The authoritarian biologist and the arrogance of anti-humanism: Wildlife conservation in the third world

Ecologist

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 14-20

  Guha, Ramachandra ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTI-HUMANISM; DEVELOPING WORLD; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LAND USE CONFLICT; POLICY APPROACH; POPULATION DISPLACEMENT; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION; WILDLIFE-PEOPLE CONFLICT;

EID: 0030656359     PISSN: 02613131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Iltis, H., "Whose Fight is the Fight for Nature?", Sierra Club Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 9, 1967, pp.36-7.
2. Janzen, D.H., "The Future of Tropical Ecology", Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 17, 1986, p.307.
3. Ehrenfelds, D., Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.
4. Sukumar, R., Ecology of the Asian Elephant and its Interaction with Man in South India, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 1985.
5. Talbot, L.M., "Wilderness Overseas", Sierra Club Bulletin, Vol. 42, No 6, 1957.
6. These quotes are from a WWF poster on display at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, in the summer of 1989.
7. Janzen, D.H., op. cit. 2, p.307.
8. Iltis, H., op. cit. 1, pp.36-7.
9. Soulé, M., "International Conservation Politics and Programs", chapter VI in The Tigress and the Little Girl (forthcoming).
10. Janzen, D.H., Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, San Jose, 1986. See also Wallace, D.R., "Communing in Costa Rica", Wilderness, No. 181, Summer 1988, which quotes Janzen as wishing to plan "protected areas in a way that will permanently accomodate solitude seeking humans as well as jaguars, tapirs, and sea turtles". These solitude seeking humans might include biologists, backpackers, deep ecologists, but not presumably indigenous farmers, hunters or fisherfolk. In an editorial for the prestigious journal, Conservation Biology, Janzen asked his fellow biologists - professors as well as graduate students - to devote 20 per cent of their funds and time to tropical conservation. He calculated that the US$500 million and the 20,000 man years thus generated would be enough to "solve virtually all neotropical conservation problems". "What can academics and researcher committees do?"he asked, and offers this answer: "Significant input can be anything from voluntary secretarial work for a fund-raising drive to a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap an entire tropical country into a permanent conservation ecosystem." Some now think that a more effective solution would be for biologists to throw themselves into a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap just one temperate country - Janzen's own, the United States - into living off its own resources. See Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1988.
11. Janzen, D.H., Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, San Jose, 1986. See also Wallace, D.R., "Communing in Costa Rica", Wilderness, No. 181, Summer 1988, which quotes Janzen as wishing to plan "protected areas in a way that will permanently accomodate solitude seeking humans as well as jaguars, tapirs, and sea turtles". These solitude seeking humans might include biologists, backpackers, deep ecologists, but not presumably indigenous farmers, hunters or fisherfolk. In an editorial for the prestigious journal, Conservation Biology, Janzen asked his fellow biologists - professors as well as graduate students - to devote 20 per cent of their funds and time to tropical conservation. He calculated that the US$500 million and the 20,000 man years thus generated would be enough to "solve virtually all neotropical conservation problems". "What can academics and researcher committees do?"he asked, and offers this answer: "Significant input can be anything from voluntary secretarial work for a fund-raising drive to a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap an entire tropical country into a permanent conservation ecosystem." Some now think that a more effective solution would be for biologists to throw themselves into a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap just one temperate country - Janzen's own, the United States - into living off its own resources. See Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1988.
12. Janzen, D.H., Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, San Jose, 1986. See also Wallace, D.R., "Communing in Costa Rica", Wilderness, No. 181, Summer 1988, which quotes Janzen as wishing to plan "protected areas in a way that will permanently accomodate solitude seeking humans as well as jaguars, tapirs, and sea turtles". These solitude seeking humans might include biologists, backpackers, deep ecologists, but not presumably indigenous farmers, hunters or fisherfolk. In an editorial for the prestigious journal, Conservation Biology, Janzen asked his fellow biologists - professors as well as graduate students - to devote 20 per cent of their funds and time to tropical conservation. He calculated that the US$500 million and the 20,000 man years thus generated would be enough to "solve virtually all neotropical conservation problems". "What can academics and researcher committees do?"he asked, and offers this answer: "Significant input can be anything from voluntary secretarial work for a fund-raising drive to a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap an entire tropical country into a permanent conservation ecosystem." Some now think that a more effective solution would be for biologists to throw themselves into a megamaniacal effort to bootstrap just one temperate country - Janzen's own, the United States - into living off its own resources. See Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1988.
13. Bonner, R., At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1993, pp.35, 65, 70, 85, 221.
14. Chidumayo, E.N., "Realities for Aspiring Young African Conservationists" in Lewis, D. and Carter, N., (eds.), Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, 1993, p.49.
15. Kalland, A., "Seals, Whales and Elephants: Totem Animals and the Anti-Use Campaigns" in Proceeedings of the Conference on Responsible Wildlife Management, European Bureau for Conservation and Development, Brussels, 1994. See also Kalland, A., "Management by Totemization: Whale Symbolism and the Anti-Whaling Campaign", Arctic, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1993.
16. Kalland, A., "Seals, Whales and Elephants: Totem Animals and the Anti-Use Campaigns" in Proceeedings of the Conference on Responsible Wildlife Management, European Bureau for Conservation and Development, Brussels, 1994. See also Kalland, A., "Management by Totemization: Whale Symbolism and the Anti-Whaling Campaign", Arctic, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1993.
17. The Deccan Herald, Bangalore, 5 November 1995.
18. A useful countrywide overview is provided in Kothari, A., Suri, S. and Singh, N., "Conservation in India: A New Direction", Economic and Political Weekly, 28 October 1995.
19. "Tribals Ready for Confrontation over Nagarhole Resort", The Times of India (Bangalore edition), 30 August 1996.
20. Elwin, V., A New Deal for Tribal India. Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, 1963.
21. Ali, S. "Presidential Letter: Wildlife Conservation and the Cultivator", Hornbill, April-June 1977.
22. Sukumar, R. "Wildlife-Human Conflict in India: An Ecological and Social Perspective" in. Guha. R., (ed.), Social Ecology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1994.
23. The empirical research from which these recommendations flow is reported in Sukumar, R., The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. See also the thesis on which the book is based, Sukumar, R., op. cit. 4.
24. The empirical research from which these recommendations flow is reported in Sukumar, R., The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. See also the thesis on which the book is based, Sukumar, R., op. cit. 4.
25. "Culling' is contrary to the ideology of "deep ecology" that provides philosophical cover to authoritarian biologists and conservationists. Another unfortunate case concerns the thousands of crocodiles raised in captivity on the Madras Snake farm by Romulus Whittaker and his colleagues. The farmers are awaiting permission from the Indian government to harvest a species that they have convincingly demonstrated is no longer "endangered". Permission has not been forthcoming, despite the fact that it will generate substantial amounts of foreign exchange to the state (from the sale of leather bags and the like) and provide employment and income to the Irula tribals with whom the Snake Park works.
26. See, for example, Kothari, A., Suri, S. and Singh, N., "People and Protected Areas: Rethinking Conservation in India", The Ecologist, Vol. 25, No. 5, September/October 1995, pp.188-194.
27. For thoughtful suggestions as to how the interests of wild species and the interests of poor humans might be made more compatible, see Gadgil, M. and Rao, P.R.S., "A System of Positive Incentives to Conserve Biodiversity", Economic and Political Weekly, 6 August 1994.
28. See Guha, R., "The Two Phases of American Environmentalism: A Critical History" in Appfel-Marglin, F. and Marglin, S. (eds.), Decolonizing Knowledge: from Development to Discourse, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
29. This article is a companion piece to an essay of mine published in 1989 in Environmental Ethics., in which I took apart the then hegemonic ideology among US environmentalists of "deep ecology". I argued that deep ecology's anthropocentric/biocentric distinction was of little use in understanding the dynamics of environmental degradation in the real world. I showed that deep ecology's claims to be a philosophy of universal significance were spurious, made possible only by twisting out of context the thought of non-Western thinkers such as Lao Tsu and Gandhi. I suggested that the noble, apparently disinterested motives of deep ecologists fuelled a territorial ambition - the physical control of wilderness in parts of the world other than their own - which led inevitably to the displacement and harsh treatment of the human communities who dwelt in these forests. The article evoked a variety of responses, both for and against. The veteran Vermont radical, Murray Bookchin, himself engaged in a polemic with US deep ecologists, wrote a short letter of congratulation. A longer response came from Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, the originator of the term "deep ecology". Naess felt bound to assume responsibility for the ideas I had challenged, even though I had distinguished between his emphases (more sympathetic to the poor) and those of his US interpreters and followers. Other correspondents, lesser known but no less engaged, wrote in to praise and to condemn. Over the years, the essay has appeared in half a dozen anthologies, as a voice of the "Third World", the token and disloyal opposition to the reigning orthodoxies of environmental ethics. In the North American context, mine was a rare dissenting voice, yet the arguments of my 1989 essay would have made perfect sense to many of my Indian colleagues - indeed, it could not have been written in the absence of conversations over the years with scientists such as Sukumar and Gadgil. Perhaps it attracted the attention it did only because it constituted one of the first attacks on a form of "trans-nationalism" generally considered benign. After all, I am not talking here of the US marines with their awesome firepower or of the World Bank with its money power and ability to manipulate developing country governments. These are men (more rarely, women) who preach the equality of all species, who worship all that is good and beautiful in Nature. What could be wrong with them? Eight years later, I see no reason no revise my characterization of deep ecology as "conservation imperialism". See Guha, R., "Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 11, No. I, Spring 1989. Published responses to this essay include Johns, D.M., "The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1990; Baird Callicott, J., "The Wilderness Idea Revisited: The Sustainable Development Alternative", The Environmental Professional, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1991.
30. This article is a companion piece to an essay of mine published in 1989 in Environmental Ethics., in which I took apart the then hegemonic ideology among US environmentalists of "deep ecology". I argued that deep ecology's anthropocentric/biocentric distinction was of little use in understanding the dynamics of environmental degradation in the real world. I showed that deep ecology's claims to be a philosophy of universal significance were spurious, made possible only by twisting out of context the thought of non-Western thinkers such as Lao Tsu and Gandhi. I suggested that the noble, apparently disinterested motives of deep ecologists fuelled a territorial ambition - the physical control of wilderness in parts of the world other than their own - which led inevitably to the displacement and harsh treatment of the human communities who dwelt in these forests. The article evoked a variety of responses, both for and against. The veteran Vermont radical, Murray Bookchin, himself engaged in a polemic with US deep ecologists, wrote a short letter of congratulation. A longer response came from Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, the originator of the term "deep ecology". Naess felt bound to assume responsibility for the ideas I had challenged, even though I had distinguished between his emphases (more sympathetic to the poor) and those of his US interpreters and followers. Other correspondents, lesser known but no less engaged, wrote in to praise and to condemn. Over the years, the essay has appeared in half a dozen anthologies, as a voice of the "Third World", the token and disloyal opposition to the reigning orthodoxies of environmental ethics. In the North American context, mine was a rare dissenting voice, yet the arguments of my 1989 essay would have made perfect sense to many of my Indian colleagues - indeed, it could not have been written in the absence of conversations over the years with scientists such as Sukumar and Gadgil. Perhaps it attracted the attention it did only because it constituted one of the first attacks on a form of "trans-nationalism" generally considered benign. After all, I am not talking here of the US marines with their awesome firepower or of the World Bank with its money power and ability to manipulate developing country governments. These are men (more rarely, women) who preach the equality of all species, who worship all that is good and beautiful in Nature. What could be wrong with them? Eight years later, I see no reason no revise my characterization of deep ecology as "conservation imperialism". See Guha, R., "Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 11, No. I, Spring 1989. Published responses to this essay include Johns, D.M., "The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1990; Baird Callicott, J., "The Wilderness Idea Revisited: The Sustainable Development Alternative", The Environmental Professional, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1991.
31. This article is a companion piece to an essay of mine published in 1989 in Environmental Ethics., in which I took apart the then hegemonic ideology among US environmentalists of "deep ecology". I argued that deep ecology's anthropocentric/biocentric distinction was of little use in understanding the dynamics of environmental degradation in the real world. I showed that deep ecology's claims to be a philosophy of universal significance were spurious, made possible only by twisting out of context the thought of non-Western thinkers such as Lao Tsu and Gandhi. I suggested that the noble, apparently disinterested motives of deep ecologists fuelled a territorial ambition - the physical control of wilderness in parts of the world other than their own - which led inevitably to the displacement and harsh treatment of the human communities who dwelt in these forests. The article evoked a variety of responses, both for and against. The veteran Vermont radical, Murray Bookchin, himself engaged in a polemic with US deep ecologists, wrote a short letter of congratulation. A longer response came from Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, the originator of the term "deep ecology". Naess felt bound to assume responsibility for the ideas I had challenged, even though I had distinguished between his emphases (more sympathetic to the poor) and those of his US interpreters and followers. Other correspondents, lesser known but no less engaged, wrote in to praise and to condemn. Over the years, the essay has appeared in half a dozen anthologies, as a voice of the "Third World", the token and disloyal opposition to the reigning orthodoxies of environmental ethics. In the North American context, mine was a rare dissenting voice, yet the arguments of my 1989 essay would have made perfect sense to many of my Indian colleagues - indeed, it could not have been written in the absence of conversations over the years with scientists such as Sukumar and Gadgil. Perhaps it attracted the attention it did only because it constituted one of the first attacks on a form of "trans-nationalism" generally considered benign. After all, I am not talking here of the US marines with their awesome firepower or of the World Bank with its money power and ability to manipulate developing country governments. These are men (more rarely, women) who preach the equality of all species, who worship all that is good and beautiful in Nature. What could be wrong with them? Eight years later, I see no reason no revise my characterization of deep ecology as "conservation imperialism". See Guha, R., "Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 11, No. I, Spring 1989. Published responses to this essay include Johns, D.M., "The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1990; Baird Callicott, J., "The Wilderness Idea Revisited: The Sustainable Development Alternative", The Environmental Professional, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1991.
32. Balagopal, K., "A Little More of the Same", Seminar, New Delhi, Issue 412, December 1993.