Exploring the Amazon with Alice Lily Armstrong: Challenging Biases, Embracing Complexity, and Reframing Our Relationship with Nature – Part Two
- Camoya Evans
- Dec 8, 2025
- 10 min read
Wild We Stand Programme Director Camoya Evans continues interviewing with Alice Lily Armstrong, a dedicated Amazonian wildcat researcher, to explore the complexities of modern conservation. Alice shares her thoughts on the influence of anthropomorphism on our understanding of wildlife, the necessity of examining our own cultural biases, and the obstacles posed by disciplinary silos in research. Their conversation highlights the importance of inclusive mentorship, the power of community, and the urgent need to integrate and amplify diverse voices and perspectives in conservation.
Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
How would you describe your relationship with nature and wildlife? What made you decide to become a wildcat researcher?
Alice: My relationship with wildlife didn't start with wildlife. I suppose it began with a general interest in animals. I grew up in London, and there isn't much wildlife there. We've got foxes and squirrels. And if you're in Richmond Park, you might see deer, which are great! I know I'm watering it down, but obviously, it’s not the most biodiverse place. When I mentioned to other conservationists that I grew up in London, some people were really shocked. People have said things to the effect of, “If you grew up in a city, how could you be interested in wildlife and natural spaces?”
Which I always find pretty nonsensical because surely it becomes even more interesting if it's quite different from your own experience?
Well, what really made me interested in animals was having pets. I've had all kinds of domestic pets, cats, and dogs. I had rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and fish, and I found observing them really fascinating, trying to understand how they perceive the world. I’m sure I’ve anthropomorphised them many times, seeing similarities between their behaviour and ours. And I think I've always been drawn to the idea of free-roaming wildlife. When I had a pet rat, my mum and I were funny about keeping it in a cage. We just let it run around the flat. We'd wake up, we'd find bits of my toys and my shaggy Scooby-Doo toy nose was gone. Daphne's hand was chewed off, but I just preferred it that way, that it was running free. So, I think that's what really instilled this fascination with undomesticated wildlife, and it's what brought me here later in life.
The idea that this could potentially be a career path [came] when I was watching a show called H2O: Just Add Water. It's about these mermaids in Australia, these teenage girls who turn into mermaids when they touch water. There was an episode featuring a marine biologist conducting research on dolphins at a zoo or aquarium. And I was like, "That's a job. Pardon?" I must have been in primary school when I saw that. I thought, 'You can do animals for a job, sign me up'. I suppose it had always been in my head, going into secondary school, that it was something I was interested in. But I've never been super great at school, because I have dyslexia, and I didn't know these things. So I always knew I would have to work hard. And I've been working towards this kind of thing ever since. Outside of education, my focus shifted from marine life to terrestrial wildlife and ecosystems. Now I question the coexistence of people and wildlife. But I guess at the core is this deep love for animals and a desire to see them, as well as people, living freely and safely.
Camoya: You said something I am curious to hear more about. You said that you may sometimes anthropomorphise some animals. And I have very mixed feelings about the language used around anthropomorphising. Do you think it's a helpful way to frame the type of relationships humans can have with animals?
Alice: It's probably quite unhelpful because why do we need to humanise animals to care about them? But then at the same time, I understand that with British literature, like Beatrix Potter, it's all about animals in clothes. I can't escape that kind of back-of-my-mind romanticisation. I even had an experience in the jungle the other day with these spider monkeys. We were placing the camera a bit nearer to their territory, and they can get a bit territorial, so they started shaking the trees, and logs were falling. The monkeys even called for monkey reinforcements. And I think when I was sharing this story with people, I was describing it like they were in a gang, and ambushed us, to add a bit of spice—making [the Spider Monkeys] out to be these no-nonsense guys that made me and my research assistant frantically run back to the boat. So it’s sometimes hard not to describe them as if they were us, especially when it comes to sharing your work and making it more engaging. But I do think I can see how it's a totally unhelpful thing to do. But it's slightly baked into the back of my mind, I suppose.
What particularly resonates with you about the Wild We Stand mission? How might it align with your work as a conservationist and researcher?
Alice: What I love about the Wild We Stand mission is your commitment to a more holistic approach to conservation. My own work sits between the intersection of people and wildlife. So, that philosophy really resonates with me in conservation. It's interdisciplinary. And at the moment, that word is a bit of a buzzword. But in practice, I think the sector remains siloed, whether it's a room full of anthropologists, environmental scientists, or academics. As I mentioned earlier, funding can be an issue because aligning with one fund's aims can sometimes conflict with another's. My research is funded by the Environmental Science Research Council in the UK. Still, I have commitments to the requirements of my department, the Department of Anthropology. Sometimes you can find a bit of a tug, even though both of those do see the value in interdisciplinary research. So in practice, these entities can struggle because of past silos that prevented them from working together.
What's missing are practitioners, community leaders, and even those industries that may be in conflict with the idea of conservation--such as extractive industries. I suppose that bringing those people together in the same room and understanding all these perspectives and pieces of the puzzle is really crucial if we want systematic change.
However, I think it's also important to appreciate that nuance is present everywhere. Change has to be slow; it's not about fast solutions. I've spoken to conservationists in Guyana who are also farmers, and if a wild cat kills 40% of their life savings in cattle in one afternoon, that's really difficult to deal with. That's your life savings. And you've got half your herd left. You have to protect what you have to feed your family. So these issues can be highly localised, and opinions on these topics can vary widely within the same community. So it's about slowing things down, listening, and trying to bring as many people together, even while there are emerging threats across the environment. It's important to understand that real change comes from a lot of listening and a more profound level of understanding to reach a long-lasting solution. Many NGOs and PhD projects rely on short-term grants; they have these actionable deliverables, but real change is not a speedy one-shot, one-stop shop.
I've mentioned as well being deeply committed to increasing racial diversity in the sector. The lack is a problem. I always say this, but the environmental crisis affects everyone, and I think we need to ensure as many people as possible are working on solutions that are effective. That starts with diversifying, at least within the UK, which is my experience of the conservation sector. It's about finding a middle ground between people, wildlife development, and protection, and I feel like that's where I see the Wild We Stand mission aligning with my own: reimagining conservation as inclusive and collaborative.
How do you envision the Conservation Equity Project evolving in the future? Do you have any high aspirations as the founder of the organisation?
Alice: Currently, we are providing mentorship to early-career conservationists of colour, offering guidance and reassurance from a place of lived experience. In the future, I would like to expand the mentor network to cover more roles across the conservation and green job sector, so people have a more varied pool of mentors to choose from. And most importantly, I really want us to offer paid internships. Unpaid work is one of the biggest barriers to entering the conservation field. I've been there, juggling multiple jobs to fund the volunteer work that I needed to take me to the next step. And it's unsustainable. For me, paid internships are something I really want to move forward with in the Conservation Equity Project.
How would you describe the work that you do on the ZSL board? Is there anything that you're proud of doing since you've been on the board?
Alice: Yeah, so firstly, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) is the organisation that also manages London Zoo [and Whipsnade Zoo]. However, ZSL is somewhat similar to WWF, as it's a larger conservation organisation that funds research and runs projects worldwide. In 2023, they established a Youth Advisory Board to bring together a group of young people, not all of whom work in conservation. That was what was really cool about it: it was just young people who care about the environment, which was interesting and exciting for me. When you go through conservation spaces, everyone's a conservationist, but in our youth board, that was not the case. You had lawyers in entirely separate fields. Someone was working in defence. It's important to show that most jobs can be related to the environment. That was the first time I'd been in a space with people from different backgrounds and experiences. But we were all there to discuss similar topics. We need more of that. So that was a really amazing part of the board. It was set up to amplify youth voices within ZSL, to inform change within the organisation, and to advocate for and increase youth voice and representation in conservation discussions across the sector.
I was on the board for two years, so I've just left because the term length is two years. Two moments that stand out for me in my time there were delivering a workshop at the Youth and Nature Summit in Cambridge and facilitating a focus group. The workshop at the summit was for young people in conservation to network and meet individuals at various stages in the sector. We were informing people on how to set up their own youth boards within their organisations and how to adopt inclusive hiring practices. I'd never run a workshop of that nature before. When I joined the board, I wanted to improve my presenting skills, and I learned that the medium of presenting doesn't have to be stagnant. As a PhD student, sometimes it's very much like "I'm going up, and I'm presenting about my research", and it can be a bit mechanical, but the workshops are about getting people up and moving. And I like that. We received good training on the youth board, and being able to utilise it to develop myself as a communicator and to share important information with others was really special.
Alice: We also learned to facilitate a focus group. We conducted a study to understand young people's connection to nature and their knowledge and access to the conservation sector. As well as how these factors change in relation to economic background, race, and religion. It was very comfortable just talking to people, getting them at ease, and hearing the amazing stories they shared and their perspectives. The group we were working with was significantly underrepresented in conservation, and I found the fluidity of that form of discussion to be powerful and important. And obviously, focus groups have been around for ages. But that was my first time doing one, and I feel like we had an excellent setup. Sometimes you can feel quite extractive when taking people's time away for your own research, but the fact that they're smiling, having a lot of fun, and making connections with each other makes it worthwhile. Very wholesome experience, really wholesome. While much of the work I did on the board was quite outward-facing, we also influenced internal projects, such as revitalising ZSL's youth awards and other initiatives. We advised on the organisation's overall strategy. Even though the board is in its infancy, during the two years we were there, we accomplished an incredible amount of outward-facing and inward-facing work.
What piece of advice would you give to conservationists of colour who are maybe s?
Alice: With my experience in South Africa, I do not want to feel that isolation again, so I would say research networks and get involved with diverse people working in your sector. I'll give a plug to the Reed Ecological Network and the London Wildlife Trust, particularly for its inclusive programs, as well as online spaces like Black & Plant Scientists. That's a good way to combat that kind of isolation. If I had gone to South Africa with those networks back home, I think it would have made me feel a lot less alone. Don't doubt your place in the sector, even if you don't see many people who look like you. I know how demotivating that isolation can be, but community can change everything. So look out for those spaces. New ones are coming up all the time. I've just mentioned a handful. The sector needs your voice, your perspective, and your ideas, and I can't underscore how invaluable they are.
What do you think is missing in the language or the way that we discuss conservation and wildlife?
Alice: In Europe and North America, we treat our view of nature as the default, and I don't think we realise how influenced it is by the history of conservation. The concept of pristine wilderness, as seen by the establishment of Yellowstone National Park and the creation of early nature reserves, was founded on the idea of creating a space for wildlife and a separate space for people. And this detachment between people and nature has continued. We don't realise how baked into our psyche it is, and assume it's universal, but countless communities around the world live alongside nature in ways that don't fit this separation at all. So, it's essential to explore your biases. Because it completely clouds our approach to things.
In my own education, I received no anthropology training until I began my PhD, which meant I hadn't been taught how my own biases and positionality are central to my conservation work. If we want better solutions, we need to embed this from the start in conservation training, teaching future conservationists to recognise how their own worldview might cloud their work and that solutions are not simple. They're complex, multifaceted, and might not fit in a neat, tidy deliverable that works for a corporate funder like Apple, because big corporations like that often fund NGO projects. Apple has funded a project that a colleague of mine is currently working on. The way these systems operate is quite different from things in practice. So, coming at it from the start of exploring, our biases should be more embedded in conservation work from the outset. That begins with education, whether it's formal academic education or in the workplace.
Follow @WildWeStand on Instagram and LinkedIn for more conversations.
Comments