If
you’ve not heard, the world is entering a new epoch unofficially named
Anthropocene, the Age of Humans. With that odd moniker has come equally odd and
dangerous thinking that puts human greed ahead of conserving nature.
Scientists
are arguing whether we now live in Anthropocene, a time in which humans alone
have created long-lasting global impacts, or Halocene, the official current
epoch that goes back 11,650 calendar years to when the last major ice age
ended.
The
debate doesn’t much matter to most of us. Let the Einsteins talk it out while
the rest of us get on with the basics of living.
What
does matter is the anthropocentric thinking promoting what is being called New
Conservation Science (NCS). Basically NCS says that parts of the planet already
are irreversibly damaged so forget trying to restore them and concentrate on conserving
areas important only to humans.
NCS
is a bad idea that views everything in nature inferior to humanity. Humans are
the most important species so conservation efforts should be limited to things
that benefit us. If orangutans don’t benefit large numbers of humans don’t
waste time and resources trying to fix whatever is making them go extinct.
And,
if opening a national park to mining and strip malls helps the economy, throw
open the gates. Humans want and need coal, oil, mega cities and trillions of
plastic bottles and bags and human wants and needs are more important than the
environment.
The
ultimate goal of conservation should be better management of nature for human
benefit, say the NCS advocates. That means conservationists should ally with
corporations and other economic actors, which is akin to allowing drug addicts
management responsibilities in drug stores.
Anthropocentric
thinking is not new. It has been used in the past to justify violence against
the non-human world.
The
danger now is that it is gaining traction in a world governed by more and more
authoritarian politicians. These governments, now including the United States,
want to alter long-standing conservation thinking and roll back the protections
it created.
NCS
is arrogant thinking. Humans are only one of millions of species on earth, all
connected to each other and all dependent on each other in some way.
Of
all species we are the most dominant and most developed, which means it is up
to us to find intelligent ways to save the planet.
NCS
says our resources are too limited to save everything. So we should save the
things that are most important to human interests.
That
is wrong headed. We can save the planet and still meet human needs. We have the
resources but lack the willingness to accept lifestyle changes that require sacrifices.
Our
two main obstacles to saving the planet are overpopulation and rampant consumerism.
Overpopulation is recognized and being dealt with to some extent. (Current
warlike talk might end up being part of the overpopulation fix).
Consumerism
simply for the sake of economic growth is out of control. We need to stop
overbuying tons of crap produced to build more profitable stock markets. We
need to think sustainability instead of growth for growth’s sake.
Another
part of our problem is a declining knowledge of the natural world. We have lost
our previous close contact with it. Many of us have an appreciation of nature
but few have a deep understanding of it.
Scientist
Edward Wilson refers to this in his 2016 book Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life.
“A
great majority of people have little awareness of the countless species . . that
still envelops our planet. . . . common knowledge of the world-dominant
invertebrates, the little things that run the natural world, has dwindled to
almost nothing.”
Wilson
says our working vocabulary of invertebrates consists of little beyond
mosquitoes, butterflies, bedbugs, earthworms and others that affect us
personally.
In
fact there are millions of other invertebrate species that support world life,
including human life, that we simply refer to as critters or bugs.
“Within
this black night of ignorance we have suffered a massive failure of education
and media attention,” Wilson writes.
We
need to better educate ourselves about the natural world so we don’t get
bamboozled by off-track movements like New Conservation Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment