Kareiva and Marvier 2012: The Aftermath

The comments below hold a series of links and short descriptions of the various responses to Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier’s controversial 2012 article “What is Conservation Science?”

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Kareiva and Marvier 2012: The Aftermath

    1. This article is talking about how Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier’s paper about conservation biology differs from Soulé’s paper. They include that they both agree something is needed to be done but differ in deciding the best approach to reach conservation goals.

  1. Gabriella, Osama, Reema and Rosena
    “Biodiversity versus ecosystem services”
    https://nadiah.org/blog/?p=219

    Marvier and Kareiva are continuously combating the ideas that are solely environmentally based by continuing to be inclusive to human harm as well. He states, “the fate of nature and that of people are deeply intertwined”. This is explicitly in regard to oil spills impacting crop management and growth.

  2. Karieva mentions that conservation science in the present differs than in the future because, nature can prosper and be healthy as long as humans are not neglectful about it. He means that if everyone cares just a little bit we can be in good shape. that means that we care about conservation science for people to live, rather than from people doing damage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s