View - ResearchGate

Article 24203systems are dynamic but, nevertheless, retain their essential ecological integrity, except during thegrossest insults. Sustainable use of the planet, therefore, should mean that human society holdsnatural systems in high esteem and is sufficiently literate about the conditions that enhance thewell-being of natural systems to make the necessary adjustments in societal behavior to increasethe probability of long-term, healthy condition of natural systems with robust integrity.Wilson (1998a) notes that the expansion of consilient cause-and-effect explanations outwardfrom the natural sciences towards the social sciences and humanities is calling the traditional divisionof knowledge into question. What has heretofore been taken as a series of discontinuitiesbetween the disciplines is, in Wilson’s opinion, starting to look entirely different — a broad andlargely unexplored terrain of phenomena bound up with the material origins and functioning of thehuman brain. In a sustainable use of the planet context, Wilson’s (1998b, p. 17) key sentences are:At the heart of this borderland is the shifting concept of culture and its hitherto puzzling relation to humannature — and thence to the general inherited properties of individual behavior. In the spirit of the naturalsciences, the matter can be expressed, I believe, as a problem to be solved. It is as follows: Compellingevidence shows that all culture is learned. But its invention and transmission are biased by innate propertiesof the sensory system and brain.Wilson considers what the nature of the gene-culture coevolution might be and how it hasaffected the human condition today.Wilson’s consilience hypothesis is very persuasive and to take fragments of it (as I have done) isto trivialize a beautifully organized body of evidence and theory. It deserves a full and careful reading!Wilson’s concepts provide the best foundation for hope in achieving some semblance ofsustainable use of the planet and the multidimensional point of view necessary for achievingsustainability, and provides evidence (albeit not on sustainability itself) for reinforcing this belief. AsWilson (1998a) notes, it is becoming increasingly clear that the human brain and concomitant intelligenceevolved as an instrument of survival rather than a device to understand itself, much less theunderlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology. Too few individuals and very few governmentsperceive the threats to the ecological life support system as threats to individuals, governments,or human society as a whole.EVIDENCE FOR OPTIMISM ABOUT ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITYEcotourism is a nature-based form of specialty travel defined by The Ecotourism Society (TES)as “responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and sustains the wellbeingof local people.” Ecotourism should be considered a specialty segment of the larger naturetourism market, which includes wildlife safaris, bird watching, whale watching, and the like. Notonly is the ecotourism market alive and well, but it is expected to grow considerably in the future.Fillion et al. (1992) define ecotourism as “travel to enjoy and appreciate nature.” They identified,through an analysis of inbound tourists’ motivations to different worldwide destinations, that 40-60percent of all international tourists are nature tourists and that 20-40 percent are wildlife-relatedtourists. Nature tourists can be defined as tourists visiting a destination to experience and enjoynature, and wildlife-related tourists can be defined as tourists visiting a destination to observewildlife (e.g., whale watchers). A United States Travel Data Center 1992 travel survey indicated that7 percent (8 million) of United States travelers had taken at least one ecotourism trip and 30 percent(35 million) would take one by 1995; therefore, potentially some 43 million adults in the UnitedStates took an ecotourism trip between 1992 and 1995. In a 1994 study of North American travel