Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

Online hate hinders nuanced conservation debates — a call for a better way forward

23 Oct 2024

Online hate may be entertaining for those who enjoy a social media pile-on, but it has real world harms. This is a call to all of us in conservation debates — let’s try to take a step back from division and hate and recognise that we are all ultimately on the same side.

Recently, a small corner of the internet lit up with online abuse aimed at me. I was a bitch. A troll. A narcissist. A fanatic. Corrupt. Sick. Vicious. Insane. Unhinged. Deranged. Monstrous. Evil personified. Dr Joyce Poole from Elephant Voices called me “crazy”. Simon Espley, the CEO of Africa Geographic, talked about a “war”.

So what awful thing had I done to earn this outpouring of vitriol? The answer: I, as a scientist, had shared facts and nuance in an emotive debate. It started when wildlife activist Paula Kahumbu wrote a post about trophy hunting, containing multiple misleading statements. I took the time to respond, carefully pointing out evidence and complexities. That led to an escalation of attacks, falsehoods and an alarming outpouring of hate.

This internet spat – insignificant as it may seem – highlights some areas worthy of deeper consideration regarding conservation debates, particularly around who should speak out, what should be shared, and how we should conduct them.

So, firstly, who should speak out? One of the points made was that I should not talk about African conservation issues, as I am not African and apparently do not share “African values”.

The first of those points is clearly nonsensical, just as it would be to suggest that African experts around the world should not share their expertise regarding the topics and countries they work in.

The second, regarding some homogenous, exclusive idea of “African values”, is more interesting but no more valid. Trophy hunting occurs in a huge range of scenarios: from Dall sheep hunting in Argentina to Eastern tur hunting in Azerbaijan, from chamois hunting in France to seal hunting in Finland, and from red deer hunting in Scotland to lion hunting in South Africa.

Wide diversity of viewpoints

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there is a wide diversity of viewpoints regarding trophy hunting both within and outside Africa.

Most people probably couldn’t identify a set of values shared across their town, let alone across their country, or across a continent with 54 diverse countries and a wealth of histories, religions and cultures. It is vital to recognise that people across Africa and beyond have different values, perspectives, priorities and needs, and that attitudes towards trophy hunting vary substantially within countries and communities.

Someone from a wealthy area of Nairobi will probably have a very different perspective from someone from a communal livestock farm in Namibia, a forest in Cameroon, a game farm in South Africa, or an underprivileged area of Lagos.

If there are any agreed values, then surely high among those must be that diverse perspectives should be heard and that external perspectives and needs should not dominate over local ones.

It was notable that as soon as I brought up evidence that did not fit with Kahumbu’s narrative, I was blocked from her page, with the explanation that “people who share my (Kahumbu's) values are welcome here”.

I suspect we do share many values, but even if we didn’t, listening to diverse perspectives – particularly from people with different values – is central to helping resolve contentious issues in conservation. If we never talk and understand exactly where, and more importantly why we disagree, then how can we find compromises or solutions?

Just as importantly, it limits the opportunity to realise the vast amount of common ground that doubtless exists among people who care enough to argue about conservation.

So secondly, what should be shared? I drew substantial ire for sharing scientific evidence in a debate laden with emotion and personal identities – indeed, Kahumbu stated “asking me to change my opinion about trophy hunting is like asking me to change my religion”.

As a scientist, I disagree — I think the more emotive the debate, the more important it is to carefully examine the evidence, and rather than refusing to even countenance a change in stance, it seems vital to change position on a topic as and when evidence changes.

Ironically, I probably have much in common with those who demand urgent trophy hunting bans — as an animal-loving vegetarian who has spent my career focused on reducing wildlife killings, I cannot understand wanting to kill any animal.

Key threat

But I think conservation decisions should be based on facts, not our personal opinions. Analysis of IUCN Red List data has not revealed a single species where trophy hunting is a key threat, and there are multiple species where it benefits them, by providing revenue to maintain habitat and help tackle key threats such as poaching.

I still have my personal opinions about trophy hunting, but none of us should allow our personal opinions and biases to deny robust scientific evidence and lead us into a world of conspiracy, misinformation and “alternative facts”.

All this feeds into the last point, of how we should conduct these debates. All too often, the trophy hunting debate, as with other contentious ones, is characterised as if it is simple — “pro” versus “anti”, good versus evil.

The suggestion of there being a “war” reinforces this kind of narrative. If such a “war” exists, then who is the enemy? Surely not conservation scientists who speak up for evidence?

And surely not those, like the Indigenous Peoples’ Network of Southern Africa, who speak up for their right to use this approach if they want to? If either dedicated conservationists or those managing the wildlife at the heart of these battles are considered the enemy, then I think the wrong “war” is being fought.

Rather than pushing false binaries and ever more polarisation, we need to think about what space there should be in conservation debates for tolerance or hatred.

Online hate may be entertaining for those who enjoy a social media pile-on, but it has real world harms. As a result of being inaccurately characterised as “pro” trophy hunting (when I simply highlight the need to consider scientific evidence, including risks of hasty bans, as no viable alternatives are ready at scale), I have had torrents of abuse, photos of my children posted maliciously online, been verbally abused, had threats made against me, and have had to get the security services and police involved.

Regardless of personal views on trophy hunting — or any other topic — that should simply be unacceptable. Robust disagreement and challenge is fine, but abuse and hate is not, and needs calling out.

All the slurs I mentioned at the beginning happened in plain sight, yet I saw no attempts from Paula Kahumbu and others to temper the hate: if anything, there seemed to be attempts to further amplify discord and division. I find that shocking, and deeply unprofessional and unacceptable.

It is also concerning to see the failure of other people to publicly call out such vitriol. It should be perfectly possible — indeed expected — to say that we may not agree on everything, but we all agree that there is no place for hate and abuse in conservation discussions.

If we fail to stand up and say that, we risk being silently complicit, enabling future debates to take the same abusive tone.

If we are not more thoughtful about how we engage in conservation debates, we will create a situation where people are increasingly intimidated and silenced.

If we are not more thoughtful about how we engage in conservation debates, we will create a situation where people are increasingly intimidated and silenced, particularly if they have different viewpoints from the simplistic narratives that often prevail on social media.

This, in turn, will harden echo chambers and increase polarisation, limiting the sharing of evidence which may challenge peoples’ preconceptions. When any such evidence does filter through, it will increasingly be dismissed simply because of who it came from, and not actively considered based on its merits.

But for all the social media posturing, the truth is that conservation is complicated. It isn’t a “war” between good and evil – it is a continual, difficult trade-off between competing needs and priorities.

It requires challenging decisions in highly variable contexts, and scientific evidence – which of course changes over time – can help inform those decisions.

But if scientists and others are attacked and hounded for sharing evidence around difficult topics, fewer and fewer will be willing to do so, and we will move inexorably towards a situation of reduced reliance upon robust evidence, and increased polarisation, division, and the dominance of whoever shouts loudest.

That may “win” whatever “war” activists think is being fought on social media, but it will leave conservation, wildlife and the people who maintain it far worse off.

So this is a call to all of us in conservation debates — let’s try to take a step back from division and hate, and recognise that we are all ultimately on the same side.

We all surely want thriving, biodiverse landscapes, and people who are empowered by conservation rather than limited by it.

So let’s try to listen more to one another, and encourage robust debate without personal attacks. I may indeed be “crazy”, but that to me seems a far saner way forward for conservation. DM

Categories:

Opinionistas

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

Opinionistas

Wide diversity of viewpoints

Key threat