Nature–culture divide

Preexisting movements include a spectrum of environmental thought. Authors, Büscher and Fletcher, present these various movements on a condensed map. Though it is simplified in thought and definition, it offers an excellent way for readers to see the major conservation movements plotted together in which elements of their philosophy are highlighted. The following movements are as follows: mainstream conservation, new conservation, neoprotectionism, and their newly proposed convivial conservation.[12] Each movement is plotted against two major factors: capitalism and the human-nature divide. Mainstream conservation supports the human-nature divide and capitalism, new conservation supports the human-nature divide but rejects capitalism, neoprotectionism rejects capitalism but supports the human-nature divide, and convivial conservation rejects both the human-nature divide and capitalism. This newest movement, though reminiscent of previous ones, sets itself apart by addressing the political climate more directly.[12] They argue this is important because without it, their movement will only gain as much traction as those before it, i.e. very little. Lasting change will come, not only from an overhaul in human-nature relations and capitalist thought but from a political system that will enact and support these changes.[12]

The nature–culture divide is deeply intertwined with the social versus biological debate since it both are implications of each other. As viewed in earlier forms of anthropology, it is believed that genetic determinism de-emphasizes the importance of culture, making it obsolete. However, more modern views show that culture is valued more than nature because everyday aspects of culture have a wider impact on how humans see the world, rather than just our genetic makeup. Older anthropological theories have separated the two, such as Franz Boas, who claimed that social organization and behavior are purely the transmission of social norms and not necessarily the passing of heritable traits.[13] Instead of using such a contrasting approach, more modern anthropologists see Neo-Darwinism as an outline for culture, therefore nature is essentially guiding how culture develops. When looking at adaptations, anthropologists such as Daniel Nettle believe that behavior associated with cultural groups is a development of genetic differences between groups.[14] Essentially, he states that animals choose their mates based on their environment, which is shaped directly by culture. More importantly, the adaptations seen in nature are a result of evoked nature, which is defined as cultural characteristics which shape the environment and that then queue changes in phenotypes for future generations. Put simply, cultures that promote more effective resource allocation and a chance for survival are more likely to be successful and produce more developed societies and cultures that feed off of each other.

On the other hand, transmitted culture can be used to bridge the gap between the two even more, for it uses a trial and error based approach that shows how humans are constantly learning, and that they use social learning to influence individual choices.[15] This is seen best in how the more superficial aspects of culture still are intertwined with nature and genetic variation. For example, there are beauty standards intertwined into the culture because they are associated with better survival rates, yet they also serve personal interests which allows for individual breeding pairs to understand how they fit into society. Additionally, cultural lags dissolve because it is not sustainable for reproduction, and cultural norms that benefit biology continue to persevere. By learning from each other, nature becomes more intertwined with culture since they reinforce each other.

Since nature and culture are now viewed as more intertwined than ever before, which makes the divide between the two seems obsolete. Similarly, social scientists have been reluctant to use biological explanations as explanations for cultural divisions because it is difficult to construct what "biological" explanations entail. According to social scientists like Emile Durkheim, anthropologists and especially sociologists have tended to characterize biological explanations in only a physiological and cognitive sense within individuals, not in a group setting.[16] On the other hand, there is a heavier focus on the social determinism as seen in human behavior instead. Furthermore, even as the divide between nature and culture has been narrowed there is a reluctance to define biological determinism on a large scale.

There is a historical belief that wilderness must not only be tamed to be protected but that humans also need to be outside of it.[17] In fact, there have been instances where the removal of people from an area have actually increased illegal activities and negative environmental effects.[18] National parks may not be particularly known as places of increased violence, but they do perpetuate the idea of humans being removed from nature to protect it. They also create a symbol of power for humans over nature, as these sites have become tourist attractions.[18] Ecotourism, even with eco practices in effect, still represents a commodification of nature.

Another example can be seen in “the great frontier.” The American frontier became the nation's most sacred myth of origin. Yet the lands protected as monuments to the American past were constructed as pristine and uninhabited by removing the people that lived and survived on those lands.[9] Some authors have come to describe this type of conservation as conservation-far, where humans and nature are kept separate. The other end of the conservation spectrum then, would be conservation-near, which would mimic native ecological practices of humans integrated into the care of nature.[17]