Biodiversity continues to be threatened on a global level by climate change, deforestation, pollution, loss or degradation of habitats and rising sea levels, just to name a few. What seems to be overlooked however, is how as these issues not only threaten biodiversity, but cultural diversity as well. One must remember that while populations increase, it is not the indigenous people asking for more forested land or a more expansive ocean in which to fish from, but that of the cities which continue to “develop” land for the sake of a community’s fifth grocery store or that of a new mini-mall. While I, in all honesty, have found myself excited over that fifth grocery store, we will need to stop and ask ourselves, what will be the long term effects? While being from the state of Washington which has a long logging history, I was one who viewed logging as a way in which people made a living, whereas various indigenous people from around the world, the forest is their living. As they are forced out of their homes and into these communities, they have no choice but adapt to these vastly different and unfamiliar ways of life. Thus, we see the loss of one’s cultural identity, the very concept which adds flavor to the world. So the question arises, should governing bodies be actively involved in protecting cultural diversity? I think the answer is quite simple, YES.
In the article Australia’s Biodiversity, it states “Biodiversity - the land, waters and all living things - form Indigenous creation and dreamtime stories and songlines about how they and the world around them came to be. Their traditions and culture are inextricably tied to the Australian landscape and its biodiversity.” This very statement can be made to explain the origins of a vast number of peoples and cultures from around the world. Their way of life, their culture, and their language was created from their environment and their geography. It came from the land, the skies, the trees, the oceans, and the animals. To ask one to forfeit their culture in order to assimilate into mainstream society seems truly unjust. It is from the study of these cultures, a respect and understanding for their ways of life that we may just find a truly harmonious world. As Wade Davis references Margaret Mead in his lecture entitled Dreams From Endangered Cultures, she states “her greatest fear was that as we drifted towards this blandly amorphous generic world view not only would we see the entire range of the human imagination reduced to a more narrow modality of thought, but that we would wake from a dream one day having forgotten there were even other possibilities.” While the concept of creating one world culture, one language, and one way of life most certainly exists, I would have to ask to why and who does this benefit? I fail to fathom any sort of logical answer. I believe that the world’s culture should simply be a protective umbrella in which the acceptance and celebration of the various cultures from around the world can exist cohesively. If one is to argue this, one could simply ask as Wade Davis does …”it really comes down to a choice: do we want to live in a monochromatic world of monotony or do we want to embrace a polychromatic world of diversity?” I prefer the polychromatic.
In the article Australia’s Biodiversity, it states “Biodiversity - the land, waters and all living things - form Indigenous creation and dreamtime stories and songlines about how they and the world around them came to be. Their traditions and culture are inextricably tied to the Australian landscape and its biodiversity.” This very statement can be made to explain the origins of a vast number of peoples and cultures from around the world. Their way of life, their culture, and their language was created from their environment and their geography. It came from the land, the skies, the trees, the oceans, and the animals. To ask one to forfeit their culture in order to assimilate into mainstream society seems truly unjust. It is from the study of these cultures, a respect and understanding for their ways of life that we may just find a truly harmonious world. As Wade Davis references Margaret Mead in his lecture entitled Dreams From Endangered Cultures, she states “her greatest fear was that as we drifted towards this blandly amorphous generic world view not only would we see the entire range of the human imagination reduced to a more narrow modality of thought, but that we would wake from a dream one day having forgotten there were even other possibilities.” While the concept of creating one world culture, one language, and one way of life most certainly exists, I would have to ask to why and who does this benefit? I fail to fathom any sort of logical answer. I believe that the world’s culture should simply be a protective umbrella in which the acceptance and celebration of the various cultures from around the world can exist cohesively. If one is to argue this, one could simply ask as Wade Davis does …”it really comes down to a choice: do we want to live in a monochromatic world of monotony or do we want to embrace a polychromatic world of diversity?” I prefer the polychromatic.