Mankind’s hubris never ceases to amaze me. How vain we are, to
think that we can master the very essence of nature. People have sought to
dominate the forces of the Earth for millennia, and have shockingly managed to
succeed a high percentage of the time. But in the end, nature always wins out.
Our world has been here for longer than we can possibly imagine, and will
continue to exist long after humans have either caused our own destruction,
evacuated to worlds beyond, or evolved into something utterly unrecognizable.
Earth has seen mass extinctions before. Asteroids have struck, the climate has
changed, oceans have risen and fallen, and still life remains, strong and
abundant as ever before. There will always be life on Earth. And it will always
be changing, for that is the way of nature.
The hubris of the modern
environmental movement especially astounds me, for it is a different kind than
that of the late 19th century explorers and intellectuals, who
believed that it was possible to understand the fundamental order of nature and
to craft it to suit our needs, taking advantage of our planet’s seemingly unlimited
resources. No, this new hubris is also tempered
with guilt, and corrupted with nostalgia. A healthy dose of arrogance is thrown
into the mix. Sadly, environmental science today has been permeated with a
holier-than-thou mentality, as its practitioners often seem to just
begrudgingly accept the ignorant masses that they have made it their mission to
educate and civilize.
For some reason, environmentalists
in the past few decades have decided that Earth has reached its maximum
potential. Its systems as they exist now are perfect, and must never be
changed. No future animals could possibly rival the megafauna of the present
and the very recent past. No new biodiversity will evolve and no new biomes
will develop. All change is bad. Earth is getting warmer and will stay that
way. This new warmth couldn’t possibly have any benefits. The advent of
agriculture notwithstanding (Diamond, 1998), what has
climate change ever done for us?
We of the environmental lot seem to
have adopted this collective mindset. I only hope to temper some of the
reactionary, restorationist, nostalgic zeal that has taken root, because it
corrupts our pragmatic senses and inhibits us from doing the most good. I would
like to remind everyone that climate change has not directly killed a single
person, but that corrupted water supplies and food shortages claim lives every
day around the world. These are the changes we should seek to prevent. Those
who would oppose climate change (ironically enough by seeking to change the
climate) should reconsider where their efforts would have the most positive,
though perhaps less popular, impact.
Earth’s climate is always changing.
It has always changed and will always change. In fact, the period since the
founding of human civilization, which has by no means been steady, has seemed
unusually tranquil when compared to the great climactic shifts of the past few
million years (Hansen and Sato,
2011). Yes, anthropogenic climate change
at a rapid pace does exhibit more stressors on the environment than a normal
change usually would, and may cause short-term disruptions in the livelihoods
of many people across the globe. However, attempts to combat this change are
misguided. The attitude that all change is bad, and that change in the extreme
is either happening right now or is right around the corner, is what alienates
the general public from supporting our field and accepting our more reasonable
facts and viewpoints. Who are you, or I, or any college student or scientist or
EPA secretary or presidential candidate to decide when exactly Earth became
perfect? Who gets to decide when to stop all future development, be it good or
bad? Who gets to wake up one day and say, “God, I think this is good enough.
Let’s just stop moving forward and keep it this way forever, because I happen
to be thinking about the issue right now and boy do I love the way the planet
looks today!”
Ecological change and stress are not
only natural, but also necessary. Evolution can only occur when there are
stressors, competition, and limiting factors in the environment. If every
organism survived because of the intervention of some outside force, or the
cessation of change altogether, species would no longer be perfectly suited for
their environments. New adaptations would be slow to develop, and old ones
would lose their edge. Without hot environments, how could plants have
developed a new take on the classic photosynthetic pathway? Without winter
snows, how could hares have evolved to change color in perfect synchronicity
with the seasons? Even guppies in the same rivers have begun to specialize
before our very eyes due to the presence or absence of predators (Reznick et al., 1997). It is natural stress and
change that create such evolutionary marvels as our current species, which
themselves are used as cases against allowing change to happen.
Most environmental advocates,
especially of the younger generation, are smug. They have God or, more likely,
justice on their side, in their own minds. Since they are doing morally
upstanding work, those who would argue against them, or counsel restraint, or caution
them before they go too far, are seen as ignorant and are easily dismissed. I
can just see the eyes of my fellow students light up whenever I dare to oppose
their views, because they know that in arguing against me, they are defending
the morals of the natural world against cold, human-centric pragmatism.
I would argue that hubris is at work
here as well. It is pride that leads some scientists to seek out the biggest
discoveries with the most publicity. How much press could be generated by
unlocking the secrets of climate change? How many awards would be given to some
enterprising young prodigy who could reverse the Earth back to its former,
colder glory? Sadly, this has become what we seek. What we do not seek nearly
enough is the gratefulness in the eyes of a child who can eat for another year
because new agricultural practices have finally been introduced to his area.
Some would argue that if we don’t fight climate change, we will all perish. Of
course they have to say that, because it attracts attention and places the
public squarely behind them. What is easy to forget, however, is that without sustainable
agriculture, clean water, and responsibly managed resources, we surely will all
perish. Clean water is a resource that 1.1 billion people around the world are
still lacking, and contaminated water is responsible for killing 2.5 million
people every year with preventable diseases (Montgomery & Elimelech, 2007). We must manage
the Earth for the good of humanity, because we owe it to all those who toil
away to support and provision us, so that we may engage in what could be argued
as a luxury pursuit. If we all hung up our sun hats and binoculars tomorrow,
the world would be just fine without us. We need the rest of humanity more than
they need us. And we owe it to them to help make sure that the work they do can
continue to provide for the world well into the future.
Ecological change is important, but should be viewed from a human
perspective. Humans have a moral responsibility to be stewards of God’s
creations, to a reasonable degree, but should also allow nature to take its
course, for to do otherwise would be stifling, and would be exerting an undue
level of control over our natural surroundings. In a similar way, environmental
resources should be managed in a sustainable fashion, so that they are and will
be clean, available, and functioning for many generations to come. Our
motivation to preserve our environment should come from a pragmatic, human
perspective, be it driven by reasonable moral obligations to not do unnecessary
harm, or by more practical concerns to provision ourselves for the future. What
should never drive the environmental movement, however, is the moral desire to
place the needs of nature over the needs of humans. I would value a human life
over any number of animal lives, and to anyone who claims to believe otherwise,
I would challenge them to lay down their life for an animal, and see if their
resolve does not weaken. A priest I know commented recently on the death of
Cecil the Lion in Africa, an event that has caused quite a stir around the
world. He wondered why the death of a lion caused international outrage, while
the deaths of thousands of humans every day go by without any notice.
Works Cited:
Diamond, J. (1998). Guns, germs, and steel:
The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton &.
Hansen, J., & Sato, M. (2011, July 1).
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow. Retrieved October 2, 2015.
Reznick, D., Shaw, F., Rodd, H., & Shaw,
R. (1997). Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of
Guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Science, 275(5308), 1934-1937. Retrieved October
2, 2015, from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5308/1934.full
Montgomery, M., & Elimelech, M. (2007).
Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries: Including Health in the Equation.
Environmental Science & Technology, 17-24.
