I
think humans have this constant desire to “fix things.” We adopt rescue animals,
study climate change, and donate to charities. While some of these actions are
justified, some human interactions may be more harmful than helpful. For
instance, does nature really need our help? After spending a week in a Costa
Rican Tropical Dry Forest, I think nature pretty much has it figured out.
Instead of trying to change things, I think humans need to appreciate the
ingenuity of nature and leave it be.
One night at Palo Verde, after an intense game of Uno
with my classmates, Mau came into the classroom holding a toad. We quickly
noticed a large tick on one of its hind legs. We asked Mau if he was going to
remove the tick and I was shocked and mildly upset when he said no. Why wouldn’t we help this toad? It
pained me to know that the toad was suffering and that we humans who had more
than the potential of solving this problem were not going to intervene. “That’s nature,” Mau informed us, a
concept that has stayed with me the past few days and has been emphasized in
almost every lecture I have attended while abroad. I have quickly realized that
nature doesn’t
need our help and it shouldn’t be forced to receive it. In that case, I assigned
more value to the toad’s quality of life than to the tick’s who is also just trying
to survive. Who am I to decide that, though?
I
realized the ingenuity of the iguanas living around the station after noticing that
they have made homes in the gaps of concrete lain to create sidewalks and to
hold up a boardwalk created to give humans a better view of the marsh. Initially
I thought their presence was cool, but I quickly started to dislike being
scared by one inconspicuously walking in the leaves next to me or waiting for
me as I came out the bathroom. This perspective changed, however, when I realized
that they had to adapt to our presence more than I had to adapt to theirs. Now,
instead of being annoyed by their presence, I feel a bit sorry for them. This
sadness is assuaged by the fact that I now know how good nature is at adapting.
I’m
still impressed by the adaptations plants and mammals have to withstand the dry
season and the fact that different species have different dispersal modes based
on the ecosystem they are adapted to. I am in awe of the adaptations plants
have to had to make in order to live successfully in the harsh conditions of
the mangroves.
However,
after thinking about how good organisms in the natural world are at adapting to
their environment and arguing to leave them alone, I am somewhat conflicted about
human driven restoration projects. Where should the line on human intervention
be drawn? After learning about the benefits of restoring the marshland and
removing the invasive cattails, I understand why humans want to get involved. In
order to restore the areas of clear water that have become covered by
vegetation, humans must take action. This action, however, directly opposes nature’s desired progression towards becoming a forest. Is there a difference
between a human removing a tick from a toad and a human driving a tractor to
kill all the cattails in what used to a wetland? Who’s to say? Questions to ponder during the next three months in Costa Rica…
No comments:
Post a Comment