A strategy considered effective in the US may face rejection in Mexico or Peru
A sweeping international study has surfaced a quiet truth long buried beneath policy debates and conservation strategies: the way societies across the Americas relate to wild animals is less a product of present circumstance than of centuries-old colonial and religious inheritance. Researchers surveying nearly 18,500 people across 33 countries found that Latin America leans toward seeing animals as community members, while North America tends to treat them as resources to be managed — a divergence rooted in the distinct worldviews carried across the Atlantic by Spanish, Portuguese, and British colonizers, and shaped further by the indigenous cultures they encountered. The study, published in Nature Sustainability, suggests that before nations can cooperate on conservation, they may first need to reckon honestly with the philosophical legacies they have never fully examined.
- Centuries of colonial and religious history are quietly determining which animals live and die today, and most conservation policy has been written without acknowledging this.
- The gap between North and Latin America on wildlife values is not a matter of development or geography — it is a fundamental disagreement about whether animals are resources or neighbors.
- International conservation efforts are colliding with this divide: a strategy embraced as scientific common sense in the United States can be experienced as a moral violation in Mexico or Peru.
- Indigenous cultures in Latin America amplified Iberian Catholic coexistence values beyond what even Spain and Portugal retained, while British colonialism in the north systematically silenced equivalent indigenous perspectives.
- Researchers see slow but measurable movement toward mutualism in North America, driven by urbanization, education, and animal rights movements — but caution that values this ancient do not bend quickly.
- The realistic path forward is not a single global conservation framework, but strategies humble enough to work within the value systems that actually exist in each place.
A study published in Nature Sustainability, led by Colorado State University and drawing on surveys of nearly 18,500 people across 33 countries between 2021 and 2023, has found that attitudes toward wildlife in the Americas are shaped less by current economics or geography than by centuries-old patterns of colonialism and religion. The research identified two dominant worldviews: mutualism, which regards animals as members of a shared community with inherent worth, and dominance, which treats wildlife primarily as a resource to be managed for human ends. Latin America tilted strongly toward mutualism; North America and northern Europe favored dominance; southern Europe occupied a middle ground closer to its Latin American counterparts.
Lead author Michael Manfredo traced these patterns to colonial history. British colonialism built societies around permanent settlement and environmental control, while the Protestant Reformation reinforced the idea of human dominance over nature. Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, shaped by Iberian Catholicism, carried different assumptions about humanity's place in the natural world. When Europeans crossed the Atlantic, they embedded these frameworks into law, institutions, and wildlife policy.
What surprised researchers most was that Latin America scored even higher on mutualism than Spain and Portugal themselves. The reason, they concluded, was indigenous influence. Latin America's indigenous cultures held their own mutualist worldviews, compatible with Iberian Catholicism, and the two traditions merged and reinforced each other. In North America, indigenous peoples held similarly mutualist perspectives, but British colonial structures systematically excluded those views from dominant institutions.
The consequences are practical as well as philosophical. Survey participants were asked whether killing animals was acceptable across various scenarios — crop damage, disease, livestock threats, traffic, human attack. In dominance-oriented countries, lethal control was broadly acceptable; in mutualist countries, only direct threats to human life justified it. Manfredo noted that lethal control remains the foundational tool of North American wildlife management.
For international conservation, the implications are significant. A program considered scientifically sound in the United States may face fierce resistance in Mexico or Peru — not because the science differs, but because the underlying values do. Coauthor Tara Teel observed that the United States is already experiencing a gradual shift toward mutualism, driven by urbanization, education, and animal rights movements, but cautioned against expecting rapid change in beliefs this deeply embedded. The more honest path forward, researchers suggest, is designing conservation strategies that work within the value systems that actually exist, rather than assuming a single global approach can succeed.
Researchers surveying nearly 18,500 people across 33 countries in Europe and the Americas between 2021 and 2023 have found something unexpected: the way a society treats wild animals often traces back not to current economics or geography, but to centuries-old colonial patterns and religious traditions. The study, published in Nature Sustainability and led by Colorado State University, is the first international examination of wildlife values across such a broad geographic and cultural range, and its findings suggest that the ghosts of European expansion still shape how we live alongside animals.
The researchers identified two fundamentally different worldviews. One, which they call "mutualism," sees animals as members of a shared community, beings with worth independent of human use. The other, "dominance," treats wildlife primarily as a resource to be managed and exploited according to human needs. When the data was sorted by country, clear cultural patterns emerged. Latin America tilted strongly toward mutualism. North America and northern Europe favored dominance. Southern Europe occupied middle ground, culturally closer to Latin America than to its northern neighbors.
Michael Manfredo, the study's lead author and a professor at Colorado State's Warner College of Natural Resources, traced these patterns back to colonial history. British institutions, he explains, built societies around permanent settlement and environmental control. Spanish and Portuguese empires, by contrast, organized themselves around resource extraction. But there was another force at work: religion. The Protestant Reformation, which spread through northern Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, reinforced the idea that humans should dominate nature. Catholic societies in the south held different assumptions about humanity's place in the natural world. When Europeans crossed the Atlantic, they carried these frameworks with them, embedding them into law, institutions, and wildlife policy.
What surprised the researchers most was that Latin America scored even higher on mutualism than Spain and Portugal themselves. The explanation lay in indigenous influence. When Europeans arrived, Latin America was home to more than 50 million indigenous people and major urban centers. These indigenous cultures held their own mutualist worldviews—perspectives compatible with the Iberian Catholicism of the colonizers. The result was a kind of cultural reinforcement: indigenous and Iberian values merged, strengthening mutualism even beyond what existed in the colonizing societies. North America followed a different path. Although indigenous peoples there also held mutualist views, British colonial structures systematically marginalized those perspectives from dominant institutions.
These differences are not merely philosophical. The survey asked participants whether they considered it acceptable to kill animals in various scenarios: crop damage, disease transmission, threats to livestock, traffic accidents, attacks on humans. The answers diverged sharply. In dominance-oriented countries, lethal control was acceptable across a wide range of situations. In mutualist countries, only direct threats to human life justified killing. Manfredo noted that lethal control is "the fundamental way North America addresses human-wildlife conflict," deployed for safety, agricultural production, and invasive species management.
The practical consequences ripple through international conservation efforts. A strategy considered scientifically sound in the United States may face fierce resistance in Mexico or Peru—not because the science changes, but because the underlying values do. "Unless cultural differences are taken into account, it will be difficult to achieve success," Manfredo warned. A conservation program that works in one cultural context can fail in another simply because people understand the role of animals in society differently.
Can these deep-rooted values shift? The researchers believe so, though slowly. Tara Teel, a coauthor, observes that the United States is already experiencing "a shift from dominance toward more mutualist values," driven by rising incomes, education, and urbanization. Animal rights movements are reinforcing this change in various parts of the world. Yet Teel cautions against expecting rapid transformation of beliefs this ancient and embedded. The realistic path forward, she suggests, is to work within the value systems that actually exist in different places, rather than trying to impose a single approach globally.
Notable Quotes
Lethal control is the fundamental way North America addresses human-wildlife conflict, deployed for safety, agricultural production, and invasive species management.— Michael Manfredo, lead author, Colorado State University
Unless cultural differences are taken into account, it will be difficult to achieve success in international conservation efforts.— Michael Manfredo
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So this study is saying that how we treat animals is basically determined by what happened 400 years ago?
Not determined—shaped. The colonial period set up institutions, laws, and ways of thinking that persist. But people can and do change their minds. It's just slower than we'd like.
Why would British colonialism specifically lead to killing more animals?
The British model emphasized permanent settlement and transforming the landscape to suit human needs. You clear the land, you manage it, you remove what's in your way. Spanish and Portuguese colonialism was more about extracting wealth and moving on. Different logic, different relationship to the land.
And the indigenous peoples—they just got absorbed into the colonial value system?
In Latin America, it was more of a blend. Indigenous mutualist views about nature were compatible with Catholic theology, so they reinforced each other. In North America, British institutions actively pushed indigenous perspectives out of the mainstream. Same indigenous worldviews, different colonial reception.
Does this mean a wildlife program that works in the US will definitely fail in Mexico?
Not definitely. But it will face resistance for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. A Mexican community might reject lethal control of jaguars not because they don't understand the problem, but because their entire cultural framework sees jaguars as part of the community, not as a problem to solve.
Can you actually change how a whole country thinks about animals?
Yes, but it takes time. Education, wealth, urbanization—these shift values. But you can't rush it. The smarter approach is to design conservation strategies that fit the values already present in a place, not try to impose a foreign worldview.