The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature
Abstract
Elephants rarely breed in captivity and are not considered domesticated, yet they interact with people regularly and adapt to various environments. Too social and sagacious to be objects, too strange to be human, too captive to truly be wild, but too wild to be domesticated—where do elephants fall in our understanding of nature? In Wildlife in the Anthropocene, Jamie Lorimer argues that the idea of nature as a pure and timeless place characterized by the absence of humans has come to an end. But life goes on. Wildlife inhabits everywhere and is on the move; Lorimer proposes the concept of wildlife as a replacement for nature. Offering a thorough appraisal of the Anthropocene—an era in which human actions affect and influence all life and all systems on our planet—Lorimer unpacks its implications for changing definitions of nature and the politics of wildlife conservation. Wildlife in the Anthropocene examines rewilding, the impacts of wildlife films, human relationships with charismatic species, and urban wildlife. Analyzing scientific papers, policy documents, and popular media, as well as a decade of fieldwork, Lorimer explores the new interconnections between science, politics, and neoliberal capitalism that the Anthropocene demands of wildlife conservation. Imagining conservation in a world where humans are geological actors entangled within and responsible for powerful, unstable, and unpredictable planetary forces, this work nurtures a future environmentalism that is mor…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ecological processes in reality do not follow a neat distinction between 'nature' and 'society'.
“Since ecological processes in reality do not follow a neat distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘society’7,47,48, traditional movement models which ignore the complexities of human influence on animal behaviour for the sake of theoretical and algorithmic simplicity are growing increasingly unreliable49–51.”
From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation
Unnithan Kumar, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20370-w · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Lorimer, J.
- Publisher
- University of Minnesota Press
- Published
- 2015-04-01
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review