Ants, Novelists, and Lawyers by Mark Madison

A very warm welcome from your co-moderator this week—reluctantly following Kris Hoellen’s great discussion of this section. My name is Mark Madison and I am the historian for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is a real honor to be moderating this book blog. I have great respect for those of you who have taken the time to make insightful comments and my own career has been significantly influenced by Wilson’s work.

The first book I read as an undergraduate in 1986 was E.O. Wilson’s On Human Nature—a look at the genetic and evolutionary origins of human behavior. Two weeks after completing that book (the first book I read all the way through in college), I changed my major from Political Science to Biology. That is the type of impact someone like E.O. Wilson can have on impressionable minds. Later while a graduate student at Harvard University, I encountered countless students like myself who had come to the University or been attracted to the field by Wilson’s exciting ideas. As for the natural environment, speaking now as a professional conservationist, I can say without hesitation Wilson is perhaps the most respected member of our field having done more to explain and protect the nature he loves than any other living scientist. So it is very exciting for me to discuss Wilson’s first attempt to explain the natural world through a novel.

Which raises the first question: what fiction writers do you think influenced Wilson’s novelistic style? Personally I sense a lot of Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) and John Grisham in Wilson's Anthill.

The second question comes from the name of this section--“The Armentarium.” This was definitely a new term to me (and my computer spell check). It is extremely obscure but seems to refer to medical training/tool kit. Presumably Raff is adding a legal degree to his personal tool kit. This begs another question: is a law degree an essential tool for environmental protection? Or to spin it out more broadly: are environmental laws the best means to protect nature?

I look forward to reading your thoughts on one or both of these quite disparate questions. . .

Better than Before? By Kris Hoellen

Uncle Cyrus tells Raff, “Just because it gets developed, doesn’t mean it has to be any less beautiful.” I was struck by this statement. While I think the built environment can be absolutely beautiful and designed to fit into the natural environment as well as serve all sorts of critical functions, such as providing access, shelter, mobility, etc., I wonder, what are your reactions to this statement? In my work with infrastructure developers, I frequently hear the sentiment of ‘we’ll leave it better than before’ – a truly admirable goal and possibly achieved if one considers the amount of conservation capital that can be obtained from infrastructure projects to perform needed preservation/restoration work, but again, is this possible – what examples can you think of where the natural environment has been left ‘better than before’ as a result of a development project?

Balancing Nature and Commerce? By Kris Hoellen

Hi all, my name is Kris Hoellen and I work for The Conservation Fund. As a bit of background, The Conservation Fund is a national non-profit, established in 1985 and chartered under a dual mission of both conserving land and water resources, and promoting sustainable economic development. While the Fund has been exceedingly successful in conserving land, over 7 million acres since inception, given its dual charter, we also actively promote the concept of balancing nature and commerce in the areas where we work. But, what is a balanced approach? I have had the privilege of working for regulators, the regulated (specifically, infrastructure proponents) and conservationists, and frequently am asked that question. I would be curious as to your thoughts on this subject – is there such a thing as a balanced approach, what does it look like - what would Raff say is a balanced approach?

Additionally, given my own background, I am a proponent of working within the system, if you will, to achieve positive outcomes, but recognize the role that environmental activists play to effectuate positive change. Raff struggles a bit with his philosophy of compromise versus that of his girlfriend’s full attack mode or ‘aggressive polemics’ as he noted when it comes to the environment. Where do you fall on the spectrum and what are the pros and cons of both approaches?

Looking forward to the discussion!