In watching a recent Hawaiian environmental documentary, one of the interviewees said, “What is the most important thing? It is people, it is people, it is people”. I would have overlooked the statement if just said once, but three times?
It tapped thoughts I’ve had, probably going back to a novel called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Written as a Socratic dialogue with a gorilla, the book probes at underlying assumptions humans carry not just of our supremacy but of our right to shape land and systems to benefit us. Some things seem pretty obvious and not morally reprehensible, like selecting the best seeds to replant the next year, which started thousands of years ago. But it’s difficult to swallow his conclusion that human civilization jumped off a cliff 10,000 years ago when agriculture began and will eventually hit the ground. He likens our logic and decision-making now to asking a man who is unknowingly falling to his death how things are going. “Seems fine, no problems here,” he says. Or, if written today, Quinn may have smugly added, “fine here, let’s take the opportunity that complete loss of summer Arctic ice gives us to drill for more oil”. While too extreme in many of his statements, I find his questioning of human-centrism echoing in my mind.
Why under no circumstances is it acceptable for a human to prioritize the life of a non-human species over human species?
Even more, why under few circumstances is it acceptable for a human to prioritize the life of a non-human species over maximized quality of life of the human species?
Human have not stopped at sufficiency for the species, but seem to be continuing with the same drive we had on the African savanna. We still seem stuck in the "lions are competing for our food” mode. For such a cerebral and reflective species, we seem unable to consider underlying human-centric drivers in our behavior.
These un-reflected upon operating systems wouldn’t be an issue if we were just another species occupying a niche in the earth’s ecosystems. Eating this and building that and changing these landscapes to suit us wouldn’t be any different than beavers altering the flow of the river and eating fish. But for the first time in history, we’ve become so successful in our quest to create an optimal environment for human survival that we are eliminating any environment for other species to survive. We are so successfully single-minded in our quest, that it’s been difficult for early environmentalists to convince humans to change behavior for the sake of other species. We’ve only taken notice since our success has now become our potential downfall.
As a sign of the times, the not-so-radical or eco-militant weekly, The Economist, published a cover story on the Anthropocene. Based on a Dutch scientist’s comments at a conference, the Anthropocene indicates a different period than the current Holocene, wherein the actions of the human species are key determines on ecosystems. Wow, that’s success! I think we’ve hit our target! In that case, could we at least begin to allow a conversation that considers prioritization of non-human species existence? Can some of us agree that the human species might even best be served in its future endeavors by setting aside some parts of the planet for other species?
If you bristle at the idea, it’s certainly understandable. We have 250,000 years of training to protect people. We’ve succeeded because we’ve adapted, communicated and created together. We are weak as individuals, but banding together, humans have become strong. No, we don’t need to abandon our own species, but at least some of the excess wealth and riches derived from the planet to make the human population explode, might be used to keep the balance. It took 123 years to go from 1 billion to 2 billion people, reached in 1927, but only 3 years, 1999-2012, to go from 6 to 7 billion people – that’s success! Even if we just start with species we like (pandas and dolphins), or those that help us meet our needs (bees who pollinate our crops).
By allowing myself to at least look thoughtfully at my deeply held beliefs of human-centrism, I see all kinds of things. Like the first time I left home and realized there’s lots of different ways to live, I see all the ways species live on this planet. And so many species that we are just discovering for the first time. Millions more we don’t even know exist.
Do we have an obligation or at least a self-serving interest to adjust our behavior and use of resources in a way that prevents extinctions? It seems obvious that we would do this, but we aren’t. One in three primates, our closest non-human relative and arguably with the most human support for saving, are at risk of extinction.
This is not easy or we would have done it already. We are smart and extremely successful though. I am human-centric enough to have absolute faith in our ability to find a way of living that allows life to thrive on this planet.
It tapped thoughts I’ve had, probably going back to a novel called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Written as a Socratic dialogue with a gorilla, the book probes at underlying assumptions humans carry not just of our supremacy but of our right to shape land and systems to benefit us. Some things seem pretty obvious and not morally reprehensible, like selecting the best seeds to replant the next year, which started thousands of years ago. But it’s difficult to swallow his conclusion that human civilization jumped off a cliff 10,000 years ago when agriculture began and will eventually hit the ground. He likens our logic and decision-making now to asking a man who is unknowingly falling to his death how things are going. “Seems fine, no problems here,” he says. Or, if written today, Quinn may have smugly added, “fine here, let’s take the opportunity that complete loss of summer Arctic ice gives us to drill for more oil”. While too extreme in many of his statements, I find his questioning of human-centrism echoing in my mind.
Why under no circumstances is it acceptable for a human to prioritize the life of a non-human species over human species?
Even more, why under few circumstances is it acceptable for a human to prioritize the life of a non-human species over maximized quality of life of the human species?
Human have not stopped at sufficiency for the species, but seem to be continuing with the same drive we had on the African savanna. We still seem stuck in the "lions are competing for our food” mode. For such a cerebral and reflective species, we seem unable to consider underlying human-centric drivers in our behavior.
These un-reflected upon operating systems wouldn’t be an issue if we were just another species occupying a niche in the earth’s ecosystems. Eating this and building that and changing these landscapes to suit us wouldn’t be any different than beavers altering the flow of the river and eating fish. But for the first time in history, we’ve become so successful in our quest to create an optimal environment for human survival that we are eliminating any environment for other species to survive. We are so successfully single-minded in our quest, that it’s been difficult for early environmentalists to convince humans to change behavior for the sake of other species. We’ve only taken notice since our success has now become our potential downfall.
As a sign of the times, the not-so-radical or eco-militant weekly, The Economist, published a cover story on the Anthropocene. Based on a Dutch scientist’s comments at a conference, the Anthropocene indicates a different period than the current Holocene, wherein the actions of the human species are key determines on ecosystems. Wow, that’s success! I think we’ve hit our target! In that case, could we at least begin to allow a conversation that considers prioritization of non-human species existence? Can some of us agree that the human species might even best be served in its future endeavors by setting aside some parts of the planet for other species?
If you bristle at the idea, it’s certainly understandable. We have 250,000 years of training to protect people. We’ve succeeded because we’ve adapted, communicated and created together. We are weak as individuals, but banding together, humans have become strong. No, we don’t need to abandon our own species, but at least some of the excess wealth and riches derived from the planet to make the human population explode, might be used to keep the balance. It took 123 years to go from 1 billion to 2 billion people, reached in 1927, but only 3 years, 1999-2012, to go from 6 to 7 billion people – that’s success! Even if we just start with species we like (pandas and dolphins), or those that help us meet our needs (bees who pollinate our crops).
By allowing myself to at least look thoughtfully at my deeply held beliefs of human-centrism, I see all kinds of things. Like the first time I left home and realized there’s lots of different ways to live, I see all the ways species live on this planet. And so many species that we are just discovering for the first time. Millions more we don’t even know exist.
Do we have an obligation or at least a self-serving interest to adjust our behavior and use of resources in a way that prevents extinctions? It seems obvious that we would do this, but we aren’t. One in three primates, our closest non-human relative and arguably with the most human support for saving, are at risk of extinction.
This is not easy or we would have done it already. We are smart and extremely successful though. I am human-centric enough to have absolute faith in our ability to find a way of living that allows life to thrive on this planet.