1 . We Need to Think about Conservation on a Different Timescale

Time, perceived by humans in days, months, and years, contrasts with nature’s grander scales of centuries and millennia, referred to as “deep time.” While paleontologists (古生物学者) are trained to think in deep time, conservationists are realizing the challenges it poses. Shortsightedness about time limits modern conservation, with efforts often overlooking past healthy conditions of ecosystems in the context of climate and biodiversity crises.

The shifting baseline syndrome (综合症), where standards in a place change gradually, makes conservation more complex. It involves evaluating ecosystems primarily on their recent past, often with negative consequences.

Recent shifts in California’s forest management practices, from stopping fires to embracing Indigenous knowledge of controlled burns, exemplify the importance of understanding historical ecosystem dynamics. To enhance conservation, adopting a deep-time approach is crucial.

Modern mathematical modeling, combined with long-term data, offers a pathway for preserving ecosystems. In California’s kelp (海带、海藻) forest, researchers identified an overlooked keystone species — the extinct Seller’s Sea Cow (大海牛). By examining past kelp forests, a deeper story impacting regeneration was revealed. The sea cow, a massive plant-cater, contributed to a diverse, vital undergrowth by trimming kelp and letting light reach the area.

The researchers put forward a novel approach to kelp forest restoration: selectively harvesting kelp, imitating the sea cow’s impact. This strategy, considering historical dynamics, challenges assumptions about recent ecosystems and offers new conservation methods.

Rather than only focusing on removing urchins (海胆) or reintroducing sea otters, the researchers suggest employing teams of humans to selectively harvest kelp, as the Steller’s sea cow once did, to encourage fresh growth. This sustainable harvest could benefit both the ecosystem and human consumption.

In short, assumptions based on the recent past may impede the understanding and protection of ecosystems. On the other hand, the application of controlled burns, similar modeling studies, and a deep-time perspective (视角) could significantly transform conservation efforts. Recognizing our role in an ongoing narrative spanning millions of years is essential, urging a comprehensive understanding of ecosystems through time. Embracing this role is crucial for shaping the future and establishing vital connections from the past to the future.

3 . The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.

It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.

Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.

The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.

In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.

Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.

My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.