Conservation in the Age of Tech Giants: Time to Rethink Our Strategies

As conservationists, we often rely on partnerships with tech companies for data, funding, and innovative tools. 

Recently, I’ve started asking myself: what if these alliances unintentionally changing conservation in ways that go against our core values?

I wonder if the nature conservation community has sufficiently reflected on, and positioned itself appropriately regarding, the long-term risks and impacts posed by the rise of transnational tech corporations like Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and their influential leaders—figures such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg. These companies and individuals are shaping global policies, technologies, and economies, with significant implications for nature conservation and management.

Historically, we have welcomed new technologies as allies and partners. Indeed, they provide tools and opportunities for traceability, monitoring, law enforcement, and funding for conservation efforts. However, this embrace has largely been tactical and reactive—focused on immediate benefits—without fully assessing the long-term challenges these corporations and technologies present.

Now, as Donald Trump prepares for his second term, the power these corporations wield has become undeniable, even to those who had not closely followed their rise. Figures like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk have played pivotal roles in shaping Trump’s administration. Peter Thiel, a major Republican donor and ideological influencer, has propelled his protégé JD Vance—now Vice President-elect—into the political spotlight. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, appointed to lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), exemplifies the tech sector’s deepening entanglement with governance.

This convergence of technology and politics signals a broader shift: a dual process where technological advancements go hand in hand with the consolidation of political and economic power by the tech sector. The year 2024 could be pivotal—not only due to the return of Trump’s administration but also because of the accelerating influence of generative AI in all aspects of life.

What could this mean for the Earth’s ecosystems, for nature itself?

Some of the risks we should consider:

1. Exemption from Regulations: Unlike state actors or traditional industries like agriculture, transportation, or extractive sectors, tech companies operate in largely unregulated spaces, exploiting gaps in governance.
2. Neglect of Global Commons: Tech corporations, by design and definition, prioritise proprietary systems over the stewardship of shared resources, leading to significant impacts on global commons.
3. Opaque Decision-Making: Tech companies often operate behind closed doors, leaving little transparency about how decisions are made or who is impacted. This lack of accountability makes it difficult to gauge their true environmental and societal impacts.
4. Reactive Problem-Solving: Tech leaders are known for short-term, tech-optimistic approaches that often overlook broader ecological and societal consequences.
5. Exploitative Practices: Poor treatment and exploitation of employees, workers, and communities remain hallmarks of many tech giants and the gig economy.

The rise of the tech giants is causing the following impacts:

1. Erosion of Accountability: Existing civil society and state institutions—designed to provide checks and balances—are increasingly bypassed, leaving tech corporations to set new rules and orders.
2. Resource Exploitation for Selective Benefit: Tech giants are arguably just as resource exploitative as traditional industries. The escalating energy consumption of IT infrastructure (e.g., the power required for internet services and AI data centers) and the growing demand for critical elements (e.g., rare earth metals for batteries) are often unchecked—and sometimes even celebrated as “clean” alternatives to the fossil fuel economy. However, this shift risks exploiting nature for the benefit of a privileged few, while sidelining wider communities and leaving them to bear the externalities.
3. Loss of Leverage: Conservationists and environmental advocates may find themselves excluded from governance, consultation, and management systems that are evolving far faster than our ability to adapt.

This raises the critical question:

Conservation for whom? Are we becoming agents of conservation for the privileged few, supporting their interests and the emerging world order while ignoring broader societal and ecological needs? If we continue business as usual, embracing power of the big tech and the new technologies for conservation without reflection on the wider context and consequences of these alliances, we risk cementing this role—acting as agents of conservation that prioritise the interests of the privileged elites while sidelining broader, more equitable goals.

Call to Action:

What can we as a conservation community do?  While we cannot halt the rapid pace of technological development or political shifts, we must become conscious of their broader implications and take proactive steps to ensure that our ultimate goal of conservation for all humanity is not compromised.

1. Reflect on the importance of the tech sector in long-term conservation strategies and organisational structures: We urgently need to review our strategies and work plans to incorporate the shifting power dynamics toward tech giants.
2. Learn more about how the tech sector impacts nature: Invest in more dedicated research and deeper environmental assessments of the tech sector’s actions.
3. Change the approach to partnerships with tech companies: This potentially requires developing frameworks to evaluate such partnerships based on transparency, accountability, and alignment with conservation goals.
4. Work with communities to strengthen civil society: We need to work even more closely with other civil society groups, communities, and state actors to address emerging issues collaboratively.
5. Participate in regulation development: Advise and lead on regulations steering the tech sector away from nature-harming practices.

I believe it’s time—even though it is almost too late—for a broad, inclusive, and deep discussion that goes beyond traditional frameworks to ensure our conservation efforts serve all of humanity—not just the interests of a select few, as the tendencies show.

What do you think? How can we, as a conservation community, ensure the risks and opportunities brought by the rising tech giants do not undermine our efforts to protect nature for everyone?