Hi Sam, brace yourself for some unformulated thoughts that are largely a scramble in my own mind, but I look forward to perhaps teasing out more in person (if I don’t respond now though, chances are I will file it in the ‘must do that’ pile, and fail!). What kept popping into my head when reading this (with you covering anthropocentrism, volunteerism, and biodiversity) is how some of the most interesting biodiversity ‘experiments’ have been things like post-Chernobyl, where people are taken out of the picture entirely (not sure how you work this into a strategy!) — can we as humans ever decide to altruistically remove ourselves from a place for a true ‘rewilding’ to take place? (Perhaps this has been done — I’m not that au fait with rewilding movements). Is that a way to move post-anthropocentric? Or is it still inherently ‘about us’ (that god delusion thing, again)? Also, I’m not sure about rangers being the ‘acupuncture points’ in community volunteerism (or not exclusively, at least). In my (albeit patchy and sporadic) volunteering experience, the key drivers (at least in projects that are too far down the list of the agencies ‘in charge’) are often not employee rangers, but uber-engaged individuals with enough time in their lives to dedicate it to a great cause they are passionate about. Yes, the environmental sector is systematically underfunded (poor DoC — and us as a result). That being the case, is unlocking volunteerism further a bit David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ — i.e. getting people to do for free what the State should be doing? Dunno. As I said, this is a ramble :-) I enjoyed your post though, and hope to make your next crit.