Being engaged in biodiversity conservation is tough at a time when bad news is all around us (Orr, 2004, 2007)––be it on species extinctions (IPBES, 2019), climate change (IPCC, 2018), or repeated political failures to address these and other sustainability challenges. Much has been said about the need to act with urgency in this “crisis discipline” (Soulé, 1985). Although actions in the biophysical, outer world are more urgent than ever, there is also inner work to be done by us as conservation professionals so that we can channel our energy in productive ways (Ives et al., 2020). In this essay, we offer our personal perspective on questions of grief and hope. We decided to share this perspective because we noticed that similar questions are increasingly on the minds of many conservation students and professionals (Cunsolo et al., 2020; Faria, 2020; Plieninger et al., 2021). With no imminent turning point for global sustainability in sight, we consider it important to reflect on what might be a viable mental and philosophical response for those engaged in biodiversity conservation.

Terms like “ecological grief” and “eco-anxiety” are increasingly used to describe the emotional responses of people to environmental degradation (Cunsolo et al., 2020; Plieninger et al., 2021; Usher et al., 2019). An analogy has been drawn to the well-studied emotional responses of individuals who are grieving and individuals given bad personal news, such as being diagnosed with a chronic or terminal illness (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018). To adapt, such individuals typically go through a series of outer and inner changes, and many ultimately accept their situation (Corr, 2019). Although the parallels between the literature on people dealing with illness and loss and ecological grief are fascinating, there is one critical difference: the fate of the terminally ill and the death of a loved one are unchangeable, whereas the fate of life on Earth as a whole is very much changeable through collective human action. Grief, with its implication of final and unalterable loss, thus is an enticing concept for conservationists, but arguably not an empowering one.

To formulate a hopeful personal vision for how to approach conservation, we drew inspiration from the late Michael Soulé (Crooks et al., 2020). In no way do we suggest he would have necessarily agreed with our thoughts outlined here––we simply acknowledge with humility and respect that he inspired us, just like he inspired countless other conservationists. We offer the following points as conversation openers. We focus on 4 themes, namely compassion, interrelatedness, impermanence, and the need for a strong normative basis for conservation.

First, to counter anger, blame games, and scapegoating, which generally prevent transformative conversations, we would be well-advised to “broaden our beam of compassion.” This phrase and idea was eloquently presented by Michael Soulé in a public lecture at the Australian National University in the early 2000s, in which he reflected on different life-affirming movements. Whether people are active for biodiversity conservation, animal rights, human development, or simply their own families, many are in fact engaged in life-affirming activities of one sort or another. The foci are just different, and thus different outcomes are prioritized. If we recognize that at a deep level, much of humanity engages in life-affirming activities, we are much more able to engage in constructive and potentially transformative conversations with others (Scharmer, 2018).

Second, and closely related to the first point, Michael Soulé aptly emphasized that we are all related to all other life because all present life on Earth has shared ancestry in the first single-celled organisms that lived on Earth 3.5 billion years ago (Soulé, 1995 [as cited in Taylor, 2020]). Recognizing that no being exists separately from others can be helpful to approach conservation in new and different ways. In recognition of such inevitable “inter-being” (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2008), new avenues open up for interactions that cannot be had from the perspective of us versus them. The notion of interrelatedness gives us reason to extend our compassion to other species, but it also gives us reason to extend it to other people, including those we disagree with.

Third, we offer reflections on how to conceptualize change. Michael Soulé reminded us that he was not concerned with “death but the lack of births” (Soulé, 1985; Taylor, 2020). In stating this, he emphasized the importance of maintaining suitable ecological conditions for ongoing evolution. Implicitly, however, he also acknowledged the inevitability of ongoing change––an idea that is central to Buddhist philosophy, where it is captured by the notion of impermanence. Recognizing impermanence, in turn, can help one to remain emotionally healthy at a time when much of what we are attached to (such as certain species or ecosystems) is rapidly changing or has been irreversibly lost. We must accept that rapid and partly irreversible change is happening right now, not because we condone the particular changes taking place, but because before choosing an appropriate course of action, we must recognize that this situation is now with us (Faria, 2020; Tolle, 1999). Confronted with this unpleasant truth, however, the last thing we need is stoic resignation––a widespread grief response in the terminally ill (Corr, 2019; Orr, 2004). Such resignation would amount to giving up on a better future (Orr, 2004), and surely this cannot be the goal of our mission-oriented discipline. Rather, we should try to cultivate authentic hope, which “requires us to … enter the future without illusions” (Orr, 2007:1393) while remaining open and fundamentally positive. How might this seemingly impossible task be achieved?

Arguably, the notion of impermanence is a powerful source of authentic hope that is grounded not in blind faith but in empirically observable truth. Eventually, the present era of ecological overexploitation and institutionalized injustice will come to an end––like all other historical eras, this one, too, will not be permanent. Taken passively, impermanence could be seen as a justification to simply sit out the bad times and wait for things to get better. Taken actively, however, we recognize that right now many trends are going the wrong way, and many species are being lost. However, if we look carefully, we also see growing momentum for positive and transformative change. For example, Bennett et al. (2016) documented “seeds” of change, showcasing dozens of positive instances of new social-ecological initiatives around the world. “Imbued in [this] concept … is the positive feedback relationship between hope, in the sense of a pragmatic, positive, forward-looking perspective, and agency, entraining empowerment, options for the future and collective motivation” (Colloff et al., 2017:94). Similarly, Manfredo et al. (2020) provided quantitative evidence of people's values related to wildlife changing in the western United States, in a direction that would likely be positive for conservation. Carpenter et al. (2019) argued that our current era is rife with examples of people exploring options for change, which strongly supports the argument that in historical terms, our current era is coming to an end. Unlike the case of a terminal diagnosis, our planet's fate is not sealed––its illness is severe but need not be fatal. We can all contribute to speeding its recovery and transition to a new, more ecologically sustainable era.

Finally, and logically following from the prior point, we suggest fluid conservation goals are likely to become more important than ever. If this is indeed the case, one might ask, what, then, should conservation be about (Backstrom et al., 2018; Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018; Graham et al., 2014). Here, too, it helps to revisit Michael Soulé’s original, dynamic vision for conservation biology. He proposed the following normative postulates as a guide for conservation: diversity of organisms is good, ecological complexity is good, and evolution is good (Soulé, 1985). These postulates remain fundamentally useful (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012) as a beacon for conservationists, despite rapid, undeniable, and partly unalterable changes taking place. “Landscape fluidity” (Manning et al., 2009)––that is, a focus on maintaining enabling conditions for the normative goals set by Soulé (1985)––in turn, could be a more viable long-term conservation goal than traditional targets focusing on fixed ecological conditions.

Taken together, compassion, acknowledgment of interrelatedness and impermanence, and a clearly articulated normative basis for conservation that acknowledges change can help provide a vision for conservation science that can withstand much of the bad news we so regularly receive. Such a vision suggests that we should not focus on any precise state of the world because all states must forever change. Rather, we should note, respect, and cherish in our world the system properties of diversity, complexity, and ongoing evolution. Together, these describe the flowing essence of life, and this is what we ought to conserve. From this perspective, we may be able to get past emotional responses of anger or resignation and instead engender agency and empowerment. By specifically acknowledging diversity in our own species with compassion, we are also better equipped to face disagreements constructively, bridge existing divides, and thereby create common ground for a better future (Díaz et al., 2018). Such an outlook will make conservation more inclusive of Indigenous people, people in the Global South, and other systematically disadvantaged members of society (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012; Sandbrook et al., 2019; Tallis & Lubchenco, 2014).

It cannot be denied that much of what we love is being lost (IPBES, 2019). However, there is no need to resign ourselves to some kind of ultimate death; while countless species are forever disappearing, the counter-movement for real and historical social-ecological change is building momentum. It is up to all of us to hasten the transformation to a new era that is more equitable and ecologically sustainable. Although this will not be quick or easy, at least for us, the rationale outlined here offers a coherent basis for remaining hopeful for conservation in the long term.

在我们身边到处都是坏消息的时候（Orr，2004 年，2007 年）——无论是关于物种灭绝（IPBES，2019 年）、气候变化（IPCC，2018 年），还是反复的政治失败，参与生物多样性保护是艰难的。应对这些和其他可持续性挑战。关于在这个“危机纪律”中采取紧急行动的必要性已经说了很多（Soulé，1985）。尽管在生物物理、外部世界中的行动比以往任何时候都更加紧迫，但作为保护专业人员，我们也有内在的工作要做，以便我们能够以富有成效的方式引导我们的能量（Ives 等，2020）。在这篇文章中，我们就悲伤和希望的问题提出了我们的个人观点。我们决定分享这一观点，因为我们注意到许多保护学生和专业人士越来越多地想到类似的问题（Cunsolo 等人，2020 年；Faria，2020 年；Plieninger 等人，2021 年）。由于全球可持续发展的转折点看不到迫在眉睫，我们认为重要的是要反思对于那些从事生物多样性保护的人来说可能是可行的心理和哲学反应。

“生态悲伤”和“生态焦虑”等术语越来越多地用于描述人们对环境退化的情绪反应（Cunsolo 等，2020；Plieninger 等，2021；Usher 等，2019）。已经对悲伤的人和被告知个人坏消息的人的情绪反应进行了类比，例如被诊断患有慢性病或绝症（Cunsolo & Ellis，2018 年）。为了适应，这些人通常会经历一系列外在和内在的变化，许多人最终接受了他们的处境（Corr，2019）。尽管关于人们处理疾病和损失以及生态悲伤的文献之间的相似之处令人着迷，但有一个关键的区别：绝症的命运和亲人的死亡是不可改变的，而地球上生命的命运作为一个通过集体的人类行动，整体是非常可变的。悲伤意味着最终和不可改变的损失，因此对环保主义者来说是一个诱人的概念，但可以说不是一个赋予权力的概念。

为了制定关于如何处理保护的充满希望的个人愿景，我们从已故的迈克尔·苏莱（Michael Soulé）（Crooks 等人，2020 年）中汲取了灵感。我们绝不认为他一定会同意我们这里概述的想法——我们只是谦虚和尊重地承认他激励了我们，就像他激励了无数其他保护主义者一样。我们提供以下几点作为对话的开场白。我们专注于 4 个主题，即同情、相互关联、无常，以及需要强有力的保护规范基础。

首先，为了对抗通常会阻止变革性对话的愤怒、推卸责任和替罪羊，我们最好“拓宽我们的同情心”。2000 年代初，Michael Soulé 在澳大利亚国立大学的一次公开演讲中雄辩地提出了这个短语和想法，他在演讲中反思了不同的肯定生命的运动。无论人们是积极致力于生物多样性保护、动物权利、人类发展，还是仅仅是他们自己的家庭，事实上，许多人都在从事某种形式的肯定生命的活动。只是焦点不同，因此优先考虑不同的结果。如果我们在深层次上认识到，大部分人都从事积极生活的活动，我们就更有能力与他人进行建设性和潜在变革性的对话（Scharmer，2018 年）。

其次，与第一点密切相关，迈克尔·苏莱恰如其分地强调我们都与所有其他生命有关，因为地球上所有现存的生命都与 35 亿年前生活在地球上的第一批单细胞生物有共同的祖先（Soulé， 1995 年 [如 Taylor 引用，2020 年]）。认识到没有存在与他人分开存在有助于以新的和不同的方式进行保护。认识到这种不可避免的“互为存在”（Thich Nhat Hanh，2008 年），为我们与他们之间无法实现的互动开辟了新的途径。相互关联的概念使我们有理由将同情心扩展到其他物种，但也使我们有理由将其扩展到其他人，包括那些我们不同意的人。

第三，我们对如何将变化概念化提出了思考。Michael Soulé 提醒我们，他不关心“死亡，而是没有出生”（Soulé，1985 年；Taylor，2020 年））。在说明这一点时，他强调了为持续进化保持合适的生态条件的重要性。然而，他也含蓄地承认不断变化的必然性——这是佛教哲学的核心思想，它被无常的概念所捕捉。反过来，在我们所依附的大部分事物（例如某些物种或生态系统）正在迅速变化或已不可逆转地丢失时，认识到无常可以帮助人们保持情绪健康。我们必须承认，现在正在发生快速且部分不可逆转的变化，不是因为我们宽恕正在发生的特定变化，而是因为在选择适当的行动方案之前，我们必须认识到这种情况现在就在我们身边（Faria，2020 年；Tolle , 1999）。然而，面对这个令人不快的事实，我们最不需要的是坚忍的辞职——一种在绝症中普遍存在的悲痛反应（Corr，2019 年；Orr，2004 年）。这样的辞职就等于放弃了更美好的未来（Orr，2004），这肯定不是我们以任务为导向的学科的目标。相反，我们应该努力培养真正的希望，这“要求我们......在没有幻想的情况下进入未来”（Orr，2007：1393），同时保持开放和基本的积极态度。这个看似不可能完成的任务是如何完成的？

可以说，无常的概念是真实希望的强大来源，它不是基于盲目的信仰，而是基于经验可观察的真理。最终，当前生态过度开发和制度化不公正的时代将结束——与所有其他历史时代一样，这个时代也不会是永久性的。从被动的角度来看，无常可以被视为一种理由，可以简单地坐下来等待事情好转。然而，积极采取行动，我们认识到现在许多趋势正在走向错误的方向，许多物种正在消失。然而，如果我们仔细观察，我们也会看到积极和变革性变化的增长势头。例如，贝内特等人。( 2016) 记录了变革的“种子”，展示了世界各地数十个新的社会生态倡议的积极实例。“灌输在 [这个] 概念中......是希望之间的积极反馈关系，从务实、积极、前瞻性的角度来看，与能动性、增强授权、未来选择和集体动机之间的关系”（科洛夫等人，2017 年：94）。同样，曼弗雷多等人。( 2020 ) 提供了定量证据，表明人们对美国西部野生动物的价值观发生了变化，朝着可能有利于保护的方向发展。木匠等。( 2019) 认为我们当前的时代充斥着人们探索变革选择的例子，这有力地支持了从历史角度来看，我们当前的时代即将结束的论点。与绝症的情况不同，我们星球的命运不是注定的——它的疾病很严重，但不一定是致命的。我们都可以为加速其恢复和过渡到一个新的、更具生态可持续性的时代做出贡献。

最后，从前一点逻辑上讲，我们建议流体保护目标可能变得比以往任何时候都更加重要。如果情况确实如此，人们可能会问，那么保护应该是什么（Backstrom 等人，2018 年；Cunsolo & Ellis，2018 年；Graham 等人，2014 年）。在这里，它也有助于重新审视 Michael Soulé 对保护生物学的原始动态愿景。他提出了以下规范性假设作为保护指南：生物多样性好，生态复杂性好，进化好（Soulé，1985）。这些假设从根本上仍然有用（Kareiva & Marvier，2012) 作为保护主义者的灯塔，尽管正在发生快速、不可否认且部分不可改变的变化。“景观流动性”（Manning et al., 2009）——也就是说，专注于为 Soulé（1985 年）设定的规范目标保持有利条件——反过来，可能是比传统的更可行的长期保护目标以固定生态条件为目标。

综上所述，同情心、对相互关联性和无常性的承认，以及明确阐述的承认变化的保护规范基础，有助于为保护科学提供一个愿景，以抵御我们经常收到的许多坏消息。这样的愿景表明我们不应该关注世界的任何精确状态，因为所有状态都必须永远改变。相反，我们应该注意、尊重和珍惜我们这个世界的多样性、复杂性和持续进化的系统特性。这些共同描述了生命流动的本质，而这正是我们应该保护的。从这个角度来看，我们或许能够摆脱愤怒或顺从的情绪反应，而是产生能动性和赋权。通过同情地特别承认我们自己物种的多样性，2018 年）。这种观点将使保护工作更加包容原住民、全球南方的人们以及其他系统性处于不利地位的社会成员（Kareiva 和 Marvier，2012 年；Sandbrook 等人，2019 年；Tallis 和 Lubchenco，2014 年）。

不可否认，我们所爱的很多东西正在丢失（IPBES，2019）。然而，没有必要让自己屈服于某种终极死亡；虽然无数物种永远消失，但现实和历史社会生态变化的逆向运动正在形成势头。我们所有人有责任加快向更加公平和生态可持续的新时代的转变。虽然这不会很快或不容易，至少对我们来说，这里概述的基本原理为保持长期保护的希望提供了一个连贯的基础。