In case it was not clear already: we need a conservation revolution! A call and proposal for a convivial alternative: Environment Seminar Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes the major environmental crises of our time, we seem to have moved into a new phase: we are no longer warned that they are coming; they are already here and are having major impacts on human and nonhuman life. As the warnings and discourses become stronger and more explicit, we see actors scrambling to come to terms with this new reality and asking how to move forward. With respect to the global biodiversity crisis, this is well reflected in the conservation community. Indeed, over the last years we have seen the rise of several radical proposals for reforming conservation, culminating in the Kunming-Montreal ‘30x30’ biodiversity framework. In this presentation, Bram Büscher reflects on and evaluates these conservation proposals and the Kunming-Montreal framework. He argues that while they hold some seeds for radical change they are far from sufficient. Building on these reflections, he proposes an alternative vision under the banner of ‘convivial conservation’. Convivial conservation starts from a political ecological position centered on a critique of capitalism, the inequalities it creates and how it alienates humans from the rest of nature. It builds on this to turn conservation into a force that promotes rather than protects, that celebrates rather than saves, and that is recognized as an important element of creating a more equal global society. The presentation ends by positing ideas and questions on how convivial conservation could be operationalized in the North American context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".