19. Epilogue

Indeed, the preoccupation of evolutionary ecologists with the pristine reflects a long tradition in western culture and a philosophy that separated humanity and nature (Latour 1999; Gould 2000; Western 2001). As highlighted by the quote above, currently a large fraction of the world’s ecosystem structure and dynamics is dominated by human effects (Vitousek et al. 1997; Palumbi 2001). By the 20th century, domestic production and settlement had visibly transformed nearly half of the world’s land surface, and as we enter the 21st century, human activity is altering biogeochemical cycles and climate on a global scale (Hammond 1998; Western 2001). As a consequence, we must face the prospect of large-scale extinctions in the near future. While this could become comparable in magnitude to some of the catastrophic mass-extinction events of the past, the current biodiversity crisis has a unique feature: humankind as the primary cause. The threat is intrinsic, and because the originator of the trauma has a presumed capacity to mitigate its own deleterious impact, conservation action may be warranted (Novacek and Cleland 2001). In this closing chapter we argue that evolution in the wake of human-induced environmental change should be the default prediction and should therefore be part of every thorough conservation analysis. By appreciating the potential speed and pervasiveness of anthropogenic evolutionary change, by predicting evolutionary trajectories where possible, and by managing evolutionary threats and responses with foresight, evolutionary conservation biologists can help to reduce or steer our evolutionary impact on the biosphere and thus ameliorate the economic and social costs of altered eco-evolutionary processes.