Prompt: Describe your personal ethic as you develop as a nature interpreter. What beliefs do you bring? What responsibilities do you have? What approaches are most suitable for you as an individual?
Last blog post! Crazy to think that this semester is already almost over. I feel like these blog posts have been a good tool to supplement the learning that we did in the course. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's perspectives week by week, and definitely learned a thing or two by doing so.
As someone who's deep in the environmental sciences and seeks to pursue a career in this field, I feel as though I have strong personal ethics. In this line of work, you need to have strong convictions as environmental issues are deeply nuanced and are not as black-and-white as some other disciplines may be. From an ecological point of view, I truly believe that everything is connected and that everything has consequences if things go off-kilter. Even if we can't see it with our naked eye, I can assure you that the implications of anthropogenic changes can ripple through ecological relationships on an individual, population, community, and ecosystem scale.
I really dislike human-centric thinking in which changes in the environment don't matter unless they affect us, whether that be morally, economically, or politically. We as humans have to advocate for things that can't voice their opinions. I don't think that people realize how complex nature really is unless they strive for a career in the environmental sciences. I think the public school curriculum does a disservice in this regard, as they put more emphasis on fields with more profitability. It's surprising to me how out of touch some people are with their environment. I know people who can't identify native Ontario flora and fauna, which is essential to forming a connection with your environment. A mutual friend of mine hasn't even been to the Arboretum up until very recently in his 4 years of undergrad.
I also believe that at its core, environmental education should have no barriers. Children who grew up in urban environments deserve to experience nature at its peak-- not between cracks in sidewalks or confined in a concrete prison. Western science has been and still is dominated by cis-white men who have a very distinct view of what this looks like within an environmental context. We need to encourage other demographics to participate in academia to fill in knowledge gaps that may have not even been realized. In the same vein, I think that understanding Canada's colonial history is vital when considering knowledge gaps. Many Indigenous people are stewards of the environment, participating in guardianship programs to keep biodiversity intact. They also have a breadth of knowledge about the environment since time immemorial. Creating safe and equal opportunities in the name of conserving our planet is essential. I cannot stress that enough.
As I mentioned in previous blog posts over the weeks, I worked this summer as a camp counselor at a farm. I was the only counselor who had a background in environmental science despite camp programming being heavily focused on agriculture and nature. When working there, I often felt as though it was my duty to instill environmental education in the children. I wanted them to be inspired just like I was at their age with science. I frequently brought in my own resources (books, crystals, fossils) to show the campers and to ignite this curiosity.
Touching on the subject of accessibility again, I find that this is a big issue with scholarly journal articles. Personally, I don't think science should be put behind a paywall. Everyone has a right to understand the world around us. I also realize that most academics don't have a say in the monetary aspect of their papers and that the problem lies with the publisher. I'm probably approaching this with some naivety or ignorance due to my lack of knowledge of actually being in that world but, I still feel like my argument holds some merit. Today, so many people are still climate change deniers. When approaching this problem, I definitely think that open-access papers can help with this. People fear what they don't understand.
As a side note, I think that how science is presented in the journal articles itself should be rethought. I'm in a lab and fieldwork course right now where we're basically going through the motions of writing our own research paper. We were heavily discouraged from using synonyms, or really any interesting language. As an academic, I understand why this is. You have to be objective in order to clearly communicate the purpose of your paper. However, as a writer, this frustrates me. You could argue that journal articles are a tool of interpretation itself. Then, shouldn't we approach the methodology of writing papers differently? People whose brains are not wired for science might not even seek out articles about things they're unsure about because of the language barrier. Most people do not have the privilege of attending higher education and have to resort to media outlets that create outrageous/fear-mongering headlines in a subpar attempt at interpretation? Why does there need to be this middleman who profits from falsities and has their own biases?
Everything I've discussed in this blog post are beliefs I hold close to my heart. Without them, I don't think I'd be much of an ecologist or for that matter, a nature interpreter. I don't think we should conform to the way things have always been or approach the climate crisis with apathy. Things have to change. And the only way this can happen is through modes of interpretation. I think this post is a culmination of everything I bring to the table as an interpreter but that doesn't mean I'm right. That's the beauty of interpretation as well, there are always ways to improve, and there are always new perspectives or experiences that should contribute to the conversation.