 |
| A North Atlantic right whale and her calf |
The state marine mammal of Georgia (yes they have one) is one of the most useless animals on the planet. The North Atlantic right whale is a huge, slow, and blubbery buoy of a whale that has the misfortune of calving in the middle of the south’s largest shipping lane. It’s not even that cute. Georgians debate the plight of the 300 or so remaining whales because diverting a major shipping route around their neighborhood requires substantial time and resources. Why do we try to save them, some say, if they provide no service to us?
 |
| The northern spotted owl, a famously controversial endangered species |
Beatley (1994) characterizes this attitude as “speciesism”, or “failing to perceive the intrinsic value of other forms of life.” He goes on to describe the tough choices habitat planners face when deciding where to invest limited conservation resources. Save the one cute one, or the ten ugly ones? Restore the polluted urban watershed, or protect the pristine wilderness? And most times, these questions pit human needs against the environment. I came face-face with this reality when I picked up a hitchhiker in northern Montana who claimed to be one of the thousands of loggers laid off as a result of declaring the northern spotted owl an endangered species.
I think the foundations of these questions lie in how we perceive our role in nature and how we view our function as sustainable development professionals. Are we a part of nature? Spirn (1984) offers her answer: "The city should be seen as a part of nature, not as something existing outside of it."
This debate is interesting because both sides can reach the same conclusion. For example, those who believe we are in a position of superiority over other species can interpret other species’ existence as for human use. But so can someone who thinks humans are just another iteration in a whole community of organisms; they see our actions, even the environment-degrading ones, as a natural process. Similarly, folks on both sides of the debate can also view humans as stewards who should try their best to fit into the niche we have carved out. So the real question is not whether you believe humans are a part of nature or not, but rather how you define our function on Earth.
Sustainable development professionals must extend this question specifically to our field. Who are we working for? Environmental quality or human society? Are they mutually exclusive? If not, are we simply mediators seeking to minimize collateral damage to both parties?
 |
| Ugh |
In defense of her plea for incorporating nature into urban development, Spirn (1984) wrote: “Disregard of natural processes in the city is, always has been, and always will be both costly and dangerous.” After reading this, I was reminded of how we tend to ignore this in favor of the nature-has-intrinsic-value argument. An image of a popular bumper sticker came to mind. This phrase has recently been repeated on everything from reusable shopping bags to compostable coffee cups and corporate websites: "Save the planet". While the use of this phrase on those products merits a separate discussion entirely, it raises another important philosophical question: What exactly are we trying to save?
 |
| The K-T boundary, containing lots of iridium, only found in such quantities in asteroids |
A few years ago I got the chance to drive several hours on a dirt road in central Colorado. After that, and some digging, I found what I came for: A quarter-inch-wide, silvery band of rock known as the K-T Boundary. Why is this significant? Because below this layer you can find endless dinosaur fossils, and above it, none. It was deposited 65 million years ago, when an asteroid the size of Manhattan smacked Earth with a force two million times greater than that of our largest nuclear weapons. Bye-bye, 70% of all species.
But then, a short while later (geologically speaking), equilibrium returned and life diversified once again.
But then, a short while later (geologically speaking), equilibrium returned and life diversified once again.
My point: The Earth can take it. It does not need saving - we do. It is modern human culture that walks a thinning tightrope as non-renewable resource stocks grow smaller. It is the human economy that will be pressured by climate change. It is human society that grows more vulnerable with every additional billionth person. Being so reliant on natural capital and ecosystem services, we simply cannot afford to inflict any more damage; the consequences include higher costs, poorer health, and greater inequality.
So when people ask my opinion on the right whale debate (I am a Georgian, after all), I tell them this: The North Atlantic right whale, while economically useless, is a member of an ecological community. The value of the services that community produces are enormous (annual global services are equal to at least double global GNP, says Costanza et al. 1997). Due to species redundancy, these service-providing ecosystems are typically quite resilient. Removing a species is like popping a rivet from the fuselage of an airplane in flight. It is unlikely that removing one or two rivets will do any seriously damage; however, in this progression there will be a rivet that, when removed, causes the entire airplane to fall apart. What if, after all the pressure we’ve already placed on the coastal Georgia marine ecosystem, the North Atlantic right whale is that rivet?
 |
| Costanza et al.'s map of global ecosystem services |
References
- Costanza, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, v. 387.
- NOAA. 2011. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis): Western Atlantic Stock.
- Spirn, Anne Whiston. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design.
- USGS. 2004. Online guide to the continental Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the Raton basin, Colorado and New Mexico.
Great post! This is the type of synthesis of the reading and personal experience I am looking for. Whales in Georgia?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the spotted owl was the cause of the layoff of the timber worker or if it served as the "canary in the coal mine" signaling endangerment of the forest resource upon which the logging industry depends. History is full of civilizations that perished as they cut down their last tree or exhausted their local fisheries or destroyed their cropland or grazing land.
Yep, whales in Georgia. Georgians are proud of their 100 miles of coast.
DeleteYou ask a good question. I skimmed some articles in search of an answer, and many authors claim the timber industry was already in serious decline well before owls were even on the radar. Also, a major industry argument was that second-growth timber wasn't as useful as old-growth; stopping old-growth cutting will kill their demand. At this point, under 10% of original old-growth forest was left in the region. So what are we supposed to do, just let them continue cutting down old-growth? Who or what will they blame when all the old-growth is gone? Man, are people resistant to change, even when they are walking themselves off a cliff!
As I was reading this post, a little Environmental Law crept to the front of my mind. The Endangered Species Act states that endangered species must be saved at all costs- the value of endangered species is 'incalculable'. So save the animals. Yes, even the ugly ones. But you're right- in the grand scheme of things, the planet (and all it's natural components) don't need saving- we do. We're just little minions on Earth, who happen to have the capabilities to screw up the Earth by growing to the next billionth person. Here's to not popping that last rivet.
ReplyDeleteLast year I TAed for the class SPEA E162 Environment and People. It was a very basic class filled with freshmen just getting a taste of SPEA. We did a lecture on biodiversity and your post reminded me of two types of species the students were tested on. I actually went back to the powerpoint to find the exact definitions. Umbrella Species are the less-charismatic animals that would not have generated public interest (so your ugly ones) and Flagship Species are large and charismatic species used as spearheads for biodiversity conservation (the cute ones).
ReplyDeleteI would like a "Save the People: Go Green!" bumper sticker to emphasize your excellent point. I often think of that in terms of climate change as well. The planet will, to the best of our knowledge, recuperate from whatever damage we might inflict. By contrast, we seem to have a difficult time managing risk, especially when it cannot be easily factored in an actuarial manner. We might not reduce much damage if we knew the precise number of rivet species we could pop, but it would certainly be easier to marhall support for a sensible approach. To Mary's comment above, I have heard a few environmental lawyers comment that the ESA is our strongest environmental law, because it has such sharp teeth. Other environmental laws have loopholes for specific industries or more opportunities through administrative action to ease restrictions, but ESA listings, while certainly contentious, are very effective at requiring strong protections. Lastly, as a strong lover of wetlands - one of the less sexy ecosystems generally - here is a candidate for the ugliest of all critters: the fairy shrimp. http://www.vernalpool.org/inf_fs.htm
ReplyDeleteCool post. This point caught my eye:
ReplyDeleteThe North Atlantic right whale, while economically useless, is a member of an ecological community. The value of the services that community produces are enormous (annual global services are equal to at least double global GNP, says Costanza et al. 1997).
Thanks to your post I skimmed over the Costanza article. The biosphere is responsible for ~$33 trillion of goods and services per year! Seems reasonable considering our GNP is entirely derived from the biosphere, technically. I doubt the right whale is a major asset, but still hope they survive!
That's a good point that I never considered - I wonder how they factor in the fact that much of the global GNP is, like you said, derived from the biosphere. I wonder how much GNP directly relies on ecosystem services. Seems like it would make Costanza's point even stronger.
DeleteExtinction.
ReplyDeleteYou asked how I define our function on Earth, and I say extinction. We started off much more benign of a species, but when we went 'out of Africa' we became a highly dangerous invasive species the world over. We went from being one of nature, to being one 'above' nature, and I think we'll end up being overwhelmed by nature in the end.
I thank you for going massively environmental and geological for me, I feel out of place in the policy and business realm. I'd like to start with a simple concept I hope most of you know. "Life finds a way."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM
(I cannot embed a video in a comment.)
That being said, when we talk about saving the planet (bumper stick or not), when we refer to sustainability, or about protecting nature, we are not talking about making sure that life survives. We are talking about making sure humans survive. The world our actions are creating is not a world void of life, just human life (at least as we know it.)
When I look at the K-T (K-Pg) geologically I just have to laugh. That tiny little line full of iridium from a single event occurring in a moment of time, though the ash would take years to fully settle, wasn't even the most devastating extinction the Earth has seen, and it took out about 70% of all species on the planet over the span of many years (there is no agreement on the full time frame).
The events of that extinction reshaped the world, giving rise to mammals, and are predicted to be less than the actions our species has created. And if 70% died then, how many will die during this mass extinction, and are we included?
Bonus points for the video... I laughed out loud in a quiet library corner.
DeleteAnd since when did they stop using "Tertiary" in favor of "Paleogene"? And why K instead of C? Was C taken by Cambrian or something? Oh boy, a geology friend to nerd out with!
I firmly believe - and it sounds like you do, too - in the existence of the Anthropocene. It's a time of massive restructuring, homogenization, and species loss. Most of the trends that characterize this new era are harmful to human health and society, but I believe (or rather, have to believe) that when the dust has settled and the curves have finally flattened out, those folks will just fine - granted, their world will look completely different than ours - but they'll still be here (unless Yellowstone goes off before then).
Intriguing post. While I agree that in "saving the planet" we're really saving ourselves, I also find it hard to disregard all the other species we're taking down along the way. And I have mixed feelings about incorporating the extinction of the dinosaurs into the conversation. There are a couple of oppositional threats to sustainability campaigns that come to mind. One is that much of the general public still sees it as a trend - something that's "in" right now but will pass like last season's foorwear. Another is the inevitability argument. The dinosaurs went extinct, eventually we will too, so why worry about it now? I find myself wrestling with feelings of hopelessness quite often when I'm reading about sustainability-related issues. But really, what's the harm in trying to make this planet a place where humans and all species can live for a long time to come? What's the downside to more breathable air, more sustainable food sources, and less reliance on non-renewable resources? Preaching to the choir here, but it's easy to get bogged down in the details.
ReplyDeleteI totally understand; I feel the same way most of the time (especially about the "passing trend" point you raised). I think it's important to remember that sustainability is a human-centric endeavor. I wrote this post to start a discussion about these ethical and philosophical dilemmas. However you spin it, sustainability (in my opinion) always been about us, which is why I believe it has more lasting power than "environmentalism" (and maybe even last season's footwear). And will we go extinct? This sounds way out there but do you think space travel will prevent our inevitable Earth-bound extinction? (Only half-way joking here)
DeleteAt this point in history, the downsides to those great things you mentioned are less consumption, less convenience, and higher prices. It's up to you and me to change these trade-offs in such a way that tips the balance in favor of more breathable air, etc.
Did you really pick up a hitchhiker? Have you seen the movie “There’ something About Mary”? I’m curious as to how that event went. Species extinction has been a natural occurrence since the beginning of life. How do we know if a species was or was not supposed to go extinct? What if a species was supposed to go extinct and we prevented it from doing so. Are we negatively affecting the environment? We must recognize whether or not anthropogenic intervention was the cause for the species extinction and base our decisions with that in mind. I agree with the overuse of the slogan “Go Green”. Perhaps our class should come up with a more modern and applicable catch phrase. Maybe “Stop Killing the Earth!”. Are humans the next “asteroid”?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of humans needing saving. But you failed to recognize the difference between the meteor strike millions of years ago and how we are “destructing” the Earth today. The meteor was a natural occurrence. Humans have used unnatural methods to alter the environment in such a way that diversification may never be attainable again. An example may be ozone layer depletion leading to large temperature/radiation fluxes or habitat destruction all over the word and not just in one place. We may have done what the meteor did and then some. And just because the Earth can “take it” does not mean we should continue to live in an unsustainable fashion. I do like the popping rivet analogy and believe it is 100% applicable in this case.
You raise some great points. You also, maybe without knowing it, hit on the purpose of my post - to discuss how personal beliefs influence our view of the role of humans on Earth. For example, I could argue that ozone depletion was a natural event, since we, too, are a "natural" species, having arrived here just like everything else; therefore, our actions, no matter how destructive, are inherently "natural". In that particular case, we chose to reverse ozone depletion out of our own self interest. Had we not been threatened with immediate and serious health effects from that process, I doubt we would have taken any meaningful action, even if it were harming other species (unless those species were valuable to us).
DeleteIt's a pretty annoying debate, I know, but there's a reason I'm blabbing about it. By the time our "great acceleration" is over, there's going to be a ridiculous number of people on Earth. Like the Rockstrom TED lecture, I'm for prioritizing critical needs in order to keep us and the Earth in some sort of productive balance; a balance that will certainly look nothing like it did before the industrial revolution. It's human-centric and speciesistic to the max, but it may be the only path there.
And yes, the hitchhiker was real... it made me a bit nervous, sure, but it was a bucket-list kind of thing.
DeleteThe world is a giant ecological web...
ReplyDeleteYou bring up whales, I bring up sea otters...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120910-sea-otters-global-warming-urchins-kelp-frontiers-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+ng%252FNews%252FNews_Environment+%2528National+Geographic+News+-+Environment%2529
I too often struggle with humans' place, and therefore obligation, in and to the earth/other species. I have had an especially hard time wrapping my head around conservation (of a single species or an entire habitat) and restoration, especially in light of the view in the ecology circles that there is no such thing as a "climax community." Although conservation and restoration appear to be manifestations of good stewardship, in some ways they are just manipulations of ecosystems to fit how we think they should be. (This is obviously a simplified view in some ways; I'm not saying that it is bad to clean up pollution, combat erosion, etc.) The best answer I've heard to this is that rather than trying to make the ecosystem look like a certain thing, we should be working to preserve the ecosystem process--metaphorically, to keep the rivets fixed so the plane can take whatever course it wants, rather than choosing the course ourselves.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this approach leads to the same types of restoration/conservation actions anyway, but for me it more fully recognizes the vast ecological history and the magic that is succession, extinction, and speciation.
Extremely insightful addition; I couldn't agree more. I, too, find myself rejecting climax theory in favor of the long-term view, which looks more stochastic than successional. Preserving processes, even if done for human benefit, probably also preserves ecosystem structure since our needs evolved alongside. On other words, humans are adapted to the services provided by healthy, intact, communities - so the easiest way to continue those services is to maintain ecosystems in the state we found them in. Harder to do with ten billion people, but that is the challenge you and I are neck deep in.
DeleteI love that you have brought up the philosophical question of human's role on the planet. For me this was the crucial question that caused to jump all in on sustainability, a question I first encountered as an undergrad when I took an IU religious studies course by Dr. Haberman called Religion, Ecology, and the Self. In that course, as in your post, we spent some time considering the geological timescale, which I think is a great way to frame the discussion. When you consider the tiny fraction of time that modern humans have existed relative to life on Earth, and yet the drastic decrease to biodiversity and changes to the atmosphere, etc that we have already caused (enough to trigger a new epoch!), it adds some much needed perspective and humility to those on both sides. For the anthropocentric, this perspective at least suggests that our existence is recent, not permanent, and in fact could be very brief. For others, like me, it suggests a stronger ethical position: humans cannot assume the right to destroy the complex web of species that has existed long before us and that gave birth to our very existence.
ReplyDelete