I am both excited and perturbed by the latest trend on social media, in which outdoor content creators are questioning their responsibility to promote wild, untarnished wilderness areas. My foundation is not grounded in academia, nor is it in the conservation industry (I will elaborate on the choice of words later). It is from a lifetime spent exploring the remotest ecosystems to escape the confines of civilisation's chaos; out there is where I belong; it's out there my soul finds the time to breathe.
I have always believed that to safeguard the areas I love so dearly, I needed to keep their locations a closely guarded secret. That has not changed; I will never disclose their coordinates for personal gain, but in the same breath, know that what lives in the shadows is easily corrupted. Below are two case studies, both relevant, however polar opposites.
The first is the Sperrgebiet in southern Namibia; for decades, it was cordoned off to safeguard its rich diamond deposits. From an ecological perspective, there were two outcomes: in areas where mining was not carried out, flora and fauna flourished in the absence of human pressure. However, in the areas that were mined, it was carnage, with the mining operator not having to contend with any scrutiny on the means of extraction or their impact on the area's sensitive ecosystem. They did as they wanted, leaving a wake of destruction in their path. My reprobation of the mining industry is not about the utilisation of resources; it is about how corners are always cut to maximise profit, and inevitably the environment bears the brunt of their greed. When corporates, especially those involved in mining, are allowed to operate away from the scrutinising eyes of the public, the atrocities they will inevitably commit are beyond the limits of my polite vocabulary; I need to delve into the profanities to describe their actions.
This is the basis for my belief that the wilderness should be accessible to the public, allowing the population at large to scrutinise the means of its utilisation.
The second is that of the Borneo Earless Monitor lizard, Lanthanotus borneensis. First described in 1877, this species was largely unknown due to its remote habitat and nocturnal behaviour, but was held as the "holy grail of herpetologists". The researchers studying it in the early 2000s were hesitant to even publish their findings for fear of attracting the interest of illegal pet traders in exotic species, eventually doing so under faculty pressure. This was all in vain, as before their paper even left the press, the lizards started to appear on the black markets around the world. This travesty has led to changes in standard practices, to the point that researchers are now omitting exact GPS coordinates from research papers and stripping all metadata from imagery that could reveal the adorable enigmatic lizards' location. I know I am veering off topic now, but the fate of the world's rhino population is also at risk. Every year, millions are spent on protecting endangered species around the world, funded solely by individuals with surplus, the charity of corporations and governments. However, this is a fragile and unsustainable long-term solution. My fear is that, as history has proven, economies are volatile and never immune to recessions or depressions. Let's face it, most will choose to save on charity if financial constraints are felt; then what? How will the "industry" of conservation support their crucial work in the safeguarding of the species on the brink of extinction?
This brings me right back to the start: everyone with the ability to responsibly promote and educate about the wonders of the natural world needs to do so; it is the only sustainable long-term solution I can foresee for the longevity of this planet's wilderness areas. But it needs to be conducted responsibly, and one needs to continually evaluate the implications that may arise. For example, there is an abundance of human-wildlife interactions promoted on social media. This is totally irresponsible and, in my opinion, unacceptable. In the current social environment, the only thing this leads to is the creation of an industry to support a growing demand of people wanting to cuddle a lion cub or cheetah or leopard, for that matter and at the rate that animals mature, how many orphans do you think it takes to support this practice? It is way more than what naturally occurs. Ask yourself, then, where are all these orphans coming from - for now, just think about it!
The only way we stand a chance of leaving future generations a natural heritage is by educating the youth and getting them invested in the environment's longevity. They need to experience first-hand the magnificent wonders of the wilds and gain a love and understanding of all that inhabits these fascinating areas. In this, we can revert to being the custodians we were intended to be, not the abusive landlords we have evolved into. This process will not be fruitful now and may not even show results in a generation, but if we are persistent, enough will eventually become enlightened, and then there will be a change of heart that is vitally needed.
To elaborate on the choice of words, I intentionally referred to conservation as an industry because it has become just that: an industry supporting vast numbers of families around the planet. It is their livelihood; this is not necessarily a bad thing; however, it has also become a loophole for easy money for those with ulterior motives and a greedy mindset. This is the reality: one can no longer take at face value any conservation organisation's credentials; one needs to question their motives, see if there is a veil of deception cloaking their intentions, and ensure they in fact do as they say and are not merely in it for the financial benefits it offers.
In the meantime, nature has natural selection; it always has - it is the foundation of the natural order of existence. This brings me to the next topic: we need to leverage this very natural aspect. I know some will despise me for the next statement. Let nature's natural defences safeguard those areas she has intentionally made inaccessible. I am of the opinion that porters on mountains are merely there to assist those who have no right being there to get there. There should be no shortcuts; there should be no cable cars or helicopter rides to summits. If you can, under your own power, get there, by all means go; if you can't, then that is just the cards that you have been dealt. In my youth, in an era when navigating required reading a map and using a compass, the wilderness was pristine. Those who had honed their abilities had also gained respect for the wilderness, and with that respect came an understanding and intense love for the environment. Yes, I know, there were those who abused their knowledge and went out with impure intentions; there will always be those - it is the flaws of humanity. In modern times, though, most destructive actions are more the result of ignorance than of malice. To reach a destination, one merely needs to enter the coordinates, and an artificial voice will give turn-by-turn directions. It has become too easy, too accessible. I challenge you to think back to the most memorable experience of your life. Am I almost sure there was some form of adversity within that experience? Everything that is too easy is never relished; it is those achievements that required perseverance and tenacity to achieve that linger in memory, are they not?