This past Tuesday, May 22, was celebrated as the International Day for Biological Diversity (IBD for short) across the world. The IBD is designed to to raise awareness around what the website calls one of the most critical issues facing our planet today.
This year’s IBD focused on biodiversity and climate change. Climate change is blamed for putting almost 1 million species under the threat of extinction. Scientists are worried that plants and animals won’t be able to adapt quickly enough to rapidly changing habitats and temperatures.
But researchers from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, say there may another factor threatening Earth’s biodiversity. In their study, they make a connection between economic inequality and biodiversity loss.
What does that mean? The bigger the gap between the rich and poor, the more plant and animal species we lose. And data shows that the income gap is bigger than ever, and growing still wider.
The scientists simultaneously analyzed biodiversity and income inequality data sets on both the country and state scale to make their conclusions. As the economy grows, habitats are destroyed. Ultimately, the message of the study is one of human nature and sustainability. In the study, Greg Mikkelson, an assistant professor of environment and philosophy, wrote, “Our study suggests that if we can learn to share economic resources more fairly with fellow members of our own species, it may help us to share ecological resources more fairly with other species.”
This may sound similar to the lesson we all (supposedly) learned in kindergarten: Sharing is caring. I asked Mikkelson how humans have missed the point.
Greg Mikkelson: I might go back to Adam Smith, who convinced a lot of people that you don’t have to worry about your neighbor if you persue your own interests, it will translate into somewhat equitable distribution of growth between people, it will translate into economic growth. Our ideology has caused us to take our eye off that equality ball, if you will permit that phrase.
LP: Is it human nature to share or is it human nature not to share?
Mikkelson: There’s actually been some anthropological research that says depending on the type of society we’re in, we have the potential to become extremely cooperative and altruistic, or to become extremely competitive and selfish and even violent. There’s a lot of psychological effects going on, where the kind of society we’re in causes us to fulfill one part of our potential versus or another.
Mikkelson said it will be necessary for us to reorganize our economic structure in order to support both human populations and a healthy biological diversity. He said the keys to this change would be democratic input, community trust, and collective action. For a similar outlook on sustainability, see the work of William Rees.
Dear Lindsay and Greg Mikkelson,
What a wonderful subject, even though it is remarkably difficult and daunting to discuss BECAUSE the current scale and growth rate of the population of the human species indicates the human species leaves less and less living space and resources for the survival of other species surrounding us in this wondrous world that God has blessed human beings to inhabit with them.
Let me suggest something simple here: EITHER the human species discovers a ‘law’ of nature that people will learn to share resources with one another and other species OR the human species risks mass species extinction, including human extinction, even within the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Steve
Of the two choices, the first is decidely the better, though it’s far less likely.
Door number three is even less likely, but I think it’s the best: voluntary extinction of our species through non-breeding. We’re causing so many other species to go extinct that it’s only fair we go as well. Our phase-out will allow all other life a chance to survive, unlike the second chioce Stever has presented.
Each time we choose to not create another of ourselves we preserve wildlife habitat. If we live in the US, we avoid converting 24 acres of biologically active land to human habitat for 75 years. No small contribution to diversity. Our footprints may be determined at: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=national_footprints
If there were fewer of us each day rather than more, sharing equally would be much easier.
For a better world,
Les U. Knight
Dear Les U. Knight,
Thanks so much for your comments. I am confident we are in complete agreement; however, I want to be clear about something. Speaking personally, please note that I am not for the extinction of any species. The preservation of the species of Earth and the sensible fulfillment of the meaning of the word, stewardship, by human beings is what I have in mind.
If individuals choose freely not to have children because of an appreciation of the situation we are discussing here, then I would not call the determination not to bear a child an exercise in voluntary extinction. Given the scale and growth rate of absolute global human population numbers, that choice is a step toward human species preservation, I believe. Would you not agree that human beings can reduce their absolute numbers without extirpating the human species?
As members of our species share broadly an understanding of the distinctly human-driven predicament we are observing, people will most definitely do the right thing. By that I mean simply and plainly that we acknowledge and accept limits to the currently UNBRIDLED growth of global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species.
We are not talking here only about the necessity for reducing human numbers worldwide. We are urgently asking human beings everywhere who are conspicuously consuming more than a fair share of resources to consume less, thereby reducing the size of the human footprint. We are also calling upon the powerbrokers of the world economy to begin immediately to progressively limit the INCREASES of global production activities. In so doing, industries will end the drill of dissipating Earth’s store of natural resources and will radically change the daily practices of emitting thousands of tons of pollutants now compromising the integrity of frangilble ecosystem services.
The members of the human community, from the rich and powerful to the poor and weak, have meaningful challenges to consider and good work to do.
With every good wish to Lindsay, Greg Mikkelson and friends everywhere on this day after the birthday of one of our greatest exemplars, Rachel Carson,
Steve
I don’t think completely stopping reproduction is the answer or even a likely reality. I think that’s on the right track though. If everyone couple has only 1-2 children, that’s keeping the population about the same, or reducing it if you only have 1 kid. We just need to show restraint as far as that is concerned, and be conscious of the environment and the future.
Dear SGlasson,
Please take a look at the scientific research of Dr. Jack Alpert at wwww.skil.org or email him at alpert@skil.org. He breaks through a great deal of confusion about the science of absolute global human population numbers. His work is an antitdote to the ubiquitous examples of faulty reasoning that follow.
Reasons What You Think Is Right Is Wrong>>>OR possible excuses for not understanding the natural dynamics of human population numbers.
http://www.healthbolt.net/2007/02/14/26-reasons-what-you-think-is-right-is-wrong/
Always,
Steve