School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;
Indigenous Knowledge Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 5;118(40). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022218118.
The environmental crises currently gripping the Earth have been codified in a new proposed geological epoch: the Anthropocene. This epoch, according to the Anthropocene Working Group, began in the mid-20th century and reflects the "great acceleration" that began with industrialization in Europe [J. Zalasiewicz et al., 19, 55-60 (2017)]. Ironically, European ideals of protecting a pristine "wilderness," free from the damaging role of humans, is still often heralded as the antidote to this human-induced crisis [J. E. M. Watson et al., , 563, 27-30 (2018)]. Despite decades of critical engagement by Indigenous and non-Indigenous observers, large international nongovernmental organizations, philanthropists, global institutions, and nation-states continue to uphold the notion of pristine landscapes as wilderness in conservation ideals and practices. In doing so, dominant global conservation policy and public perceptions still fail to recognize that Indigenous and local peoples have long valued, used, and shaped "high-value" biodiverse landscapes. Moreover, the exclusion of people from many of these places under the guise of wilderness protection has degraded their ecological condition and is hastening the demise of a number of highly valued systems. Rather than denying Indigenous and local peoples' agency, access rights, and knowledge in conserving their territories, we draw upon a series of case studies to argue that wilderness is an inappropriate and dehumanizing construct, and that Indigenous and community conservation areas must be legally recognized and supported to enable socially just, empowering, and sustainable conservation across scale.
人类世。人类世工作组认为,这个时代始于 20 世纪中叶,反映了自欧洲工业化开始的“大加速”[J. Zalasiewicz 等人,19,55-60(2017)]。具有讽刺意味的是,欧洲人保护原始“荒野”的理想,使其免受人类的破坏作用,这一理想仍然常常被视为应对这场人为危机的解药[J. E. M. Watson 等人,563,27-30(2018)]。尽管数十年来,本土和非本土观察家、大型国际非政府组织、慈善家、全球机构和民族国家一直对其进行批评性参与,但主导的全球保护政策和公众认知仍然没有认识到,本土和地方人民长期以来一直珍视、利用和塑造“高价值”生物多样性景观。此外,以保护荒野为名,将许多人排除在这些地方之外,破坏了它们的生态条件,加速了许多高度重视的系统的消亡。我们不是否认本土和地方人民在保护其领土方面的代理权、准入权和知识,而是通过一系列案例研究来证明,荒野是一种不适当和不人道的建构,必须从法律上承认和支持本土和社区保护区,以实现公平、赋权和可持续的跨尺度保护。