Conservatism and Conservationism

Conservatism is an ideal of resistance to change.  In politics, it is typically realized by an avoidance of rapid change and an analytical approach to slow change, to ensure that each change is beneficial.  Of course, actual conservative political parties differ dramatically in how they approach this, and in many cases, they add to their platform things that are not even remotely related to the political ideology.

Conservatism in politics has some weaknesses.  Sometimes rapid changes are necessary.  As things beyond human control change and we learn more about the Earth and science, we will sometimes come across new things that alter how we think and react to what is around us.  This can require quick decision making to adapt appropriately.  Conservatism is not very good at these fast reactions.  Extreme conservatism has another weakness.  Extreme conservatism resists all change, to the point of resisting changes that have already been made.  As the world changes, extreme conservatism would ignore those changes, even if it brings suffering.  Conservatism has a strength in avoiding hasty decisions that could bring disaster, but it also has weaknesses when change is necessary and urgent.  Conservatism extends far beyond general politics though.

Conservationism is a far more focused type of conservatism.  Conservationism is also an instance of extreme conservatism.  The goal of conservationism is to prevent environmental changes.  If there is a forest where a certain kind of bird lives, conservationism advocates for leaving the forest alone, even if it has a huge amount of value as a natural resource.  Conservationism prominently opposes human changes to the environment, but it also tends to oppose natural changes, where the effect is perceived as negative.  Conservationism has been very valuable in preventing environmental destruction.  Conservationism is why we have not over fished some types of fish to extinction.  It has saved countless endangered species.  It has protected many areas that have more value the way they are than the way humans would have made them.  It also almost destroyed the ancient Redwood forest in California.  In fact, conservationism has almost destroyed a lot of valuable natural resources.

Conservationism suffers from the same weakness as general conservatism.  It does not adapt well.  Sometimes change is inevitable.  Habitats naturally change over time.  We are beginning to see problems arise from preventing these changes in the name of conservationism.  One of the most prominent examples is the great Redwood forest in California.  This forest almost burned to the ground because conservationists prevented natural fires in the forest for many years.  This seems counterintuitive, but it is totally real.  Redwood trees have fire resistant trunks, but their foliage is vulnerable.  Normally, natural fires would cull the underbrush in the forest regularly, only touching the resistant trunks of the huge trees.  After many years of preventing these fires, the brush got so high that the next fire started to reach the vulnerable foliage.  Fortunately the situation was contained, but we almost lost a beautiful natural resource in our zeal to protect it from change.

The Redwood forest is not the only case where conservationism did more harm than good.  So called "invasive species" are often more helpful than bad.  Sometimes they do significant damage to ecosystems, but more frequently they fill empty niches, increasing diversity and robustness of the ecosystem.  Preventing invasive species from propagating into ecosystems that are already weak can allow damage to occur that the foreign organism could have prevented.  Studies over the last decade have shown that invasive species are good far more often than they are harmful.  Similarly, ecosystems that might naturally change have been prevented from doing so in the name of conservationism for many years, but when they eventually finally changed in spite of human resistance, ecologists discovered that the changes created new habitats for animals that were once thought to be extinct.  They also learned more about the history of those areas.  Far more value was realized in allowing nature to take it course than was ever added by the conservation efforts.  Conservationism has great value, but its weaknesses should not be underestimated.  Radical conservationism can cause more damage than just allowing nature to takes it course.  Sometimes change is just necessary, and human efforts to prevent it will cost a lot of resources, but nature will still eventually win.

The ironic part about conservatism and conservationism is that in the U.S. political arena, they are opposing forces.  It turns out that humans are naturally conservative.  Political conservatives choose one outlet for this, while conservationists (who are more often politically liberal) choose another.  Really though, political conservatism and conservationism are different aspects of the same thing.  Conservatives being anti-conservation is rather hypocritical.  Likewise, liberals being pro-conservation is also hypocritical.  Overall though, there is no reason for conservationism to be politically divided at all.  We could use voices from both sides guiding how we conserve resources and the environment, because that would help to mitigate the weaknesses of conservationism.  What we don't need is to halt the course of nature in ways that will prove harmful.