What is the difference between conservation and environmentalism

This was dramatically demonstrated to me in a conversation I had with prominent Michigan environmentalists while serving as director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. As I was explaining the clean air benefits of a new program to assist fleets in converting diesel and gasoline powered buses to cleaner natural gas fuels, I was interrupted by one environmentalist who told me, "We should not build cars and buses in the first place.

When clean air, water and land are not as important as protecting the sanctity of nature from human intrusion, agreement on practical solutions to real environmental threats becomes difficult. The core beliefs and values of Americans will determine, more than any other factor, future public policy on natural resources and environmental issues.

Will we deal with environmental threats utilizing ingenuity and technology or, conversely, will our solutions presuppose that man is outside the realm of nature and therefore cannot be trusted? Let us hope that the traditional worldview of the conservationists prevails. A future based on the environmentalist worldview is too bleak to contemplate. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.

Post a public comment on this. View all comments on Mackinac Center articles. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. Through our research and education programs, we challenge government overreach and advocate for a free-market approach to public policy that frees people to realize their potential and dreams. Please consider contributing to our work to advance a freer and more prosperous state.

However, the dual approach creates a beneficial balance for the US citizens. Conservation created jobs and helped generate revenue for business owners, while preservation gave us places to enjoy wildlife in its original form and secure biodiversity in the region. Mainly, the difference lies in the approach and the objectives, while the ultimate aim for protecting the environment remains constant. According to the Cambridge Dictionary , natural conservation means to protect plants, animals, and natural areas from damage produced by human activity.

As a contrast, the US dictionary states the meaning of conservation as responsible use of natural materials including fuel, water, and wood. Both definitions clearly explain that while conservation aims to protect the environment and reduce practices that damage it, it also allows the use of natural resources at a sustainable level. The term preservation in the Cambridge Dictionary is described as keeping something in its original form and preventing it from any damage or degradation.

However, the definition does not provide any examples of environmental preservation as a secondary definition. Similarly, the US definition also describes preservation as a means of protecting an object or area from destruction and damage. Moreover, it emphasizes the protection of historical artifacts and antiquities rather than preserving the environment. Although the definitions show that conservation and preservation have slightly different meanings, they are both colloquially used as a reference to environmental protection.

However, while conservation is abundantly used for the purpose, preservation is colloquially used for other purposes as well. On the other hand, preservation is linked to various aspects, including architecture, arts, mathematics, and heritage.

Attributing to the definitions, it does seem that conservation plays a more essential role in environmental protection as compared to preservation.

Despite the long-standing argument about the effectiveness of conservation vs preservation, both concepts are equally important to balance the overall approach. When it comes to conservation, the only aspect preservationists argue upon is that the use of natural areas should be minimized to little or none.

While complete restriction seems like a great idea to let nature takes its course, limited human intervention is critical as well. You see, the ecosystem as a whole functions in its ideal state only when every living thing in the food web is thriving on its own. This means, based on conservationist thoughts; we can use the bounties of nature however much we need, without being invasive with our demands. Through this concept, human beings can find ways to conduct their actions responsibly.

Ultimately, this led to research and development that helped using the resources without obstructing themselves from everything nature has to offer. On the other hand, preservation is a means to use nature without controlling it in any way.

This does not mean that preservationists rule out the use of nature entirely. In that case, human life as we know it would cease to exist.

However, they do prefer the approach of limiting the use to only what is necessary. Besides that, another important aspect of preservation is that it values nature for what it is, regardless of what it provides for humans to thrive. Meaning, even if a building, artifact, or natural habitat does not contribute anything to the economy, it is still liable to be protected and kept in its purest form.

If the preservation movement did not guide us, we would not have the few natural areas left that are budding with biodiversity. Recent research shows that even natural aspects that do not directly link to human consumption are valuable to the ecosystem on the whole.

Similarly, in preservation lies the ultimate solution to the biodiversity crisis humans are facing today. The budding argument of conservation vs preservation, which started during the 20th century in the US, affected the global viewpoints about environmental protection.

The conservationists wanted to regulate human use of nature. In Contrast, preservationists all over the world tried to eliminate human impact completely. The world watched as the federal lands of the US were divided using a dual approach. This bought forward the most versatile system towards environmental conservation. For example, a Harvard publication written by Jihoon Kim highlights how beneficial it would be if conservation included the concept of preservation and worked together to refine the concept into a dual mechanism.

Meanwhile, Freya Mathews also argued that in order to sustain biodiversity , conservation has to partially adhere to preservationist concepts. For example, if the two concepts are merged together, humans can potentially find ways to feed and accommodate everyone on the planet.

At the same time, they can allow biodiversity to flourish at a favorable rate. Now, you understand how the conservation vs. Meaning, you probably realize that both concepts are equally important to environmental protection.

Here are some examples where you can see the practical implications of conservation and preservation to give you further insight. Conservationists typically support measures that reduce human use of natural resources, but only when such measures will be beneficial to humans.

They would likely support a policy that gave tax refunds to people who installed solar panels on their homes, but not one that banned the construction of roads in national parks. Conservation can also refer to choices that people make every day to consume less, like taking shorter showers or installing solar panels. Preservation typically refers to the setting aside of areas of land that are either human-free, free of obvious marks of human influence like roads or fire pits, or whose sole human inhabitants are native people.

Like conservationists, preservationists would likely support a policy that gave tax refunds to people who installed solar panels on their homes, but they would also support a policy that banned the construction of roads in a national park.