‘Let's Go to the Land Instead’: Indigenous Perspectives on Biodiversity and the Possibilities of Regenerative Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The land has been a source of capital accumulation since colonization through extractive activities like mining and industrial agriculture. Indigenous peoples have profoundly different relationships with the land, which are more relational than extractive. However, their knowledge has been subjugated by and systematically excluded from Western conservation policies, which are based on colonial modes of control. We begin to address this issue by elaborating on a community‐based participatory project, namely a Conservation Impact Bond (CIB), developed in Canada with Deshkan Ziibiing. This CIB was unique since it combined Indigenous and Western knowledges and aimed at restoring ecosystems by building relationships of kinship between peoples and the land. Based on our findings, we propose a Two‐Eyed Seeing relationship‐building process model – a multi‐stakeholder initiative (MSI) incorporating Indigenous and Western knowledges. We discuss the implications of our findings for mobilizing capital to serve collective rather than private interests while promoting Indigenous resurgence and land regeneration. We suggest shifting from extractive to regenerative capital is necessary to address the climate and biodiversity loss crises. This transformation could be achieved by embracing a relational ontology through Two‐Eyed Seeing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".