Reality Check!

Seven little reasons why our planet might not be doomed — and two big ones as to why it is. Unless...

“The Americans have no sense of doom, none whatever. They do not recognize doom when they see it.” ― James Baldwin, Giovanni’s Room. (Image by 愚木混株 cdd20 on Unsplash.)

Ok, I get it. Benji Jones, author of “7 reasons why our planet might not be doomed," wants to project hope in these ecologically tragic times. Certainly, not everything is cause for gloom and doom! Few would disagree.

However, by failing to divulge the underlying reasons why the natural world is in so much trouble, I'm afraid his article, like nearly all in its genre, conveys a false sense of hope.

Gosh, why can’t most conservation writers admit that life on Earth is broken because humans overconsume and overpopulate!

Unfortunately, we're not going to save the planet because people are finally talking about biodiversity (Benji’s reason #1), or because more people are recognizing that what's good for wildlife is good for us (reason #2.) This is old stuff. People have been talking like this for decades, just as the natural world has become increasingly overwhelmed by too many of us with too many demands on the environment.

The fact that there are more technical tools to keep tabs on the world’s animals and plants (reason #3) does little to relieve skepticism when far more wildlife is going down than up. Besides, some monitoring tools such as drones and trail cameras can wind up harassing wild animals or help people find and hunt them. As for AI and eDNA technologies to locate rare species, what’s to prevent these from falling into the hands of tech savvy poachers and collectors?

Benji's reason #4 — that "many species and ecosystems are actually recovering" — is often cited in the media as a cause for optimism. But that's hardly a reason to cheer when vast numbers are being depleted or deleted. So-called conservation of species usually represents a mere shadow of their once naturally-occurring selves. For instance, in another essay I mention giraffe, grizzly bear, and huemul deer. Greatly diminished in number and living in far fewer places than they did historically, these animals have zero chance for a full and just recovery unless there is a dramatic drop in human domination of their natural landscapes. Let’s be accurate and say that “few” rather than “many” species and ecosystems are recovering.

About 4,000 tigers survive in the wild. All subspecies are endangered. Yet habitat loss continues. There’s a global commitment to double the number of tigers by cracking down on poachers and by improving local habitat conditions. Nonetheless, tigers will continue to struggle under fierce and growing competition and conflict with people. (Photo by Donnie Ray Crisp on Unsplash.)

Don't get me wrong. I’m fully behind efforts to restore grasslands, mangroves, coral reefs, and other ecosystems, as we should all be. But let’s also be realistic. The world is on an extinction escalator that’s driven by our astronomical numbers and insatiable desire for more land, more water, more food, more energy, more mobility, and on and on. Restoration can’t keep up with what is being lost.

I heard on the radio this morning how major political parties in the U.S., while failing to agree on almost everything, can enthusiastically agree on promoting more economic growth for my home state of Florida. Every day I witness the painful effects of that growth, with every forest tree that’s cut, every woodland that’s cleared, and every wild creature that’s killed or displaced to “make room” for more housing, roads, commercial areas, and entertainment centers to accommodate new folks arriving to the tune of 330,000 a year.

There are two dead certainties that should be first and foremost on the mind of everyone who writes about saving nature:

Unless a natural area is protected, it will inevitably be degraded or destroyed. (Here today, gone tomorrow.)

Protecting natural areas becomes more difficult with more people demanding more from the environment. (More of us, less of nature.)

Now back to Benji’s article and his reason #5. Sure, it’s encouraging that more money from financial institutions may be forthcoming for conservation, but this must be viewed against how much is actually needed to stop the decline and restore natural ecosystems. With rising costs of land driven by population growth, society better have a vastly bigger wallet for securing habitats for wildlife before it’s too late. There's no indication that private investors or governments are prepared to shell out what's needed to protect and restore nature on a grand scale.

Sure, we should applaud (finally!) the invaluable role that Indigenous Peoples play in conserving natural habitats (reason #6) but need to acknowledge that low population densities have been a factor in making that possible (human densities on their lands has seldom exceeded 1 to 2 individuals/km2, compared to an average world population density of about 59/km2.) As for local communities, well, sometimes they protect wildlife and sometimes they don't.

Finally, it's great that 190 countries have agreed on a "landmark deal" (reason #7) to conserve nature, especially by promising to protect 30% of Earth by 2030. However, I can almost guarantee that many, if not most, will find every excuse to do little or nothing, or claim they’re protecting those lands while practicing multiple abuses under the banner of conservation.

With a global mass of 8.6 billion people by 2030 seeking to improve or enrich their lives, odds are heavily against pledges to set aside 30% of the planet for wildlife and nature. One has to be entirely delusional to think that the more ambitious and well-justified goal of protecting 50% of Earth’s lands and seas by 2050 is possible without scaling down humanity.

Here’s the crux of the matter: Unless those concerned about our planet tackle humanity’s overgrowth problem, the future for most life is dim. For their part, environmental writers should also help our society tone down anthropocentrism. We can’t be at peace with the Earth Community without doing so.

To be clear, I see great value in hope for our planet. But only that firmly rooted in reality.

A final comment on Benji’s article. He notes that "the term biodiversity isn’t perfect, it tries to encapsulate too much — in this case, the world’s species, the ecosystems they’re a part of, and the diversity of genetic material they contain." But why is that problematic? We need an inclusive term, and the less abstract, the better. So, why not simply "life"? After all, that word most precisely reflects what is at stake.

Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul - and sings the tunes without the words - and never stops at all. ~ Emily Dickinson. (Photo by T. Povilitis.)

***

By the way, when you read an article deserving of comments from a scale down point of view, consider writing some and sharing them with the author. Usually you can find their email address. I’m forwarding this essay to Benji Jones, who’s a senior environmental reporter at Vox. I’ll let you know in comments below if he responds.