There is Grandure in this view of life

A common claim by wildlife filmmakers and photographers is that their work forwards public awareness of conservation by sharing the artist's view of the natural world, but what view is it that they are actually forwarding?

Over the past 150 years, scientists have revolutionised our view of the natural world. Where before it was God's flight of fancy, Adam and Eve's playground, now it is a cold and unfeeling place. Brothers fight brothers, all creatures are hungry, and the majority die childless, afraid, and in pain in the jaws of a predator.

Our view of individual species has changed too. Our medieval ancestors readily attributed human traits and supernatural powers to the creatures around them. Each species reflected an aspect of the divine mind and was a part of God's greater purpose: to help us achieve salvation through studying his creation.

Each species was an allegory; a Hoopoe cares for its elders to show us to do the same, an owl is a dirty bird to show us what happens when we shun the light of Christ, and a virgin oyster produces pearls to show that virgin births are possible. Gods work was written throughout creation in the very human language of anthropomorphism.

Now scientists look to other species for lessons not of God but evolution. Every adaptation in every species has a history that tells us something about evolutionary processes; the origin of species. Species are not allegories but evolution's best attempt of adapting their forebears for their environment and it is written all over them.

Does this fit with how the media portrays organisms? It depends upon the species. Oddly, the more endangered a species the more we seem to see it in evolutionary terms. A Polar Bear is an unfortunate creature perfectly adapted for a rapidly disappearing environment; so are the Ethiopian Wolf and Orangutan. Conversely, the the Puffin is still a comical man in a suit while the Robin is the gardener's best friend.

In reality, any individual Puffin or Robin has to fight just as hard to survive and reproduce as any Polar Bear: Puffins must run a daily gauntlet of predatory seagulls when returning to their burrow to feed their chicks while Robins frequently kill each other in territorial disputes. Their worlds are no less brutal either: arctic gales batter Puffins cliff-top homes while harsh frosts freeze Robins to death as they sleep.

Is the reason this view is not always shown because it is not media friendly? I do not think so. The piece of television I believe most successfully portrayed every species' struggle in a harsh environment is the BBC's Planet Earth. While sometimes shocking and moving, the series contained moments of great beauty made even more so by the knowledge of their unlikely context and the unfeeling forces that created them. The series is an international commercial and critical success, having been sold to 130 countries.

Did Planet Earth's view of the world further a conservation agenda? Undoubtedly: humans love nothing more than unlikely beauty and conserve nothing more fervently than that which they love. Furthermore, the series contained just enough anthropomorphism to help the audience emphasise with its characters.

I am as guilty as anyone, many of my images seek to portray an ideal version of my subjects, but perhaps photographers and filmmakers should move with scientists and portray our world less as a twee, idyllic paradise and more as the interconnected, cutthroat, and yet still beautiful world it is. As Darwin said, "there is grandeur in this view of life".