I had surprising student feedback: for them, one of the most valuable parts of being in our field site several times and for longer periods is the profound experience of an ecosystem-- sensing its cycles and fluctuations, discovering its sounds, smells and textures, contemplating its integrity.
Do they usually miss out on this?
Are we increasingly taking away time and experience from education in ecology?
In his book "The Wild Places", Robert McFarlane criticizes the expanding distance between humans and the rest of nature, to a point in which people are not only alienated from wild and remote settings of adventure but also from everyday sensations of the material world. He describes this increased separation as a "touchlessness", the deprivation of external feelings that give us perspective about the world and our place within it. He writes:
"We experience, as no historical period has before, disembodiment and dematerialisation. The almost infinite connectivity of the technological world, for all the benefits it has brought, has exacted a toll in the coin of contact. And so new maladies of the soul have emerged, unhappinesses which are complicated products of the distance we have set between ourselves and the world. We have come increasingly to forget that our minds are shaped by the bodily experience of being in the world-- its spaces, textures, sounds, smells and habtis, as well as by genetic traits we inherit and ideologies we absorb. A constant and formidably definig exchange occurs between the physical forms of the world around us, and the cast of our inner world of imagination." p. 203
I agree with McFarlane that this growing "touchlessness" is sad and negatively affects people's mental and overall health. Taking it further, I also think it is dangerous for society and our attitude towards the planet. And it has creeped so intricately into how our lives are structured, that, ironically, we have also let it be far too present in how new generations of ecologists are educated.
My undergraduate students, enrolled in programmes of biology, ecology and environmental sciences in Colombian universities, describe their educational experience as one composed of intense study terms with 6 to 8 courses that run in parallel and quickly cover fundamental topics in a variety of subjects: from basic maths, chemistry, physics and biology to more applied and specialized courses in ecology and evolution. Since most of them started their undergraduate studies during the covid-19 pandemic, around 90% of the work that they did for these courses was in front of a computer screen. Fortunately nowadays they are able to go to class physically, but still spend that big chunk of time either sitting in lectures or with their computers reading, writing and coding.
The heavy load of courses is only interrupted by short field outings, usually around one per semester. Colombian students are infinitely lucky to visit beautiful places in one of the most stunning biodiversity hotspots on Earth, yet fieldtrips are small oases in the profuse overview of topics during courses. As lecturers speed over fundamental concepts, information is quick and the acquisition of deep understanding is difficult. I believe this issue is even more critical in places where undergraduate studies are even shorter. In most of Latin America, undergraduates study for 4 to 5 years, see advanced graduate-level courses towards the end of their programmes and finalize with independently-led projects that may last from 6 months to a full year. When I was a Colombian undergraduate myself, a professor once told us in class that young professionals in the natural sciences from our country were outstanding at a global level. At that time I did not believe him, but as I've had the chance to know young graduate students from different countries now, I know this is true. The critique is therefore not of a national or regional system but rather a global trend. We are increasingly taking necessary time from students that need to truly experience the natural world in order to geniunely consider its complexity.
As I led teams of students through several field outings in the high mountains of Colombia, visiting astonishing ecosystems of forests and paramo, it became quite obvious: students interested in ecology need a slower pace and a real "touchfulness" to flourish. This need is not related to their speed of learning. Rather the opportunity of an immersive experience alights the flame and they become more present, thinking is faster, sharper and more productive.
Our work with hummingbirds at high elevations in the tropics was naturally exciting and very active. There is quite a bit of adrenaline in waking up before the sun is up, climbing up and down hills at over 3,000 m above sea level, running between mist nets, handling live animals well and as quickly as possible, and keeping an eye on the weather to react when it changes (which is all the time, by the way). We were testing out new methods too, so students also were part of the exhilirating uncertainty and small victories when things worked out. Not to mention that we also had close encounters with large and magnificent animals, such as Andean bears. However, field work was also frequently very slow, like when bird activity decreased and we had net rounds with no captures or when I tortured my students into doing flower transects, counting all open flowers on both sides of the path in the pouring rain. Sometimes, we only just sat waiting for weather to improve, watching how clouds were blown around, moving between the hills.
Regardless of whether they had to be on the tip of their toes in a quick-paced activity or they could calmly reflect and take in the landscape as time passed by slowly, they were inspired by what they sensed around them. They had been given the chance to explore, and were suddenly full of questions and ideas. New puzzles now haunted them. Blurred concepts got sharper and the unknown was a challenge. Dreams of enquiry came alive.
It is possibly naïve to think undergraduate programmes related to ecology should be extended in their duration. This would not be competitive when compared to other disciplines. Around the world, the opposite is happening, which means so many more people need to go on to Master's and PhDs to acquire quite basic knowledge and skills even if they are not actually interested in academia (another problem that I won't go into here).
There is a quicker, more realistic solution that does not involve curriculum changes and is readily in the hands of students and their teachers. Take the time to really be out in nature, either by participating in fieldwork from other projects or one of your own. A day or a week is not enough. Find a place that you can really observe exhaustively, get to know all of its plants and animals, feel its weather in your bones, identify its seasonal changes, notice how its different components interact, learn how the people that live there live, and reflect on its value and relevance within this planet.
Comments