nature and wildlife are worthy of protection for their own sakes, regardless of any direct or indirect value to humans.” This perspective also suggests that prioritizing biodiversity protection is critical for sustaining ecosystem services, which support human well-being in the long run.
To reconcile the two perspectives, we need to recognize that both anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. While an anthropocentric approach can bring more societal support for conservation and improve its relevance to human needs, it may overlook long-term ecological implications. On the other hand, an ecocentric approach may prioritize biodiversity protection and sustainability but may fail to acknowledge human needs and interests, leading to a lack of support for conservation from society. Therefore, a balanced approach that acknowledges both human and ecological concerns is crucial
