Adding to your life-list is rewarding, isn’t it? The thrill of the chase, the successful sighting and, even better, capturing a photo are exhilarating. Ecotourism is a great way to enjoy nature and contribute to local economies. Yet I feel a strong moral dilemma regarding the ethics of travelling to enjoy nature. I suspect that I am not alone in this regard. This blog explores the dilemma – why we might harbour it, how we might seek to resolve it and what might warrant further action.
Moral Convictions
Moral convictions guide the way we live our lives. Of relevance, here are some to which naturalists might subscribe:
Here’s the problem: number 1 on the preceding list appears to be at odds with number 6. There is extensive scientific and popular literature about the human health benefits of nature, from being able to view a tree through a hospital window to the mindfulness of forest bathing. However, the pursuit of experiencing nature firsthand frequently carries environmental costs. Perhaps the foremost cost arises from the carbon emitted to travel to the experience. Can you feel some tension?
“There’s nothing wrong with any of the organs: nothing special, anyhow. But I have a curious aching: I don’t know where: I can’t localize it. Sometimes I think it’s my heart: sometimes I suspect my spine. It doesn’t exactly hurt me; but it unsettles me completely. I feel that something is going to happen.“
– The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Doctor’s Dilemma, by George Bernard Shaw.
How do our brains approach the dilemma? What is this tension? Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson wrote in Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) in 2020 that “cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs when a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent with each other… Dissonance produces mental discomfort that ranges from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it. The mind wants to protect itself from the pain of dissonance with the balm of self-justification, but the soul wants to confess.”
Nature lovers understand that human activity underlies the climate and biodiversity loss crises. Yet, if they also maintain that they will benefit by driving for an hour or flying for a day to see exotic wildlife and landscapes, they now have cognitive dissonance. People may then select any number of actions with the conviction that they will reduce or offset the consequences of travelling for the nature experience. This blog is not about debating the merits of ecotourism, carbon credits, carpooling and purchasing fuel efficient automobiles per se. Rather, I ask whether they might form facile self-justifications to resolve the dissonance described above.
Environmentalists should examine how others are addressing the dilemma. For example, the ACCESS (Advancing Capacity for Climate and Environment Social Science) recognized the “tension that many researchers and practitioners face in deciding whether to fly or use land-based transport” and produced Travel Guidance as an extension to the organization’s guiding principles.
Those principles reflect the uniqueness of the target audience and, significantly, of the European geography and infrastructure. Thus, there is priority for rail travel that is less practical in North America. Even bus travel, another component of the preferred land-based public transport, is no longer as pervasive in Canada as it once was. I am surprised that the principles do not encourage hybrid engagement (i.e., no travel) rather than just acknowledging it.
I encourage naturalist groups to consider developing guiding principles on travel, and individuals to be, as Tavris and Aronson put it, “mindful of our behaviour and the reasons for our choices.” Perhaps a different choice will prove to be consonant with our beliefs.
Gregory experienced nature just about every day of his youth on a farm in southwestern Ontario. He obtained a Bachelor of Environmental Studies (BES) degree at the University of Waterloo. He began and finished his professional career with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. In mid-career, Gregory worked for two Conservation Authorities and in a county planning department. He is proud that his children have acquired a love of nature. Retirement means for Gregory that he can spend hours enjoying nearby nature while walking his husky-mix pal.
