Social Taboos as Conservation

In the article titled, "Social Taboos: 'Invisible' Systems of Local Resource Management & Biological Conservation," the authors discuss the existence of many different types of social taboos and how they act as conservation efforts, whether this is intentional or not. Essentially, in many different cultures, there are certain taboos—certain plants or animals that people in this culture avoid eating/killing/harming. The reasons that the taboos came about differ: it may be because of religion or politics, or it could be an effort to ensure a species does not go extinct. What the authors found is that, regardless of the reason, these social taboos can protect and conserve species on a local level. I found this really interesting, and it made me wonder if this type of system would lead to more successful conservation compared to government regulations. With a social taboo, there is a deeper understanding of why it exists, and why it is necessary. If local areas around the US could somehow adopt a taboo-type of cultural norm that protected nature from being completely destroyed or kept an endangered species from going extinct, I think it would be a lot more successful and have a lot more participation from people than a regulation that forces people to comply. This would be really difficult to implement, though, because there are many different subcultures across the country, or even in one region. People prioritize religion or personal values before thinking about what's best for nature. Pretty much all of the examples listed in the article are of small(er) groups and societies. Even though it would immensely help the conservation effort to have a social taboo on depleting natural resources, they can't be created out of thin air. Also, it would be tricky to implement a taboo across the differing values and priorities within each subculture.

Colding, Johan, and Carl Folke. "Social Taboos: 'Invisible' Systems of Local Resource Management and Biological Conservation." Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 2, 2001, pp. 584-600., www.jstor.org/stable/3060911.