Blog Questions

What promotes human connection to nature?

Human connection to nature, I believe, can be fully comprehended when people are curious about the cosmos, and this curiosity can be spurred on early through education. The world is an amazing place, and what is more remarkable is being able to fully comprehend the reality in which we exist. Science education is very important, now, more so than ever. The late Carl Sagan convinced a whole generation to look up to the night sky and question our place in the cosmos. When we reflect on our past, the nearly impossible odds that we happen to be at right place at the right time in this vast universe that spans billions of light years across, there is a certain humbling feeling—a feeling of connectedness to all things past and present. Seeing a picture of the pale blue dot from beyond the outer rings of Saturn, our infinitesimal status in the universe truly conveys how fragile Earth really is—and I feel like we should take on the challenge, to preserve the only home we have ever known.

What promotes disconnection from nature?

As I had mentioned above, I think a lack of education can promote a disconnection from nature. If people do not have an appreciation for the diversity of life on Earth, how can they be excited about environmental issues that plague the world today? Some people have become obsessed with material objects, where people place social status above environmental concerns. I am not sure nature is a thing that people learn to love if they do not have an innate desire to experience it for themselves. Many people, I presume, care about environmental issues even if they have not ventured out into the wilderness. Some people view it as an inconvenience—being told to recycle, maybe even feeling annoyed when they are told how much their vehicles contribute to pollution. Some people may just be naive. There is no right or wrong answer. The sentiment relies solely on the individual.

Is there a danger to a growing disconnect from nature?

I feel that many people do not understand how great the diversity of life really is, and how interconnected we really are with every living thing inhabiting this planet. Many people fear to venture outside their comfort zones—whether that be outside the concrete jungle of giant metropolises or they have become complacent in the sheltered lives of their own homes—some people seem to be inconvenienced by the growing trend of sustainable development or pessimistic in whether they can make an impact. A growing number of people spend a large percentage of their lives indoors, unaware of the inexplicable beauty the Earth has to offer. This, I presume, can lead to a growing disconnect from nature.

.

Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Biocentric? Ecocentric?

My ethics probably lie more towards a biocentric and ecocentric worldview. I do not see myself as special or more required to be on this earth than any other living thing on this planet. I do not know if anybody can have a viewpoint hinge solely on one or the other. There are issues that concern me in all three phases. Sometimes, an anthropocentric viewpoint concerning the environment seems egotistic to me. The belief that mankind is special has no bearing on my decisions. We are not special. Practices engaged to enrich the lives of humanity are great. We feel connected as a species, more so than from a species of a different genus because we are able to communicate and feel more empathy towards one another. But thinking that humans have direct control or have a given right to conquer nature seems troublesome and selfish. My understanding is to leave this place—the Earth—with the hope that it would be a better place than when I arrived.

John Francis Walks the Earth, a TED Talk

                The story of John Francis is simply remarkable. His entry into the world of environmental studies began in 1971, where he witnessed the destruction of two oil tankers crashing into each other beneath the Golden Gate Bridge. Traumatized by the half million gallons of liquid sludge that spewed directly into the Bay area of California, Francis swore off the use of motorized vehicles. From that day on, he walked . . . and walked . . . and walked. It was not a statement that he thought he was better than everybody else because he chose not to burn fuel for the means of transport—it became a life of introspection that led him down a path of activism.

                At the age of 27, an air of silence reigned over Francis. One day of silence eventually lasted a year, then another . . . then another. His ascetic lifestyle marched him on his way to Ashland, Oregon where he earned his bachelor’s degree in environmental studies. From walking around Washington State, he eventually landed in Missoula, Montana where he spent the next two years of study earning his master’s degree—teaching as he went along, remaining completely silent in the process. From there he left for the University of Wisconsin where he spent two more years writing on oil spills. During this time, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker had run aground, spewing crude oil into Prince William Sound—the largest oil spill in history at the time. Seventeen years later from his 27^th birthday, John Francis broke his silence.

So why is this important? What does John Francis’s vow of silence have to do with studying and caring for the environment, and why did he choose to speak out so many years later? Francis reflects on his silence as the first step in engaging in the conversation simply by listening, and he realized “that for those many years” he had “not been learning.” This introspection led him down a path of activism, culminating in him delivering an address at the 20^th anniversary of Earth Day, working as a coast guard, and serving as a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador. As he began to speak out, he realized that there exists an informal level to studying environment—a level where he “learned of people, and what we do and how we are.” He realized that the problem is bigger than himself, it encompasses all of us and how we treat each other, and this is the message he set out to spread.

His message is one of empathy: Francis suggests “how we treat each other is really how we’re going to treat the environment.” He encourages us to go out there and make a change for the better, to escape our mental prisons and to challenge ourselves to leave our comfort zones—to listen. The time is now to do something, “we have to become activists.” His message is that the world is bound by the faith we have in one another, and humanity must not remain silent as he had done so for seventeen years.

Reflection

John Francis’s tale of silence is one of optimism. I felt encouraged to get out there and engage in the conversation regarding our environmental future. Francis’s decision to abstain from the use of motorized vehicles is something I highly praise about his story. The use of motorized vehicles is so prevalent today that I cannot possibly imagine someone completely going without. The biggest takeaway from his presentation is his insistence in listening to the conversation. There are many different viewpoints in the world—some of which we may wholeheartedly disagree on—but it is important to try to hear the other side of the story rather than quickly resorting to polemics to make our point.

A Summary of Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”

                The Tragedy of the Commons is an influential essay written by Garrett Hardin and published in 1968. The thesis follows the general conclusion “that all resources, such as the ocean, which are held in common and are therefore not anyone’s private property, will be overused and ultimately degraded.” (Easton 36). Hardin’s monumental work was mired in controversy, from those who saw his ruthless pragmatism as unethical compared to a more egalitarian based approach when confronting world issues. Hardin shares some of the same sentiments as Joel Cohen in “Human Carry Capacity” by acknowledging there is no easy solution to these problems due to its complexity and subjectivity in nature. Population growth is one of these problems.

                The idea of the tragedy of the commons stems from a pamphlet published in 1833 by William Forster Lloyd. The analogy used to describe the idea of the commons is presented in this fashion:

Imagine a pasture where herdsmen let their cattle roam. As each herdsman adds additional cattle to the land to maximize personal gain, overgrazing occurs leading to the degradation of the land. Since each herdsman evokes the same rationale as the others—letting additional animals overgraze the land in consequence to the other herdsmen—the land slumps into a degraded state where eventually no animals are able to graze: “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited” (Hardin 37).

                The idea of the commons can be extrapolated to many different contexts where humans believe they should have free reign which affects humanity as a whole. Not only does it relate to land, but pollution, the freedom to breed, and basic human rights many feel entitled to. The polluter “finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them” (Hardin 38). People who feel it is their right to breed produce offspring who share the same views that it is a god given right to be fruitful and multiply. This system of belief that we have rights to the commons is based on Adam Smith’s monumental work on global economics, The Wealth of Nations—where laissez faire economics literally translates to the mantra of “let it be.”

                Some of the controversy that is directed at Hardin stems from the solutions he proposes to solve the world’s crises in relation to the commons. Although there are some solutions already in place to remove the "tragedy" from the commons—such as the institution of private property when dealing with land issues—there are far more complex solutions when regarding the right to clean air and water. Where Hardin takes a stance some view as ruthless pragmatism: suggesting the freedom to breed is intolerable and damaging the commons, coercive laws to tax or persuade people to make choices he views as prudent, and restricting freedoms for the betterment of society.

                Whether it is right to agree with Hardin varies among individuals, but acknowledging the tragedy of the commons as it relates to Earth’s resources has certainly shed some light on the issues of using finite resources.

Critical Thinking: Why should people not have as many children as possible?

                There is no definitive answer to the upper limit of Earth’s carry capacity. The Earth itself is an island, with a finite number of resources subject to our use. At what point will the population number exceed and impinge on our right to freedom? Where Hardin suggests that the "freedom to breed is intolerable” (Hardin 38), it is ultimately difficult to deny people this basic human right. People who breed must have the resources to provide for their children, and parents who breed a lot eventually have fewer descendants able to provide for themselves. While there is no definitive number regarding a human carrying capacity, there is a finite number of resources—and if the human population continues to increase at an exponential rate, the sooner we use up these resources will lead to the eventual end of the Earth as we know it.

Works Cited

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed.

                Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 36-40.

A Summary of Joel E. Cohen’s “Human Carrying Capacity”

                The world is exceedingly getting larger in numbers. With the exponential growth in population that has significantly risen since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the world is getting much too crowded, and that may soon have drastic effects to its inhabitants. Cohen realizes that population growth is a highly complex issue, one that does not yield any definitive answers to an upper limit or point of no return. He warns us against those who say they can provide a concrete answer, and to assess this information with a critical eye.

                A useful way, Cohen argues, to examine the problem of population growth is to view the decline of Easter Island in relation to the problems we are facing here on Earth. Easter Islanders, most likely Polynesian peoples, have inhabited this part of the island from as early as circa 400 A.D. Where the original inhabitants might have numbered in the hundreds, the population slowly rose to maybe ten thousand at its peak. The collapse and decline of this society, who carved giant heads called moai out of volcanic rock, was exacerbated by the practices which lead to the ecological degradation of the land. There is plenty of evidence in favor of this hypothesis: decrease in pollen cores suggests that deforestation occurred at a rapid pace, which led to soil erosion among other things; introduction of a Polynesian rat species that feasted on forest seeds, preventing regeneration of the trees; increased hunting and fishing to stave off starvation. In simplest terms, the higher the population, the more mouths to feed, the more land that needs to be cleared for agriculture, more trees cut down for canoes, firewood, construction, more rope to erect statues, which leads to more degradation. The island eventually would be unable to sustain itself, which leads to more disputes concerning available land and more frequent infighting among the society. The Earth itself is an island, albeit one on a grander scale in the context of the solar system, and humans can very well use up the resources of this island similar to the way Easter Islanders have—so Paul Bahn and John Flenly’s assumption that “Easter Island was a microcosm which provides a model for the whole planet” (190) is certainly one deserving of merit.

                If there is an upper limit to human carrying capacity, it will certainly lie beyond the threshold humans are willing to tolerate. Humans can subsist off very little—it is only how much we are willing to sacrifice in personal well-being before there is a call to arms for change. Cohen suggests that we will be forced to make a change simply because we have to.

                Although there is no definitive answer to the human carrying capacity of Earth, we can still construct models to interpret quantitative and qualitative data to assess the situation. It would be highly complex, incorporating a variety of circumstances relating to the global economy, politics, and many other contributing factors. The capacity will be conditional on our choices and constraints—our needs and wants. The carrying capacity of Earth is a highly complex question which yields equally highly complex answers. There is no choice but to take caution when making decisions as humanity falls forward into the future.

Critical Thinking: In what sense does the Earth not have single carrying capacity for human beings?

                Scientists can constructs models as they please, and there will still not be a definitive answer to the question of Earth’s carry capacity. Circumstances are subjected to change. New technologies develop. Human ingenuity has proven its worth more times than once. It is a highly complex issue, and one which does not yield any direct results. Human carrying capacity incorporates many facets that factor in political policies on a global scale. The diversity of lifestyles and beliefs contribute to this complexity. What we decide as important will ultimately affect the limit in Earth’s ability to provide.

Works Cited

Cohen, Joel E. “Human Carrying Capacity.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed.                              Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 189-192.

A Summary of Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"

                The introductory to this article is premised by the following quote: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Many have heard this quote from George Santayana or some variation of the same meaning, so what Diamond argues in "Collapse" is that the problems of tomorrow will ultimately rely on the decisions we make today, and we can learn from the past when doing so. These decisions may prove to be difficult, going against a general understanding of nature some may feel is innate in us as human beings.

                Diamond’s "Collapse" delves deep into these issues relying on examples of past societies to explain the possibilities that have led to the decline. He cites many reasons in why a society might fall: political, economical, and social factors to name a few. Although these aspects may have contributed to the decline, there is evidence that societies have fallen because of ecological degradation.

There are common themes which lead to the collapse of past societies. When a population expands and takes free reign on the resources provided by the environment, a positive feedback loop occurs which ultimately exacerbates the problem. Population, therefore, is intrinsic to a collapse caused by ecological degradation. A simple scenario like this may occur: an increase in population leads to an increase in agriculture, which leads to soil degradation, which leads to less produce attained from agriculture, which leads to overhunting and fishing to prevent starvation, which leads to public unrest causing problems for the power elite in charge. These practices become unsustainable and eventually contribute to the ruin of the land.

                While these issues are relevant to the past—and, most would argue, still prevalent in the present—Diamond states that new challenges await us in the upcoming decades: human induced climate change, pollution in the environment, a shortage of energy, and the utilization of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity are all matters humanity must address now or in the nearby future. Unless we address the issues today, a reduced standard of living may be imminent in the years to come.

                However, there is a conundrum when invoking the past: “The controversy involves resistance to the idea that past peoples did things that contributed to their own decline” (206). Of the many societies that have fallen into collapse, there seems to be an overarching theme in how they were reduced to this fate. Although it would be imprudent to blame a collapse solely on environmental degradation, it most certainly is caused by these set factors or a combination of more than one: environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, and a shift in the political and economical policies. The societal response to these problems must have bearing on the eventual outcome.

                The issue of the impact humans have on the environment is mired in controversy. There are people from one sector that will deny any anthropic impact, grossly accusing climatologists of fearmongering and pandering to the worry of the public to initiate change; thus, people who partake in the environmental discussion fall between two ends of a spectrum: environmentalists and non-environmentalists. Where environmentalists claim economic and population cannot be sustained and is in dire need of addressing, non-environmentalist will state that the information out there is grossly misleading. This division in views is one we must address, as both are engaged in the dialectic concerning the environmental issues we face today.

Critical Thinking: Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse? Is ours?

                No, not all societies that have contributed to the degradation of their land is doomed to collapse. As illustrated by Diamond in “Collapse”, the Norwegian colonizers of Iceland encountered a similar topography from what they were used to, but vastly different in reality. They ravished the land of resources, but they were able to right the ship once they realized the error in their ways; therefore, it became solely dependent on the societal response to these issues that decided their own fate. However, there must be some point of no return where the population will die out before changes can come into effect. Is Earth doomed to collapse? Not unless we make drastic changes to our lifestyles and realize that Earth itself is fragile place.

Works Cited

Diamond, Jared. “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Sources: Selections in

                Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 204-209.

Mission Statement

This blog is meant to discuss environmental issues that plague the world today. By reflecting on past and current voices of environmentalists, ecologists, biologists, etc., I encourage those reading this blog to participate in the discussion and reflect in how our decisions today can impact the lives of the future.