Today was the 4th day at my new Biodiversity Planning job and I am loving it! everything about it... the beautifal natural surounds, the passion of the people and the subject matter. To remind you, I am providing technical support for a project which aims to produce conservation plans for several important and threatened biodiversity areas in the Cape.
Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.
I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!
2 comments:
very interesting
its like land reform/restitution and redistribution but one step further ...land restoration and preservation...very very interesting.
as someone who want to think that land should belong to alll of us but entrusted to the people who can care for it properly,this is a very tough balance to keep, rights and permissions, but fascinating.
how did we do it all these years, humankind i mean...how did we manage land but ensure that we all benefit, is there a model of society who have succeeded in this?
“Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights.”
Economists are interested in the efficient distribution of resources. Private property is essential for resources to be used efficiently. I think this is why economists like it.
Economists are normally pretty keen on a land tax which some libertarians will indignantly explain is the same as confiscating part of the land.
Post a Comment