Sara Wendt
3/14/2011
Humans: A Natural Disaster?
As many people know, a large amount of money, time, and effort is spent in an attempt to understand the world’s biodiversity, and yet the planet is losing species. The past annual extinction rate averages one for every one million species, which equates to an average of 10 to 100 species per year1. However, the extinction rates have been on the rise and in the last 400 years extinction rates have been 45 times greater2 than the predicted past average.
My natural instinct as a Wildlife Ecology major, and future researcher and conservationist is to run out there to try and save what I can. I believe that if we cause the trouble, we need to fix it. However, I heard a different point of view that occasionally returns to my mind. This point of view is based on the idea that human impact is part of a natural course that is meant to happen. In the past, great extinctions were theoretically caused by natural disasters such as meteorites striking the earth or ice ages. This other theory revolves around the idea that humans are the new “natural disaster.” Humans must still try to live sustainably, but whatever species go extinct are not “fit” enough to survive on earth anyway, so there is no point in attempting to keep them in existence. I must admit, it is an intriguing theory, whether right or wrong.
And if it’s right? Say humans did not exist on the planet… either we moved to the moon or never existed. Many problems faced by the earth’s species would be drastically different. There would be no habitat destruction, road kills, human poaching or hunting, human caused pollution, etc. Anything that occurred would be at the whim of Mother Nature. In this world, species would be challenged everyday to survive and pass on genes to their offspring, and failing to do so would result in the decline and extinction of the species. Any large changes would either cause a species to adapt or go extinct.
Now put humans back onto earth. In terms of the earth’s life history, human impact has been a very small portion of time… about as short as the start of an ice age. The changes occurring due to human impact have been challenging the planet’s species everyday to survive and pass on their genetic information. Is it possible that humans are the factor eliminating the “weak” species and opening niches that allow more species to evolve? Could this occurrence be as natural as a giant volcanic eruption that blocks out the sun?
Of course I argue against this with beliefs that the changes are occurring due to the human species’ disrespect for natural resources, and living the way humans do may cause changes that make the earth uninhabitable, even for us. Here, the theory again becomes relevant. If the earth is uninhabitable even for humans, a natural course is being followed and the “weak” species go extinct. The theory stresses the idea that humans need to live more sustainably but don’t determine who lives or dies. It poses the question, “Do we as a species, have the right to play God?”
Please respond! I would love to hear opinions supporting or opposing this view!
Resources:
1 Wilson, E. O. 2000. Vanishing before our eyes. Time 155 (17): 29.
6 comments:
Not completely sure where to start here...
First I guess I'll say that I don't think it is fair to compare humans with all other living species or natural disasters. We are particularly unique in the essence that we are sentient beings and have the ability to rationalize. A massive volcano cannot ponder the ethics behind destroying and an entire village nor can a wolf consider the pain it may inflict on a farm animal when they kill and eat it (and they certainly aren't thinking about the economic impact of the farmer). Humans are insanely intelligent. We know that dumping a bunch of toxins into a river will have detrimental impacts downstream. We know that the rain forests are home to the bulk of the planet's species and that there are likely thousands of undiscovered species living there (some of which may even cure diseases), yet we continue to strip these lands for the benefit of mankind. I feel like we often get lost in this economic state of things or something. Money has way too much power in our society and it certainly leads to self-involved decisions.
Also, I guess you could say that we have the right to play God, considering we are the ones who came up with the idea of "God" and having "rights" in the first place. Before humans, critters could roam around and do whatever the hell they wanted - at their own risk of course. Not sure where I was going with that, but maybe I'll just finish by saying that I think there is definitely some responsibility in the human species to take care of the planet we live on.
Good topic...definitely has the potential to start some conversation :)
Okay...reanalyzing the situation and feeling the need to clarify myself, I think in my second paragraph I was heading in the direction that humans certainly can and should be able to do as they please with nature. I think its is very important though that we also consider the impacts we have while making those decisions and take responsibility for our actions.
To simply answer the question, No, I do not believe that humans have to right to play God. Even if you do not believe in God or another higher being, the notion it implies is that humans are the superior being in this world and we can do whatever we want regardless of the consequences. Yes, we have have higher IQs or the ability to rationalize but we can not ignore the impact we have on the Earth. I think that because we have the ability to rationalize we should be able to refrain from destroying the very land we live on.
I also believe that humans as a species will reach a carrying capacity one day. We may not go extinct completely but our population will certainly be effected. As a species we are overexploiting the resources that we have and they will not be there forever. We are an equal part in this world just like any other species. We need to start treating the Earth and its other inhabitats with respect instead of killing them all off. We are all connected in a giant web of life. You start eliminating other factors and the ripple effect will reach us and my guess...it won't be a good day.
Put simply, no I do not believe in that theory. I don't think its right and we are living beyond our means. No other species is able to do what we do. By all rights our population should be declining, no other species could do what we do.
That being said, I feel like we will just be a phase, an earth cycle whatever you want to call it. Other species will adapt after we go extinct and I think most people have the idea that if we go extinct that no other species will survive (Im guilty of it myself sometimes) and our greatest fear is going extinct, the world ending, why do you think there are so many movies about the apocolypse.
A comment about the increase of species extinctions and wanting to go save as much as you can:
I am just like you, I want to go and save the species (or other treehugger phrase). I had learned a couple years ago about the populations of yellow finned tuna population declining and the fishing practices not allowing for any wild reproduction. So I decided that being the animal lover that I am that I would not eat any tuna unless it was sustainably caught. I went over to my grandparents house and my grandpa offered me some tuna salad, I politely declined and explained why I wasn't eating tuna anymore. His exact words to me were "you know there was a species of frog thought to be extinct for 50 years that was found out in the rainforest a couple years ago, so eat up, just because we can't find them doesn't mean their extinct"
I was absolutely appalled! I told him I didn't want to eat them to extinction just for a possible pleasant reunioun 50 years later. I really hope that our generation realizes the importance of conservation better than my grandpa.
For the record: Grandpa if your reading this, you know I love you. Don't be offended :)
The problem with humans today stems more from the way we live way more than population. If every single person on the planet lived the way we do in the US, we would need three different planets to support us. The problem here is that developing nations are starting to develop and all the people living in them now want what we have and I don't blame them. We definitely need to adress population if we want to continue living this modern life, or else our resources will eventually be depleted.
Post a Comment