Absolutely. These are important insights. At bottom, each case has to be figured out locally as to the right balance between intensive use, fixing ("regeneration"), leaving it alone to the extent it is still intact, and (older) romantic ("harmonized") co-living. (One of Hannah Ritchie's main points is that, in fact, there was no harmony in some bygone era -- humans have always been pretty rapacious. That's her whole thing about us potentially being the first sustainable generation.)
It's also key to recognize the role of human experience of nature, for now mostly urban populations to appreciate it. It's been shown over and over that a certain level of economic development is also necessary for humans to begin to care about the environment beyond immediate material needs.
But whew, the impact of tourism in the remotest of places: Mt Everest! Antarctica! Tourism, both present and future as Chinese travelers hit the international market may be perhaps THE global issue of the mid to late 21st century. Add in climate and political migration, and we can look forward to mass hordes of people rumbling around the earth with little sense of place.
A political resurgence of nationalism, which we're also seeing, doesn't stand a chance in hell IMO of re-pinning people back down to roots or their local communal social "fabrics," as the pundits in this movement desire.
At the very least, seeing a wide range of options maybe provides a potential toolbox for technological and political debate and development.
The problem with this is that we have already altered so much of nature. Yes, some has been 'set aside' and that means varying things depending on location and who is managing it, but that is precious little still. Restoration and active management of other areas is necessary (think forests of Borneo and the Amazon, grasslands in the US, even forests across the world). Leaving it alone was an option half a century ago (and thank god for the national parks movement) but now, fixing needs to also be in the mix.
Then, there is the delicate balance between allowing humans to appreciate nature so as to build respect and 'value' for it, and preserving it apart from human interference. This delicate balance is hard to achieve - as zoos and parks all over the world can attest. I have no answers as the balance (obviously locality is key), but I do know that humans need to be in nature (not only for nature's sake, but for humans' sake as well).
Absolutely. These are important insights. At bottom, each case has to be figured out locally as to the right balance between intensive use, fixing ("regeneration"), leaving it alone to the extent it is still intact, and (older) romantic ("harmonized") co-living. (One of Hannah Ritchie's main points is that, in fact, there was no harmony in some bygone era -- humans have always been pretty rapacious. That's her whole thing about us potentially being the first sustainable generation.)
It's also key to recognize the role of human experience of nature, for now mostly urban populations to appreciate it. It's been shown over and over that a certain level of economic development is also necessary for humans to begin to care about the environment beyond immediate material needs.
But whew, the impact of tourism in the remotest of places: Mt Everest! Antarctica! Tourism, both present and future as Chinese travelers hit the international market may be perhaps THE global issue of the mid to late 21st century. Add in climate and political migration, and we can look forward to mass hordes of people rumbling around the earth with little sense of place.
A political resurgence of nationalism, which we're also seeing, doesn't stand a chance in hell IMO of re-pinning people back down to roots or their local communal social "fabrics," as the pundits in this movement desire.
At the very least, seeing a wide range of options maybe provides a potential toolbox for technological and political debate and development.
The problem with this is that we have already altered so much of nature. Yes, some has been 'set aside' and that means varying things depending on location and who is managing it, but that is precious little still. Restoration and active management of other areas is necessary (think forests of Borneo and the Amazon, grasslands in the US, even forests across the world). Leaving it alone was an option half a century ago (and thank god for the national parks movement) but now, fixing needs to also be in the mix.
Then, there is the delicate balance between allowing humans to appreciate nature so as to build respect and 'value' for it, and preserving it apart from human interference. This delicate balance is hard to achieve - as zoos and parks all over the world can attest. I have no answers as the balance (obviously locality is key), but I do know that humans need to be in nature (not only for nature's sake, but for humans' sake as well).