Do humans create or destroy? It’s your choice

4.2K

Thank you Rod Holden for sharing this paper from The Lancet last week. The piece is titled ‘National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use‘. It identifies Australia’s ‘material extraction, production, consumption, and waste’ as the worst of all nations. Instead of a ‘glass half empty’ approach though, I want to explore the question: Do humans create or destroy? Do we have the choice? In the presence of abundant advice on what we’re doing wrong, how do we communicate what we can do right? Could we present these narratives alongside solutions? How do we engage people to think differently?

The first thing to remember is that these impacts are happening on a global scale. We are not talking about isolated problems. We are exceeding the planets resources and collapsing what we need to survive as a species. It’s a serious matter. At the same time there’s little point in presuming we can do nothing about it. The way we engage is going to define the future, as the rhetoric around planetary ecosystem collapse intensifies.

Complex problems can be solved by animals

A colleague remarked on Twitter recently that ‘outsourcing nature on our farms seems dystopian’. They were referring to artificially feeding birds to maintain their numbers. I agreed saying:

‘Humans cannot ‘manage’ wildlife, we can only manage our behaviour’, allowing wildlife to look after ‘nature’ and maintain/build the ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More we need to survive’.

A response I received, from an ecologist, said:

‘… sounds cool, but really is weak conceptually, should do well people love that s**t’ adding that there is no single fix-all for multi-source problems.

‘Of course’, I responded, ‘But wildlife is not ‘one thing’ it’s trillions of things. Which is why it can fix multi-source problems’.

There is still a fundamental lack of judgement about the significance and role of animals. Ecologists rarely understand how ecosystems work because we are taught to view animals as dependent on ecosystems … like the icing on the cake. It’s not that we ecologists disagree overall, as we’re all motivated by the same end goals. But we tend to stake our future on half-baked ideas of ‘managing’ wildlife when it’s the wildlife we need to look after us.

Countries with abundant wildlife can fix their environmental problems much faster

Students of ecology are trained to think wildlife management works but it’s not the right approach. The best source of hope is to allow wildlife to recreate ecosystems and that means interfering less, not more.

‘Even the simplest of animal interactions would lead to complex and unimaginable benefits’

Simon Mustoe, in review of Wilding by Isabella Tree.

In actual fact, countries with abundant wildlife can fix their environmental problems much faster. Until we understand this, we risk tying ourselves up in a continuing state of fear and destruction.

Lack of understanding about nature leads to conflict

I think it is this lack of understanding about the power of nature and the role of wildlife that leads to conflict. This happens both between conservationists and in society as a whole.

The other day, there was a spat on Twitter between prominent reef ecologist and a climate communicator. The latter asked how to better communicate climate problems without causing suicide and self-harm among young people. To be honest the responses were alarming at best. The thread became overwhelmed with statements that would trigger any ordinary person into despair.

I often confront people with this statement first of all:

‘The same ego that makes us think we can solve all the problems of the world with technology, is the same one that things we can destroy everything’.

Some conservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More colleagues have told me not to say this, as it might undermine the argument for conservation. I disagree. There is plenty of science to indicate we are not going to destroy the planet. Though we may make our lives rather difficult for some time.

If we believe nothing can be done though, we destroy hope. We also drive a whole population of young people into despair. The truth is, neither needs to be the case. It’s really important we begin to take ‘glass half full’ approach because we depend on the next generation to fix our problems.

Avoiding entrenched cynicism

Most older-generation conservationists are jaded and cynical … they tell me so. Those of us who lapse into that way of thinking have to be prepared to step aside.

It’s the same way we humans need to put trust in animals to restore ecosystems if we’re to survive. If we cannot even put trust in each other, how can we have a future at all?

Ecosystem science, behaviour and natural selectionDarwin’s theory how species are formed, where those that stand in closest competition with those undergoing beneficial modification and improvement, will go extinct faster. Natural selection is by survival of the likeliest, not survival of the fittest. The fittest are only likely to survive because they happen to be most suited to the environment into which they are born. The More, draws significantly on political science. In fact there are parallels in almost every part of society. That should come as no surprise at all, since we are animals. You might view the growth of right-wing or left-wing agendas as a problem. I don’t. I see it as a symptom of a system correcting itself. Stronger extreme views at the margin force us more rapidly into a logical consensus.

Australia is a country blessed with ‘natural resources’ that don’t have to be dug from underground.

Look at this another way. The problems we have today are because there wasn’t enough debate before. It’s hardly surprising things haven’t started to get better.

If we stop conservationists from communicating hope, what hope can there be in future? If we weaken the debate by not allowing people to talk about real ‘nature-based’ solutions, what hope can there be?

‘… care must be taken to avoid over reliance on specific nature-based solutions such as reforestation …  [and] must also focus on restoring ecosystems rather than promoting monocultures, both in order to be more resilient as well as to avoid further harm to biodiversity’. 

Chami et al, 2022 Toward a Nature-Based Economy

The problem, if any, is that egotistical technical or ecological solutions being offered aren’t helpful. But neither does it help to use that same ego as a defence against hope.

There is plenty of hope

What’s missing is the knowledge that animals are incredibly powerful. When allowed to operate as a collective ‘kingdom’ (including us) many of our environmental problems can be addressed. Once we accept that, we can start to build real cooperation.

There are few authors writing from a hopeful standpoint. Most come from the regenerative agriculture area. One such author is Judith Schwartz who wrote ‘The Reindeer Chronicles‘ who says:

‘… all the knowledge and technology needed to shift to a regenerative future–one marked by agriculture that builds soil carbon, retains water, produces nutrient-dense food, and revives land and communities–is already available.’

Schwartz tells the story of people in some of the most challenging environments on Earth. By working with each other as part of nature, they have managed to turn misfortune into an opportunity, and revitalise their communities.

She also comments that the obstacle to knowing what’s possible is simply not being given the chance to see what’s possible. Communities that are in pain suffer conflicts. After they are brought together with a common goal and see what’s possible, that goes away. The communities form a new collective ambition and develop a culture that is harmonious with each other as well as the environment.

‘A landscape that’s suffering gives rise to people who are suffering. And troubled people create troubled landscapes’.

The choice to create harmony

Back to the article in question. There is little doubt wealthy countries like Australia carry more than their fair share of harm. In Australia’s case there is also a greater opportunity than anywhere else.

As far as I am aware, this blog is the only place you’ll read about this by the way. Australia is a country blessed with ‘natural resources’ that don’t have to be dug from underground.

Australia is the only country in the world with megafauna populations (kangaroos) more abundant than humans.

• Intensive flooding can be addressed by rebuilding koala populations.
• Mouse plagues can be addressed by rebuilding predator populations.
• Disease, mental health and economic prosperity are all spin-offs that can be achieved quickly, if someone explains how and we are given the choice.

Healthy soil and water begets a stable climate, not the other way around. Animals create the processes that maintain soil and moderate water cycles. It’s not so hard to understand. You may ask yourself, therefore, why is nobody talking about this? Well, it’s for many of the reasons I explained above.

Any politician today who wants to forge as future as a real leader is going to need to empower people to look after their own environment. Any other approach is folly. Unless you can empower people with real hope, based on restoration that works – conflicts arise and powerful people fail hard and fast. Perhaps this is why no-one can seem to keep a leader in power for very long any more?

Our leaders don’t know these ideas, so they keep choosing to destroy, because it’s all they understand. The reality is, the decision to create, is simpler, cost-effective and achievable.

The story we need to tell starts here.