One document

An Argument From Ecology With Two Case Studies · Chapter 1

Humans as Part of Nature and the Implications for Workable Environmental Conservation

An Anthropocentric Argument for the Need for Environmental Connection and Conservation

§Introduction

The natural order that binds organisms to each other and their environment is essential for the survival of species on Earth. I believe that humans are no exception. All members of a complex system are essentially interrelated. Advances in technology and changes in cultural perception have fostered the illusion of independence from the natural order. With increasing detachment from their environment, industrialized humans have adopted an anthropocentric view, where nature is considered only as a resource to be mined for the good of the “more deserving” species Homo Sapiens. I believe that the cumulative consequences of this myopic attitude are more than destructive on the short term. If prolonged, this separation from nature, resulting in widespread and irreversible environmental destruction, could well cause our own extinction by creating an environment unfriendly to humans.

Ehrlich (1986) ominously begins his discussion of current extinctions by stating that we are entering an era of mass extinction, rivaling, or even surpassing the scale at the end of the Cretaceous period. Myers (1992, p.1) summarizes: “Earth’s biodiversity is being overtaken by a mass extinction which, if allowed to proceed unchecked, could well eliminate between one quarter and one half of all species.”. One might assume that looming catastrophe would move people to make note, change attitudes, and take swift action. But all are not moved or even convinced. In an essay “Sorry, but the Earth is not Fragile” Rush Limbaugh attacks the “long-haired maggot-infested FM-type environmentalist wacko (Limbaugh 1992: 161) who goes “catatonic” when Limbaugh (1992: 181-182) says, “if the owl can’t adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it.” The scientist may rightly dismiss uninformed ravings as irrelevant, but they can not afford to dismiss the large popular audience to whom mongers appeal. They need to seriously respond to those scientists who give ammunition to those who question the evidence for massive extinction or doubt that it matters.

In that line I will respond to attitudes such as those of Norman Levine (1989), who portrays anthropogenic species extinction as evolutionary, and Charles Krauthammer (1991), advocate of a limited model of anthropocentric conservation, to confront the questions: Should we as a species with the infinitely malleable tool of culture even care about species loss? Can’t we simply preserve species that directly benefit us and use our cultural tool to manipulate our environment to fulfill our needs?

In this essay, I provide evidence that species extinction has dramatically increased with progressive isolation from our natural environment. Natural as a concept is explored and evidence is provided that humans are using tools of culture and industrialization to increasingly isolate themselves from their environment. This increasing isolation is shown to be unsustainable; if the foundations of society are not restructured, we face the possibility of forcing ourselves into extinction. A paradigm shift needs to take place in which we view the world using a holistic, context based approached. I will show that, contrary to reductionistic approaches, this might be the only sustainable way to interact with the incredible complexity that surrounds us.

§Evidence for Extinction

§Past Anthropogenic Extinctions

12,000 to 40,000 years ago, when North America had a biological landscape rivaling the Serengeti Plains of Africa, approximately half of all large mammal species world-wide, including Saber tooth cats, mastodons, and dire wolves became extinct. Because extinction occurred at the same time as the expansion of humans, one primary hypothesis for the synchronous extinction is that humans, through over hunting, habitat alteration, and species introduction, caused the demise of these animal groups. The other major hypothesis of climate extinction has recently lost favor; many of these animals had survived through more than 20 major shifts from glacial to interglacial conditions over 2.5 million years only to succumb at the same time as early human expansion (Burney 1993).

Richard Klein (in Burney 1993) believes that the extinctions were triggered by human hunting and habitat alteration. The best evidence for this comes from examination of extinction patterns in oceanic islands at the same time period as the initial spreading of humans. Oceanic islands are generally considered fragile habitats because the founders are descended from a small founding population that, primarily by chance, came to the island. Despite climatic variation, diversity on these islands remains high until the approximate time of human introduction when species such as the dwarf elephant and pygmy hippopotamus of the Mediterranean islands, and giant rodents and dwarf ground sloths of the Caribbean suddenly disappear from the geologic record (Burney 1993).

In line with this pattern, the last places of human colonization also hold the most recent record of rapid extinction. Notably, more birds have become extinct in the Hawaiian Islands since the arrival of Polynesians than currently survive. These birds were hunted, killed by competing introduced species, and destroyed by habitat alteration of early agricuralists (Howarth 1988; Burney 1993).

These same groups of early human inhabitants deforested fairly large areas in Mesoamerica with slash and burn agriculture, but the damage was limited. This early extinction and environmental degradation could be taken as an early warning indication of human inadequacy as to stewardship of his environment. Unfortunately the inadequacies have been cumulative with every increasing rates of extinction and degradation (Zube 1991; Burney 1993).

Burney (1993) believes that the rapidity and extent of late historic anthropogenic extinction should provide a warning call for current and future extinction. If, as he says, early humans were largely responsible for the extinction of over half of all large mammals and assumingly countless smaller organisms that leave less geologic evidence, then our current capacity for causing extinction with tools of modern technology must be exponentially greater.

To quantify rates of extinction, a comparison of past and present global species richness is useful, if not necessary. Unfortunately, because we have so little information, a consensus on the issue is lacking; global estimates of species richness range from 5 (May 1990) to 80 million (Stork 1988; Gaston 1992). Myers (1993) considers our lack of knowledge scandalous; we have the ability to make extremely precise measurements (within half a centimeter) of distance from a given spot on the moon to a spot on the earth, yet we are far from determining the number of life forms, the most distinctive feature in the known universe, on our own planet.

Ehrlich (1986) feels that the global overshoot of the carrying capacity of Homo Sapiens is likely to cause extinction on the level of the Cretaceous period, where entire groups of reptiles, corals, bivalves, and foraminifera went extinct (Kauffman 1984). Due to the lack of information concerning number of extant species, direct estimation of extinction rates are impossible. Instead, estimates must be indirect, based on population declines resulting from habitat destruction. Ehrlich (1986) also points out that narrowly looking at species extinction alone can be dangerous - extinction of subspecies, ecotypes, and genetically distinct populations might be much more threatening to the functioning of ecosystems and, temporally to their constituent species.

Butterflies are examined as a display case of extinction rates (Ehrlich 1986). They are representative of the most numerous terrestrial animals, herbivorous insects, and they are either monophagous or oligophagous and thus closely related to plant diversity. Ehrlich (1986) shows, using qualitative analysis, that population loss among butterflies is occurring at a dramatic rate, synchronously with habitat loss. Though Ehrlic’s analysis is primarily qualitative, large population and habitat decline can provide the necessary foundation for species extinction. If a species’ survival requirements are not met due to destroyed habitat or a weakened genetic pool due to reduced population size, obviously the possibility of extinction increases.

Loss of habitat in the long term is likely to be much more dangerous than loss of species because habitat loss is likely to result in destruction of all species endemic to that habitat. On the other hand, species loss also has dramatic influence on the habitat. For example, extinction of several grass species could result in extinction of animals, which use the grass for habitat and food. Eventually such spiraling reactions could lead to desertification of a grass based eco-system. Such codependent interactions reflect the complex cybernetic nature of human altered ecosystems.

Ehrlich (1986) provides some quantitative analysis by proposing that species extinction rates are currently 100 times higher than in the past 50 m.y. He believes this figure will jump 4 to 40 times by the end of the century. These rates are generated through examination of current known bird and mammal extinction in comparison to fossil records. Myers (1993) says that current extinction predictions are based on a previously estimated 10 million species and thus, considering current estimates of 30 million for total population (Erwin 1988), there must be 3 times the projected number. He projects extinction rates of 1000 species a day by the year 2000.

Terborgh (1974) uses island biogeographic theory to show dramatic effects of isolation on species extinction. This kind of study is relevant due to the increasing fragmentation caused by anthropomorphic actions. Terborgh (1974) examines fauna occurring on land-bridge islands, formed in the Pleistocene, in comparison to fauna on the mainland. However, use of this estimate assumes the arguable hypothesis that continental species densities have not changed since the Pleistocene. Terborgh (1974) estimates rates of 20 per-cent extinction, after only 100 years of isolation for five neo-tropical land-bridge islands. Since Terborgh’s perspective is limited by examining only the effects of fragmentation, the rate of species loss would certainly be much more dramatic with inclusion of other anthropomorphic variables, such as pollution or sedimentation induced from deforestation. Though all of these methods of estimation involve a fair amount of guesswork, simple observance of human effects on the environment show that local species extinction must be increasing dramatically.

This is most evident in the greatest storehouses of biodiversity, tropical forests. In the past 40 years, many areas previously covered by tropical forests have been depleted to the point where recovery seems impossible. Haiti has lost over 70% of its forests (Hatshorn et al. 1982). Certainly this is not a sustainable way to interact with our environment!

Furthermore, species of low visibility, which are difficult to count, such as Arthropods that make up most of the Earth’s biota might be at most threat of rapid extinction. Kim (1993) argues that these species are necessary for human survival, because they provide services such as pollination, decomposition, and biological control.

He also believes that conservation is necessary not only for their importance in ecosystem dynamics and possible biotechnological advantages, but because, humans draw their spirit from nature. Kim (1993) claims that biodiversity is the source of human spirit, inspiration, and possibly intelligence. He states that Western culture has ignored both the directly practical and the more spiritual arguments for conservation of biodiversity.

Kim (1993) believes that deforestation is resulting in extinction rates of arthropods and other small species, which are in excess of 10,000 times greater, the rate of natural extinction prior to the appearance of humans. Arthropods, the most abundant source of biodiversity, are also the most threatened among living groups of organisms, precisely because of their ubiquitous nature and species richness (Kim 1993).

If we are currently either in, or on the brink of a mass extinction, the most frightening aspects of this are the rate, and the diverse groups affected. Global warming could cause species to migrate ten times faster than in the last Ice Age. Such a dramatic change is likely to wipe out most, if not all living species due to the effects of species introductions and inability for species survival in rapidly shifting environments (Myers 1993).

All of the Earth’s habitats are being dramatically affected anthropogenically. This is most evident in depletions of tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and other biotypes housing exceptional abundance and complexity of species and ecological workings. Examining the huge diversity of effects on populations of all of these systems shows that nearly every group of species is, or will be, affected detrimentally, if not completely extinguished (Myers 1993).

§Why We Should Care About Species Extinction

§Is Species Extinction a Problem?

Levine (1989) argues that anthropogenic extinction is a natural part of evolution; species preservationists can not and should not stop the evolutionary clock. Levine makes several statements in support of his arguments that appear to undermine his motives. In his own words (Levine 1989: 38): Manmade environments are artificial...variety has turned into uniform monotony...most wild animals have disappeared” “Adjustment to manmade environments may be just as difficult as adjustment to new continents” (Levine 1989: 38). Species considered “pests” do quite well in an anthropomorphic environment and “people may be replaced someday” (Levine 1989). Levine doesn’t really seem to challenge biologists alarmed at the rapid decline of biological diversity, but his detached stoicism suggests fatalistic apathy. If we are comfortable with a monotonous a-biotic world in which our own species doesn’t exist, then let us march on to extinction! On the other hand, if we want to preserve our species, then we should be alarmed that plant and animal diversity seems to be diminishing at ever increasing rates.

Levine (1989) fatalistically asks what we should do about the anthropomorphically altered habitat; “should we all commit suicide?” This fails to take the species survival imperative seriously. I argue that current industrialized actions are, in effect, already potentially pronouncing and supporting a worldwide death sentence. Support for this argument, comes from the next section which provides an example of the impact that anthropogenic extinction can have on humans.

§The Impact of Anthropogenic Species Extinction on Humans

One of the primary ways humans alter eco-systems and cause extinctions is through the introduction of exotic species which out-compete indigenous varieties. I believe that this is primarily due to our lack of knowledge of the extreme complexities of interaction involved in eco-system dynamics. As I illustrate below, such anthropogenic extinctions have had dramatic effects on the lives of humans.

Exotic species usually become permanent and affect environments in unexpected ways. Often biodiversity in the systems to which they are introduced is adversely affected (Coblentz 1990). One graphic example of the unexpected impact of an exotic species is the Nile perch (Barel et al, 1985). Its deliberate introduction in Lake Victoria, East Africa caused the decline and virtual disappearance of almost all the commercially important indigenous fish. The Nile perch now compromises over 80 per cent of the biomass of the Nyanza Gulf.

Though already disastrous, the consequences of this introduction are yet to be fully realized. Considering the large percentage of this predator at the top of food web, and the near depletion of its food sources, it is likely that the lake will become even more biotically simplified. As a result of rapid biologic simplification resulting from over-competition by this introduced predator, a massive decline in fisheries has forced local people into a drastically worse state of existence. Socio-economically, the price attained by the Nile Perch is now very low due to its abundance. Also, the nets required for the Perch are stronger and more expensive; as a result, local individuals have been pushed out of business and now only the wealthy can afford to fish commercially. Further adding insult is the local dislike for the taste of this fish, which, out of necessity, has become the new staple. Other environmental consequences have resulted from growing deforestation due to required lumber for smoking the introduced fish. This is just one example where large numbers of people have suffered in standard of living due to anthropogenic alteration (Barel et al. 1985). Zaret and Paine (1973) show how the introduction of another piscivore to a tropical lake has produced population changes in a wide range of trophic levels in similar unanticipated ways.

The same kinds of patterns and destructive consequences have been found terrestrially as well. In Hawaii, introduced kudzu, insects, goats, rats, and pigs have caused serious immediate problems for humans. These introduced species have had serious detrimental effects on the viability of tropical forest eco-systems by eroding soil and attacking un-prepared vegetation with disease and consumption. This rapid degradation has decreased the viability of watersheds and resultantly, the sustainability of potable water. Introduced pests have also seriously impacted un-acclimated agricultural systems. Hawaiian culture is also currently threatened by the loss of bio-diversity, which it is integrally interlinked to (The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii 1991).

Primack (1992) argues that species introduction is the primary cause for environmental degradation and species extinction following arrival of Conquistadors in the US. Other examples of similar destructive anthropogenic introductions exist throughout the conservation literature (Amaraskare 1993; Carlton and Geller 1993; Gillis 1992; Howarth 1988; Cagne 1988; Juvik and Juvik, 1984; Moyle 1976).

Zaret and Paine (1973) also show the dearth of our knowledge of ecosystem dynamics:

Even in the field of biological control, where serious studies of this nature have been continuing for more than seven decades, accurate predictions of a new species on a given ecosystem are, even at a most basic level, not yet possible.

Zaret and Paines’ quote becomes very interesting when considering that Homo Sapiens is a self introducing species which has pushed itself into much of the world’s habitats. We are altering the world, our own meta-ecosystem, in ways we do not understand, that could be detrimental, if not deadly, for ourselves. Possibly comparison between small scale species introductions and the magnitude of industrialized actions throughout the world could provide a sobering lesson for the present populations of Homo Sapiens

§Ethics of Species Extinction

Does a species have a right to exist? What about an ecosystem? What benefit does species conservation have for us? Which species, if any should be preserved and do we have a moral right to ask such questions in the first place? The answers to these questions can come from different levels. One answer requires entrance into the realm of deep ecology, perhaps the epistemology of ecology.

Johnson (1992) believes that species and ecosystems are living systems and thus have morally significant interest in their own rights. He states that species and ecosystems are both composed of constituents, which contain genes and genotypes, that manifest their interactions with the environment on higher levels and thus must be considered living entities with their own interests and own right to exist. If species or ecosystems are acknowledged to have moral standing and interests in their own right, species extinction and ecosystem destruction are ethically wrong. From an ethical frame or level, we have no right to “play God” or to destroy living entities if avoidable. Obviously these ethics hold true for all of humanity as well; we have no right to similarly destroy human populations through environmental degradation, species introduction, cultural disruption, or other detrimental impacts.

But, while this frame can be kept in mind, particularly for those whose perspective is strongly religious, the moral stance is not necessary for belief that we exist in an unsustainable industrial society. The ethical and epistemological stances are ways to express a deep, perhaps intuitive, sense of biological interconnectedness. But one does not have to be religious or philosophical. All that is necessary is a belief in our own right to exist.

§Reductionism and the Need for a Paradigm Shift

Cheetham (1993) acknowledges a general antipathy towards a reductionist scientific world view entrenched throughout the general public and even the intelligentsia. But the anti-technological and anti-scientific extremists that suggest a simple return to pre-industrial Eden are misguided if not dangerous in their oversimplifications. Most obviously pre-industrial means of production can not sustain current population density. Similarly, reductionists, mechanists, and apologists for exploitation live in a false ideal that is dangerously inadequate to explain the intrinsic complexities of our natural surroundings. Science should be viewed as one of many human activities, none of which has access to the truth. Attempts to view conservation, or any biology, in a reductionist setting stemming from physics have also been prevalent in the form of “physics envy”.

Reductionism has only recently been undermined with acknowledgment of uncertainty in the quantum revolution of physics early in this century. Natural objects and human values have to be seen as embedded in their temporal context if we are to evolve to a sustainable ecological society. Cartesian dominance since the 16th century has been ineffective in dealing with the complexity, context, history, or contingency relevant and necessary for the study of biology. Until recently, it was assumed that materialistic reductionism was the only science that was valid for formalization and quantitative vigor. Cheetham shows how recent work in theories of complex systems allow the use powerful tools of quantitative analysis without a strongly reductionist approach.

Investigating biological systems in complex terms also allows for the sense of wonder and excitement natural in the presence of new phenomenon that is considered nearly antithetical of traditional reductionist approaches (Cheetham 1993). Contrary to classical views, a sense of “amazement” is necessary to the construction of complex science and systems with contextual elements, including academic disciplines such as psychology, history, politics, and economics. The paradigm shift appears to be from a classical focus on “truth” or “real knowledge’’ to a universe of many temporal and contextualized but interrelated systems. To see the universe as structured on the basis of certain divine truths is to treat it as static and dead. Treating the universe temporally provides for its consideration as embodying a knowledge system, one that is alive and malleable. A central focus on the universe as concrete and static coincides with a separation from our natural world. To grasp reality, we must participate in it (Cheetham 1993).

§An Anthropocentric Approach to Conservation

In his plea to, “save nature, but only for man” Krauthammer (1991) reflects the dominant but unnatural anthropocentric view of industrialized society. However, an approach to conservation centered on survival and health of our own species is not antithetical to conservation. In fact, I propose that a weak form of anthropocentrism is not only the easiest, but possibly the only realistic approach for biosphere conservation. I believe that the paramount goal of preserving Homo Sapiens can only be accomplished through respect for the right for all species to exist. That we are debating which species to conserve is an indicator of the strong anthropocentric mind set that encompasses industrialized society. Unfortunately, due to past and present actions, we have placed ourselves in a position where we have no choice but to play God; many species will go extinct entirely due to our meddling and it is impossible to save them all. If there can be agreement that conservation is necessary for human survival, then the problems of unavoidable stewardship can better be addressed.

Krauthammer (1991) readily admits that his “sane environmental” approach is blatantly anthropocentric:

“The important distinction is between those environmental goods that are fundamental and those that are merely aesthetic. Nature is our ward. It is not our master. It is to be respected and even cultivated. But it is man’s world. And when man has to choose between his well-being and that of nature, nature will have to accommodate.”

The sound basis of his argument is overtaken by anthropocentric bias where nature is viewed as conquerable chattel. Failing unheard-of-technological advancement, this perverted view of nature will cause our destruction. To understand the inherent unsustainability, it is important to address nature and our relationship to it.

§Our Relationship with Nature

We are born of nature and inextricably bound to nature, yet what is it? Any definition of “natural” is a cultural construction and thus our definition reflects our relationship with what we are defining (Wright 1992). Hvalkof (1989) showed that the Asheninka Indians have no definition or concept of “nature” as an external element. They consider what we call the “natural environment” as a fundamental aspect of their own being; local plants, animals, and geologic features are considered relatives -- not external entities. They also have no concept of Development, sustainable development, or environmental protection. The Asheninka are objectified and defined as lesser “natural” peoples who live with nature by settlers. Hvalkof (1989) contrasts the Asheninka with the settlers who have a more “Western” externalized view of the environment. He shows that the settlers have attempted development practices and have caused environmental degradation, while the Asheninka live what we would call “sustainably” with their environment. Hvalkof (1989) believes that recent interest in sustainable development and environmental protection is ultimately hypocritical because the very definition of nature as a separate entity to be conserved reinforces the dichotomy between nature and culture. As he states (Hvalkof 1989):

“Without ‘nature’ there will be no expansionist civilizing dream to realize the process of which is vital for the sustenance of Occidental culture. Nature has become a cultural necessity. Without Nature, no Development.

In line with externalizing views proposed by Hvalkof (1989), Anderson (1991) proposed three ways to evaluate the naturalness of a system. All of his criteria are based on human involvement in a system:

1) The degree to which the system would change if humans were removed.

2) The amount of cultural energy required to maintain the functioning of the system as it currently exists.

3) The complement of native species currently in an area compared with the suite of species in the area prior to settlement.

Is Homo Sapiens as a species natural itself? Can the ultimate self introducer (Coblentz 1990) and alterer of all habitats be natural? According to Anderson (1991), Homo Sapiens are, by definition, the indicator that is inversely proportional to the degree of naturalness of a system. That humans can create a natural system through unnatural alteration of existing natural systems, such as California’s annual grasslands or bracken dominated deforested areas (Anderson 1991) is a fascinating, if not frightening conundrum. Classically, humans are defined as the antithesis of nature. Anderson says that it is possible that no natural systems exist on Earth. Anderson argues that if a system is natural, removal of humans should have no impact. On the other hand, he points out that much of our environment has been so degraded by human activities that it might take millennia for natural processes to resume. It is no simple task to define what is natural or unnatural. Perhaps one form of unnatural system is an inherently unstable or unsustainable one, created by humans as short-term responses but failing to address the unknowable variables.

A crucial issue is that industrialized humans are constantly introducing themselves into new environments, which they alter until the environments become dependent upon them. Are we in turn dependent on these altered environments? Once we’ve established ourselves in an ecosystem and milked it of our needs, can’t we just leave it to the hands of evolutionary processes to deal with? After all, habitat alteration is a natural part of evolution. Can we just continue exploiting new environments to fulfill our own needs? Some would argue that once the Earth’s resources have dried up, it will be time for us to stretch our wings into space and colonize the universe anyway. These same people might argue that those babbling about conservation are just too naive; faith in technology and a healthy concern for the environmental issues directly affecting man is the key.

Thus, Krauthammer (1991) feels that it is important to deal with environmental issues, but only if they directly threaten man. According to Krauthammer (1991), these pertinent issues include ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately we don’t know all the variables involved in ozone depletion or the greenhouse effect. Decreased CO2 consumption resulting from deforestation could exacerbate these phenomenons. Due to the cybernetic and complex nature of many natural systems, one problem may result in imbalance, causing a continuing cycle of degradation and destruction. For example, tree loss caused by greenhouse effect induced increases in ambient temperatures could initiate a cycle in which trees continue to perish, thus causing increasingly rapid exacerbation of the greenhouse effect, eventually transforming the entire biosphere into a desert wasteland.

Similarly, many of the world’s coasts are now plagued by eutrophic conditions due to anthropogenic nutrient enrichment (Lee and Olsen 1985, Rosenberg 1985, Walton 1982). Increases in nutrient enrichment over the past 30 years are causing low light, hypoxic, and anoxic conditions which result in massive losses of submerged vegetation (Price et al. 1985), fish, and other organisms (Rosenberg 1985). The continued increases of nutrient input, as well as the resultant organic pollutants from the dying organic matter, cause these systems to spiral down until massive biotic simplification, if not complete extinction results (Rosenberg 1985). The effects of industrialization on our oceans is enunciated by sediment layer analysis in Chesapeake Bay where it has been shown that the wholesale extinction of grasses that occurred in 1970 is unique for, at least, the last 1000 years. Fish and other species that we use are dependent on these grasses for habitats. If we continue in this vein, we lose the fish and other species dependent on grasses for food. Such spirals could result elsewhere, (as in the discussion of species introduction on pp. 36) eventually resulting in unknown consequences, which might include wholesale biotic simplification and even desertification (Allen 1985).

Using Krauthammer’s advice, we might not even look at the second order causes/effects such as deforestation, instead focusing on the problems, “directly threatening us”. The “problems directly affecting us” are more likely to be effects rather than causes. To deal with these issues and to address what is “directly threatening us” it is necessary to address the problem as deeply as possible. I believe that the problem lies in the isolationist mind-set that has accompanied, if not resulted in the type of industrialization we now have.

§Isolationism and Industrialization

An isolationist mind-set is not intrinsic to humans. But such a mind-set is becoming inexorably interwoven every time we place another stitch into the artificial fabric of our society. Previously, humans were in direct contact with nature and grew up respecting and understanding the complexity and importance of it. Humans were, “taught directly and sometimes painfully the relationship between...daily bread and soil, rainfall, animals, biological diversity, and natural cycles” (Orr 1991). Studies of peasant agriculturists living within their own habitats show that on balance they protected biological diversity, and exhibited ecologically sound methods.

Zube (1991) uses comparative environmental psychology to show that a destructive attitude towards nature is not innate in humans, yet has in fact been evident since early European expansion. The human-landscape interactions of two cultures, American Indians and early English colonists, are examined in the same general area during the 17th century. Zube shows that the Indians had created a mosaic landscape in which they maintained large sections of forest containing small patches of land, some for agriculture, and some burned to provide grassy opening to attract wildlife. The Indians built temporary villages so that they could move to a new location every few years, which allows the soil time for nutrient replenishment. This method of landscape interaction was sustainable because the areas that were used by the Indians quickly restored themselves when the Indians left. In this part of the world slash-and-burn agriculture was sustainable because of high forest regeneration capacity unlike other areas, such as the Mediterranean, where similar methods would destroy the landscape.

When the English colonists arrived, they viewed the Indian practices as primitive and, because of the burned patches, environmentally destructive. But slash and burn for the Indians was limited as they eventually returned to the recovered land; a balance of man and nature had developed. But the colonists, living in permanent settlements, felt they could always find new resources and new land. Where the Indians had felt they were part of their environment, the English decided to conquer it, for which they felt they had Biblical mandate. Their permanent settlement pattern did not allow the land to recover, and they continually harvested wood for export, rather than their own use, and hunted wildlife with no respect to the depletion they were causing (Zube 1991). The colonists treated their environment as a producer to be exploited for their own needs. Their expansion to a new environment had resulted in a disconnection from any one environment, thus a diminished respect for natural environment in general. The colonists were not a long-standing part of the system, and additionally they reacted to the system as if it were an inexhaustible source to supply their desires. Respecting the systems was not an important issue; even seen as naive.

With continued expansion and separation, respect for the environment has continued to dramatically decrease, while the actual need has proportionately increased. The capability for damaging the environment has increased exponentially. It is interesting to compare the response of a 1989 UNEP survey with statements made by Miantonomo, chief of the Narragansett tribe in 1642. UNEP’s 1989 survey respondents predicted that continued exploitation will soon make the Earth hardly fit for human use, while Miantonomo, prompted by destruction resulting from English colonization, made very similar statements about the land of his people. The English turned a natural landscape into something that works only in the presence of humans; it could only be sustained with continual investment of supplementary resources and increasingly sophisticated technologies (see discussion of naturalness on pp. 43).

As transformation of this type increases, systems become more unsustainable. Resources are limited, so eventually input sources will dry up. Resource depletion is much more of a problem than might be predicted when simply looking at the resources directly harvested. An exponential decrease occurs whenever resources are harvested from complex intertwined systems. When certain necessary elements are removed from a system, the whole system will collapse, depleting all of the constituents. Some of these constituents might have been beneficial as well. These complex systems might have meta interactions with other complex systems, possibly causing systems level depletions. Our understanding is extremely limited and yet we treat the Earth as a resource designed for our own consumption and described by a simple group of static variables (as discussed in regarding reductionism on pp. 40).

Due to their close interactions with natural processes pre-expansionist humans were usually aware of the importance of a respect for their environment. This kind of respect was still evident to some extent even in the recent past, where most people either grew up, or periodically visited farms. Farms, though not entirely “natural” still provided a window into history, ecology, soils, seasons, wildlife, animal husbandry, and land use (Orr 1991).

The rapid decline of ecologically diverse farms caused by industrialization has nearly shredded these last threads connecting humanity to its environment. In the Third World, imposition of high yield agriculture has destroyed an intimate relationship between the cultures and nature that has co-evolved over millennia. With increasingly limited interactions with nature, humans have lost an understanding of their connection to nature and the destruction caused by their economic growth and personal consumption. This is quite dangerous to our own livelihood, as Aldo Leopold states, “stability seems to vary inversely to the mental distance from fields and woods” (Leopold 1991:286).

Currently, industrialization has the very basic flaw of production at any cost. With all of the different components of industrialized society attempting to produce, while simultaneously ignoring each other and the rest of their environments, the sustainable social, philosophical, political, and ecological context is undermined or even destroyed. Without a more holistic, context-based approach, sustainability is impossible.

Krauthammer (1991)’s arguments all have the same flaw; a presumption of some omniscient knowledge of how the incredibly complex biota of the earth interact and are interdependent. The Earth is far too complicated for us to understand what is directly affecting us (the pertinent knowledge according to Krauthammer), let alone the indirect effects, which can be just as important. As examined in the discussion of anthropogenic introduction of exotic species (pp. 36), often for bio-control measures, our knowledge of eco-system interactions remains limited.

§Summary and Conclusions

There is hope for mankind and his environment. In a world dominated by industrialization and the anthropocentric mind-set, some sense of environmental importance is beginning to take hold. Clapham (1983:273) states that a “...clean and safe environment has entered the value structure of industrial societies, so that decisions can be made to protect the environment on a value basis even if we can not always point to obvious economic benefits.” Humans are self satisfying agents and often that means attention to the short-term only. But it is difficult to understand how a corporation, or society as a whole, could be so short-sighted as to ignore the “economic benefit” of its own long term survival. Certainly it is possible to argue nearly any side, but the evidence for the effects of destruction of biodiversity and its impact on us should tell us that something about our actions is disturbing. I can only hope that Clapham (1983) is correct; that decisions can, and will be made to protect the environment on an informed value basis.

The mind-set of industrialization can, and must, change if we are to survive as a species. This will only occur if we learn to understand our connections to the environment through interaction with it. Education is a key factor and the children of industrialized society should be given the opportunity to see nature and our impacts, both beneficial and detrimental. As Cheetam (1993) argues:

...a more adequate conceptualization of our place in the natural world can be erected if the central metaphors for our understanding are grounded in notions derived from the sciences of life. The key concepts must include contingency, historicity, evolution, organism, and imaginative interaction with concrete reality in individual human beings.

Science must be viewed in the natural context(s) relevant to it; current reductionism causes it to be viewed as “...difficult, technical and stifling...”, while the humanities are the realm of, “...poetry, individuality, and easy relativism...” (Cheetham 1993). Such dichotomies are one of the primary reasons for separatist attitudes evident throughout the fiber of society. A similar dichotomy, which must be crossed for our well being, exists pitting the “naturalists” against the “technologists”.

Any such extremes are gross oversimplifications of reality and result only in barriers towards understanding of knowledge. Every species and ecosystem has the moral right to exist and we should attempt to prevent expansion that results in their extinction whenever possible. Unfortunately, we have placed ourselves in a position where “playing God” is necessary. Hopefully this position will no longer be abused and our decisions will be made in terms of informed stewardship, not some kind of ephemeral economic viability. If only it isn’t too late...

§Literature Cited

  • Allen, D., Weiss, M., Ashby, N. 1985. Dying or Evolving, the Chesapeake Bay Shows Signs of Stress. Science 228: 221-223
  • Amarasekare, P. 1993. Potential Impact of Mammalian Nest Predators on Endemic Forest Birds of Western Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Conservation Biology 7(2): 316-324
  • Anderson, J. 1991. A Conceptual Framework For Evaluating and Quantifying Naturalness. Conservation Biology 5(3): 347-352
  • Barel, R., Dorit, P., Greenwood, G., Fryer, N., Hughes, P. Jackson, H., Kawanabe, R., Lowe-McConnell, M., Nagoshi, A.,Ribbinik, E., Trewavas, F., Witte, F., and Yamaoka, K. 1985. Destruction of Fisheries in Africa’s Lakes. Nature 315(2): 19-20
  • Burney. D. 1993. Recent Animal Extinctions: Recipes for Disaster. American Scientist 81: 530-541
  • Carlton, J., and Geller, J. 1993. Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science 261(2): 78-82
  • Clapham, W. 1983. Natural Ecosystems. New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 272-273
  • Cheetham, T. 1993. The Forms of Life: Complexity, History, and Actuality. Environmental Ethics 15: 293-311
  • Coblentz, B. 1990. Exotic Organisms: A Dilemma For Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 4(3): 261-265
  • Ehrlich, P. 1986. Extinction: What is Happening Now and What Needs to be Done. in Elliot ed., Dynamics of Extinction. New York, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 157-164.
  • Erwin, T. 1991. How Many Species Are There?: Revisited. Conservation Biology 5(3): 330-333
  • Gagne, W. 1988. Conservation Priorites in Hawaiian Natural Systems. BioScience 38(4): 264-271
  • Gillis, A. 1992 Keeping Aliens Out of Paradise. BioScience 42(7): 482-485
  • Hartshorn, G., Hartshorn, A., Atmella, L., Gomez, A., Mata, L., Mata, R., Morales, R., Ocampo, D., Pool, C., Quesada, C., Solera, R., Solorzano, G., Stiles, J., Tosi, A., Umana, C., Villalobos, C., and Wells, R. Costa Rica Country Environmental Profile: A Field Study. San Jose, Costa Rica: Centro Cientifico Tropical. 1982.
  • Howarth, F., Sohmer, S., and Duckwort, W. 1988. Hawaiian History and Conservation Efforts: What’s left is worth saving. BioScience 38(4): 232-237
  • Hvalkof, S. 1989. The Nature of Development: Native and Settler Views in Gran Pajonal, Peruvian Amazon. Folk 31: 125-149
  • Johnson, L. 1992. Toward the Moral Considerability of Species and Ecosystems. Environmental Ethics 14(2): 145-157
  • Juvik, J., and Juvik, S. 1984. Mauna Kea and the Myth of Multiple Use: Endangered Species and Mountain Management in Hawaii. Mountain Research and Development 4(3): 191-207
  • Kim, C. 1993. Biodiversity, Conservation, and Inventory: Why Insects Matter. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 191-214
  • Krauthammer, C. June 17, 1991. Saving Nature, But Only For Man. Time: 82
  • Kauffman, E. 1984. The Fabric of Cretaceous Marine Extinctions. In Berggren, W, and Van Couvering, J. (eds.) Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 151-246
  • Lee, V., and Olsen, S. Eutrophication and Management Initiatives for the Control of Nutrient inputs to Rhode Island Coastal Lagoons. Estuaries. 8(28): 191-202
  • Levine, N. 1989. Evolution and Extinction. Bioscience 39(1): 38
  • Limbaugh, R. 1992. The Way Things Ought to Be. New York: Pocket Books. 304 pp.
  • May, R. 1988. How Many Species Are There on Earth? Science 241(16): 1441-1447
  • Meyers, N. 1993. Questions of Mass Extinction. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 2-17
  • Moyle, P. 1976. Fish Introduction in California: History and Impact on Native Fishes. Biological Conservation 9: 101-118
  • Orr, D. 1991. Biological Diversity, Agriculture, and the Liberal Arts. Conservation Biology 5(3): 268-270
  • Partridge, E. 1984. Nature as a Moral Resource. Environmental Ethics 6(2): 111-130
  • Price, K., Flemer, D., Taft, J., Mackiernan, G., Nehlsen, W., Biggs, R., Burger, N., Blaylock, D. 1985. Nutrient Enrichment of Chesapeake Bay and Its Impact on the Habitat of Striped Bass: A Speculative Hypothesis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 97-106
  • Primack, M. 1992. Unseen Invasions: It Wasn’t the Horse and the Gun that Transformed the Americas. Sanctuary 32 (1): 17-19
  • Rosenberg, R. 1985. Eutrophication - the Future Marine Coastal Nuisance? Marine Pollution Bulletin 16(6): 227-231
  • Soule, M. and Wilcox, B. 1980. Conservation Biology: It’s Scope and Its Challenge. In Conservation Biology: an Evolutionary Ecological Perspective (M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, eds.) pp. 1-8. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
  • Stork, N. 1993. How Many Species Are There? Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 215-232
  • The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. 1991. Alien Pest Species Background Study: Hawaii Pays a Heavy Price. Natural Resources Defense Council. pp. 3-70
  • Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of Natural Diversity: The Problem of Extinction Prone Species. BioScience 24(12):715-722
  • Walton, S. 1982. Chesapeake Bay: Threats to Ecological Stability. BioScience 32(11): 843-844
  • Wright, W. Wild Knowledge: Science, Language, and Social Life in a Fragile Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 236 pp.
  • Zaret, M., and Paine, R. 1973. Species Introduction in a Tropical Lake. Science 182(2): 449-455
  • Zube, E., 1991. Environmental Psychology, Global Issues, And Local Landscape Research. 11: 321-334