{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021482277121374866, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.091503267973856, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Natural and cultural heritage

We receive communal legacies from two sources—the natural environment and the creations of human beings. To be sure, these inheritances everywhere commingle; no aspect of nature is unimpacted by human agency, no artefact devoid of environmental impress. Yet we have traditionally dealt quite differently with these two kinds of legacy. Though management of both heritages has many features in common, and both realms often share similar, if not the same, leaders and spokesmen, relations between the two are marked less by cooperative amity than by envy and rivalry. This essay discusses the reasons for our dissimilar approaches to nature and culture, and shows how they bear on the campaigns to protect and preserve each. In some important ways, the history, politics, and rhetoric of conservation and destruction are shown to have converged, in others to have diverged, over the last half century.