Boulder, CO June 23, 2007
THE END OF THE WILD
Francoise Hall
Number of words: 15,017
Copyright 2007, Francoise Hall, all rights reserved
THE END OF THE WILD
THE EXTINCTION OF SPECIES................................................................................................ 3
THE HUMAN SELECTION OF SPECIES.................................................................................. 5
NO MORE WILDERNESS........................................................................................................... 5
SPECIES ACCORDING TO THEIR FUTURE........................................................................... 6
THE GHOST SPECIES...................................................................................................... 7
THE RELIC SPECIES..................................................................................................... 10
THE WEEDY SPECIES................................................................................................... 16
Aggressive, but not necessarily invasive in the United States............................... 17
Invasive in the United States................................................................................. 21
SUMMARY, EXAMPLES OF SPECIES IN EACH SURVIVAL CATEGORY.................... 26
SOLUTIONS................................................................................................................................ 29
SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF THE MAGICAL.............................................. 29
GENETIC ENGINEERING................................................................................ 29
SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE TOKEN, WINDOW-DRESSING.................................... 30
WILDLANDS....................................................................................................... 30
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES..................................................................... 31
SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF NIHILISM........................................................ 32
LAISSEZ-FAIRE................................................................................................. 32
SOLUTION WHICH, BY ITSELF, IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE............................ 36
PROHIBITORY REGULATIONS...................................................................... 36
SOLUTION WHICH IS REASONABLE BUT SEVERELY FLAWED...................... 38
REFUGES AND PRESERVES........................................................................... 38
SOLUTION WHICH IS BOTH REASONABLE AND ETHICAL.............................. 39
SAVE THOSE ECOSYSTEMS STILL HEALTHY........................................... 39
STEPHEN MYER=S CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 43
MY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 44
PRAISE............................................................................................................................. 44
THE END OF THE WILD NEITHER INEVITABLE NOR OUR CHOICE............... 44
NOT IN 10, BUT IN 35 MILLION YEARS................................................................... 50
THREAT TO LIFE FROM CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES.................................. 51
TIME ROBBED FROM EVOLUTION.......................................................................... 54
THE SIZE OF THE HUMAN POPULATION............................................................... 55
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 57
THE EXTINCTION OF SPECIES: The extinction crisis B the race to save the composition, structure and organization of biodiversity as it exists today B is finished, and we have lost.
During the present century, 2 of the Earth=s species will functionally, if not completely disappear. These species represent 1/4 of the genetic stock of the planet (pp. 4-5, 16 and 63).
Table 1 summarizes the collapse of the Earth=s wilderness.
Table 1: Species Extinction Rate (a)
|
Time Period |
Extinction Rate (all species) (per year) |
|
Distant Past (100,000,000 years ago to 20th century) (b) |
0.5 to Aseveral species@ |
|
Recent Past (c) (1950-2000) |
100 |
|
At present (d) (2006) |
3,000 |
|
Future (e) (2050, projected) (by 2100) |
5,000 or more 10,000 or more |
Footnotes to Table 1:
(a) pp. 3-4. Wilson 1992/1999, pp. 29-31, 189-190 and 210; summarized in Hall 2005a (Ask the Mosquitoes), p. 5. World Bank and United Nations University 2000, p. 5; summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), p. 30; summarized also in Hall 2007 (Global Warming B an Assessment of possible Solutions), p. 49. In addition, see the references to Footnote (c) (The Red List of Threatened Species).
(b) The
period from 100,000,000 years ago to the 20th century, is the period
after the recovery of diversity from two great extinction spasms:
i. The
Permian Extinction: 245,000,000 years ago, the AGreat Extinction Spasm No. 3,@ in the Paleozoic Era, ending the Permian Period.
ii. The
Triassic Extinction: 210,000,000 years ago, the AGreat Extinction Spasm No. 4,@ during the Mesozoic Era, Triassic Period.
Both
spasms sharply reduced biodiversity (up to 87 percent of marine animal
species). Recovery to a level of
diversity similar to that which prevailed prior to these two extinctions, took
100,000 years B that is, until 100,000 years ago.
(c) The Red
List of Threatened Species, published since1963 by the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, the AWorld Conservation Union@),
recorded, in 2006 (its last update), a total of 784 species extinctions between
1500 C.E. and 2006. This would be an
extinction rate of (784 / 500) = 1.57 species per year. However, the list is far from complete:
i. The
2006 list includes the evaluation of 40,168 species, plus an additional 2,160
sub-species, varieties, aquatic stocks and sub-populations. A conservative estimate of the total number
of living species on Earth B both described and un-described B is
13,620,000. The list, therefore,
includes (40,168 / 13,620,000) = 0.01 percent of existing species.
ii. More
than 17 percent (more than 7,000) of the species listed in 2006 have not been
evaluated since 1996.
iii. The determination of which species are listed, has more to do with aesthetics and economics than ecology and biology. Charismatic mammals with which we can identify, such as the Pandas, get our attention and support. The many thousands of disappearing aquatic invertebrates do not. There are about 11,000 species less than 2 millimeters in size. About 15 percent of these have highly specific niches [p. 46. Wilson 1992/1999, pp. xiv, 38 and 132-133; summarized in Hall 2005a (Ask the Mosquitoes), p. 7. Wikipedia AIUCN Red List@ 2007, pp. 1-2. MarineBio.org 2007, p. 2].
(d) The rate
at which new species are appearing is less than one per year.
(e) The land and the oceans will continue to teem with life, but it will be life as a homogenized assemblage of organisms selected for their compatibility with humans (p. 4).
THE HUMAN SELECTION OF SPECIES: Not all species will disappear at the same rate. Those species able to adapt sufficiently rapidly to the fast-paced and ever-increasing human-induced disturbances imposed on them (such as habitat encroachment and global warming), have a good chance of surviving. Their future is bright. The species which will become extinct are those too specialized to be able to adapt sufficiently rapidly, and they are often the apex predators, the keystone species. Life will be diminished (See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Laissez-faire, The Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 2, Speed up the Homogenization of Nature).
Thus, for the first time in the history of evolution, not forces of nature, but rather humans are the selectors of species. The type of life which will survive, is in the hands of humans.
IN THE PAST: For the past several billion years, evolution on Earth has been driven by
* Small-scale incremental Forces B natural selection, such as sexual selection.
* Cosmic-scale Disruptions B plate tectonics, planetary geochemistry, global climate shifts, extra-terrestrial asteroids (p. 3).
AT PRESENT: Beginning in the 20th century, the guiding hand of natural selection is human.
NO MORE WILDERNESS: The fundamental notion of United States Wilderness Act (1964) is a landscape where the impact of humanity is invisible B specifically, where the forces of natural selection smother those of human selection. There is virtually no place on Earth left which fits this definition. Humans are everywhere, and their impact now drives biological systems (pp. 8-9).
SPECIES ACCORDING TO THEIR FUTURE: Through our extraordinary capacity to modify the world around us, we human beings are dividing life into a three-tiered pyramid, each tier representing a different probability of surviving the near future B 100-200 years.
* At the top of the pyramid are the ghost species which have no chance for survival.
* In the middle of the pyramid are the relic species, both natural and forced.
- Natural relics live in marginal habitats which to date have not been overly disturbed by humans.
- Forced relics either hang on in the wild as marginal populations, or are managed by humans as boutique populations, trophies B their survival depending on human goodwill.
* At the base of the pyramid are the weedy species which thrive in continually disturbed, human-dominated environments. They face a bright future of increasing ecological dominance.
Our division of life into these three categories is happening at the present time, and has its origin both in wanton disregard for the natural environment and in deliberate conservation efforts. Both origins have in common the selection of species by humans B in the former case favoring the species which can adapt to human-disturbed environments, and in the latter case, favoring species of which humans are fond (pp. 8-9).
A diagram of the examples of species cited in each survival category appears on pp. 26-27 of the present document.
(Species according to their Future, continued)
1. THE GHOST SPECIES: Most endangered species are not the focus of special conservation programs, and of those which are, many do not respond. The species which are doomed, become ghost species. Ghosts because they seem plentiful today and may indeed persist for decades, but their extinction is certain B apart from a few specimens in zoos or laboratory-archived DNA samples.
The Extinction Debt: Species loss is not a linear process. Many decades can pass between the start of the decline of a population and its collapse, especially for moderate- to long-lived life forms. The Aextinction debt@ is the term used to describe this gap between appearance and reality. Many ghost species may still appear plentiful now, even though their future is doomed (p. 16).
Examples of Ghost Species:
a. The African Lion (Panthera leo). The decimation of the lion species is primarily due to its Apre-emptive eradication@ by livestock herders. The lion is a keystone species, on whose status many other species depend.
The world lion population was 200,000 in 1980. It is now less than 20,000 B a decrease of 90 percent.
East Africa: Of the lions which remain in the world, 95 percent (19,000) in East Africa.
West and Central Africa: There are 1,000 lions living in West and Central Africa, and these lions face extinction. No one lion population has the number of animals needed so that the genetic diversity of the population can sustain itself. The critical number is between 500 and 1,000 animals (100 breeding pairs). The two largest populations, one on the Senegal-Mali-Guinea border, and the other in Cameroon, each have about 200 animals. Another 12 populations have about 50 animals each. Hence, extinction is certain (p. 15. Marchant 2001, pp. 1-2).
(Species according to their Future, The Ghost Species, continued)
b. The Tiger (Panthera tigris). Tigers are apex predators and the largest feline species in the world. In 1900, the population of tigers in the world was probably more than 100,000. The present tiger population (in the wild) is 7,000 B a decrease of 93 percent.
Tigers now occupy only seven percent of their historic range and are present in 40 percent fewer habitats than 10 years ago. The majority of the world tigers now live in captivity. More tigers live as pets in the United States (10,000) than live in the wild worldwide (7,000).
The Bengal Tiger is the most common subspecies of Tiger, constituting approximately 80 percent of the entire tiger population. Tigers live in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India Myanmar and Nepal.
The Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae). The Sumatran Tiger is a subspecies whose population has been halved in the past two years by trophy hunters. Fewer than 300 animals are left in the wild B making their extinction certain. (Three of the nine subspecies of Tiger, are already extinct. The demise of the Sumatran Tiger will mean that four of the nine subspecies of Tiger will be extinct) (p. 15. Wikipedia ATiger@ 2007, pp. 1, 5 and 7. United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, p. 1. World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Ghost Species, continued)
c. The Tuna (Family Scombridae, Genus Thunnus, several species). The Tuna includes several species of ocean-dwelling fish. Some are also able to live in fresh water. Tuna can swim at up to 48 miles per hour. Several species are warm-blooded and can live in cold environments.
The tuna is high in the food chain and some of the larger species, such as bluefin and albacore, carry high mercury levels. In 2004, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended a restricted intake of tuna for pregnant women, nursing mothers and children.
The tuna is being over-fished. Since 1950, the tuna population has decreased by 90 percent due principally to human over-fishing [p. 15. Wikipedia ATuna@ 2007, pp. 1-2. Large predatory fish over-fishing is summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), p. 15; and in Hall 2007 (Global Warming), p. 49].
d. The Swordfish (Xiphias gladius). The swordfish is a large, highly migratory, predatory fish. In size, it can be 15 feet, and in weight, can reach 3,200 pounds.
The swordfish population has decreased by 90 percent since 1950, due principally to human over-consumption [pp. 14-15. Wikipedia ASwordfish@ 2007, p. 1. Large predatory fish over-fishing is summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), p. 15; and in Hall 2007 (Global Warming), p. 49. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 5, Cause Famines].
(Species according to their Future, continued)
2. THE RELIC SPECIES: Relic species have a dim future. They generally face an overwhelming web of threats which are impossible to disentangle, and are likely to become ghosts, even with conservation efforts.
Threats include human-induced habitat loss and degradation; invasive alien species; harvesting (hunting and gathering); human-induced accidental mortality (netting, entanglement, poisoning); persecution (pest control); pollution (global warming, acid precipitation, water pollution); natural disasters (drought, floods, wildfire); changes in native species dynamics (competitors, predators, prey, food base); intrinsic factors (limited dispersal, in-breeding, slow growth rate, restricted range); and human disturbance (recreation, tourism, transport, fire, war, civil unrest) (p. 29. International Union for the Conservation of Nature 2006, pp. 1-5).
Relic species are either naturally rare, isolated and marginal, or forced by humans to be so:
a. Natural Relics: Species which are naturally Arelic@ are those which live on the margins of existence. They have survived to the present largely through the benign neglect of humans. Many of them have not been discovered or named by science.
Little on Earth is remote anymore, and increasing human pressures threaten even the specialized habitats of natural relics. They now exist in ever-decreasing numbers and in ever-contracting spatial distributions.
In 2004, a Nature Conservancy group made a five-week expedition into four Borneo karst systems. (A karst is an irregular limestone region with sinks, caverns and underground streams). During even a short trip such as this one, researchers catalogued 124 species of birds, 34 species of bats, and a number of insect and plant species previously unknown to science.
The very specialization which allows natural relics to live in marginal habitats, also prevents them from escaping threats through dispersion. Instead, they perish, many before they are even discovered by science (pp. 11-12).
(Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, continued)
b. Forced Relics: Hundreds of thousands of formerly well-established organisms are now forced into the ranks of relics. Unlike natural relics, forced relics are unable to linger on the edges of existence. They hang on in the wild either as ecologically marginalized populations or as carefully managed boutique population. They face the threat of extinction as their suitable habitat shrinks (p. 13).
Examples of forced Relics:
i. The African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana). The African Bush Elephant is the largest living land-dwelling animal. The largest individual on record was 13.8 feet high and weighed 27,000 pounds. Bush Elephants can run up to 25 miles per hour.
The population of African Bush Elephant is being progressively isolated and reduced. The African Bush Elephant and may even now possibly be a living fossil (a genetic dead end) B that is, a ghost (p. 13. Wikipedia AAfrican Bush Elephant@ 2007, p. 1).
ii. The Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Worldwide, approximately 2,000 Giant Pandas live in the wild, and 200 live in captivity. All are in China except for about 20.
Giant Pandas have a diet which is 99 percent bamboo. They have a very low birth rate, both in the wild and in captivity.
The population of Giant Pandas is being progressively isolated and reduced. The Giant Panda may even now possibly be a living fossil (a genetic dead end) B that is, a ghost (p. 13. Wikipedia AGiant Panda@ 2007, pp. 1, 3 and 6. Zhang et al, 2007, p. 2).
(Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, Forced Relics, continued)
iii. The Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). Sumatran Rhinoceroses were once quite numerous throughout southeast Asia. The species is now critically endangered due to illegal poaching and the destruction of its rainforest habitat. In the past 10 years, its population of 600, already diminished from previous times, has declined further to a present population of 300. It is now one of the world=s rarest mammals.
Breeding the Sumatran Rhinoceros in captivity has proven difficult. Through direct and permanent human intervention, the species is able to continue living in the wild, albeit as a living trophy (p. 13. Wikipedia ASumatran Rhinoceros@ 2007, pp. 1-3. International Rhino Foundation 2002, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, Forced Relics, continued)
iv. The Great Apes: More than 96 percent of the DNA of great apes is the same as that of humans.
The United Nations: In 2001, the United Nations launched a Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP) to ward off the extinction of all four classes of great apes. In 2003, Project researchers estimated that every one of the great ape species was then already a relic, and at risk of becoming a ghost species within the next 50 years.
Human Encroachment:
* In western and central Africa, where the Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonono have their habitats, if human encroachment continues at present levels, less than 10 percent of the forest still available to them now, will be relatively undisturbed by 2030.
* In southeast Asia, where the Orang-utans have their habitat, if human encroachment continues at present levels, almost no habitat will be left intact by 2030.
International Cooperation: In 2006, the GRASP Project had the cooperation of 5 U.N. organizations, 28 governments, 47 Amajor groups,@ 7 inter-governmental organizations, and 8 Aother groups.@
(Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, Forced Relics, The Great Apes, continued)
Orang-utans: Of the four kinds of orang-utans, one is critically endangered, with a population of 7,500 presently in catastrophic collapse. Its habitat is in northern-most portion of the island of Sumatra (Indonesia).
The other three kinds of orang-utans are endangered. Their habitats are on the island of Borneo (Indonesia and Malaysia).
Gorillas: Of the five kinds of gorillas, three are critically endangered, each having fewer than 280, 320 and 380 individuals remaining, respectively. Their habitats are in Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda.
The other two kinds of gorillas are endangered. Their habitats are in central and western Africa.
Chimpanzees: Of the four kinds of chimpanzees, one, previously listed as endangered, is now in critical decline, having fewer than 1,000 individuals remaining, mostly in Ghana (500), Senegal (300) and Guinea-Bissau (200).
The three other kinds of chimpanzees are endangered. Their habitats are in central and western Africa.
Bonobo (Pygmy Chimpanzee): The bonobo is endangered. Its habitat is in the Democratic Republic of Congo (p. 72. Rylands undated (after 2003), pp. 1-2. Kirby 2003, pp. 1-3. United Nations Great Apes Survival Project 2006, pp. 1-3. Mittermeier, Russell et al 2005, p. 1. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Laissez-faire, Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 7, Make Life more dumb).
(Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, Forced Relics, continued)
v. The California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus). The California condor is the world=s rarest bird of prey. It is the largest land bird in North America. Condors inhabit large territories, often traveling 150 miles a day in search of carrion (dead and putrefying flesh). A low birth rate and late sexual maturity have made the Condor vulnerable to extinction.
In 1987, there were 22 individuals remaining, all in captivity. Thanks to conservation efforts, by 2005, the population had risen to 273, of which 127 (47 percent) were in the wild.
Through the direct and permanent intervention of humans, the Condor is able to continue living in the wild, albeit as a living trophy (p. 13. Wikipedia ACalifornia Condor@ 2007, pp. 1 and 4-5).
vi. Virtually all of Hawaii=s endemic Plants. Only through direct and permanent human intervention, are Hawaii=s endemic plants able to continue living in the wild. They do so as living trophies (pp.12-13).
(Species according to their Future, continued)
3. THE WEEDY SPECIES: Weedy species are adaptive generalists. They flourish in a variety of ecological settings, switch easily between food types, and breed prolifically. They not only thrive in continually disturbed, human-dominated environments, but have their needs met more completely and efficiently by humans than in the wild (p. 10).
The Future of weedy Species: The future of weedy species is bright. They will enjoy expanding populations, widening spatial distribution, increasing ecological dominance, and opportunities for further speciation far into the future.
Today, only weedy species have the broad distribution, the adaptability, and the migratory capacity to:
a. Re-establish thriving populations in new habitats after humans have expelled them from their original habitat.
b. Thrive in new, human-disturbed habitats (p. 16).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, continued)
Examples of weedy Species:
Aggressive, but not necessarily invasive in the United States:
Land Species
a. Plants:
i. The Dandelion (Family Asteraceae, Genus, Taraxacum). The Dandelion is considered a weed by most people. It is one of a large genus of flowering plants in the family Asteraceae (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1. Wikipedia ADandelion@ 2007, p. 1).
ii. Lesser Celandine (Ranunculus ficaria) (fig buttercup). Lesser Celandine is a perennial herbaceous plant in the buttercup family. It was introduced from Europe into the United States as an ornamental plant. Its old name, Pilewort, refers to the use of its knobby tubers (which resemble piles) to treat hemorrhoids. The German vernacular, Scharbockskraut (Scurvywort) refers to the use of its early leaves (high in Vitamin C), to treat scurvy.
Lesser Celandine usually grows on moist, forested flood plains. It flowers earlier than most native spring species and is sometimes called the Aspring messenger.@ This competitive advantage gives Celandine the opportunity to spread rapidly across a forest floor and form a blanket of leaves which native species are unable to penetrate.
William Wordsworth (1770-1850), in his Ode to the Celandine, wrote:
I have seen thee, high and low,
Thirty years or more, and yet
T=was a face I did not know.
(Wordsworth, quoted in Wikipedia ALesser Celandine@ 2007, p. 1. Wikipedia ALesser Celandine@ 2007, p. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture 2006, p. 2. U.S. National Park Service 2004, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., Land Species, continued)
b. Animals:
i. The Raccoon (Procyon lotor). Raccoons have thumbs which, though not opposable, enable them to open many closed containers, such as garbage cans and doors. They are omnivores. Their intelligence and dexterity equip them to survive in a wide range of environments, and they are one of the few medium-to-large-sized animals which has enlarged its range since the beginning of human encroachment (another is the coyote).
In the United States, raccoons are present in suburban settings at five times their density in corresponding natural wild populations (p. 10. Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1. Wikipedia ARaccoon@ 2007, p. 1).
ii. The Coyote (Canis latrans). Despite being extensively hunted, the coyote is one of the few medium-to-large-sized animals which has enlarged its range since the beginning of human encroachment (another is the raccoon). Coyotes have moved into most of the areas of North America formerly occupied by wolves. Originally, they were diurnal, but pressed by humans, they are now principally nocturnal.
In the eastern United States, coyotes are moving into suburban neighborhoods, feeding on cats and small dogs. Attacks on children and adults, once rare, are on the increase (pp. 68-69. Wikipedia ACoyote@ 2007, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., Land Species, Animals, continued)
iii. The White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). In the United States, the population of the White-tailed Deer has grown virtually unchecked. This is particularly so in regions where the Deer=s natural predator, the Gray Wolf, is extinct, and in areas where roads provide an abundance of brushy roadside edge habitat to which the White-tailed Deer has become adapted.
In the U.S. as a whole, the White-tailed Deer is involved yearly in 350,000 collisions with automobiles.
In the eastern U.S., the White-tailed Deer is an essential vector for Lyme disease, one of the country=s fastest-growing infectious diseases. The disease is transmitted by the deer tick (pp. 9-11 and 68-69. Wikipedia ALyme Disease@ 2007, pp. 1 and 5-7. Noss 1990, pp. 13 and 21. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 6, Increase in human Diseases, Item ii: Lyme Disease).
iv. The Rabbit (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
v. The Dog (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
vi. The Common (Norway) Rat (Rattus norvegicus). The rat is so comfortable among us that we consider it a pest (p. 11. Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
vii. The Mouse (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
viii. The Fly (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
ix. The Cockroach (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
x. The Centipede (Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., continued)
Aquatic Species:
a. Plant:
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Purple Loosestrife has long been a prized perennial. It is a semi-aquatic plant whose woody taproot and fibrous rhizomes result in dense plant stands which clog up waterways. Like in the case of other aquatic plants which become invasive in certain circumstances, it is now illegal in many states of the United States to sell or distribute Purple Loosestrife. It is, however, still available through commercial retail, Internet sources, and the aquarium trade (University of Tennessee undated, p. 3. United States Department of Agriculture, National Arboretum, pp. 2-3).
b. Animal:
The Mosquito Fish (Gambusia affini). The Mosquito Fish, which feeds on mosquito larvae, is sometimes introduced into ponds to control the spread of West Nile Virus, for which mosquitoes are a vector. Once introduced, however, the Mosquito Fish displaces local fish species (United States, State of California 2006, p. 6. Ghazanchyan.com 2002, pp. 4-5. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Land Species, Item b, Animals, Item i: The Asian Tiger Mosquito. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Microbes, Item b: The West Nile Virus. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Laissez-faire, The Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 3, Speed up the Homogenization of the Continents).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, continued)
Invasive in the United States
Invasive organisms have the ability to thrive and spread aggressively outside their natural range. Naturally aggressive organisms may be especially invasive when introduced into new habitats whose ecology does not include natural checks on proliferation, such as predators and disease vectors. They then colonize the new habitat unimpeded (United States National Arboretum 2006, p. 1).
Land Species
a. Plants:
i. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (Drooping Brome). Cheatgrass is a native of Europe, southwestern Asia and northern Africa. It was introduced onto the North American continent around 1900. It grows in almost any type of soil, including eroded and low nitrogen soil. It is a prolific annual of low nutritive value. In western United States, Cheatgrass has displaced native vegetation across broad areas of rangeland, devastating the local ecology. Drying early in the season, it fuels range fires which devastate native plants and wildlife (p. 22. United States Department of Agriculture, Geological Survey 2001, pp. 1-3. Wikipedia A(Cheatgrass) Drooping Brome,@ 2007, pp. 1-2).
ii. The Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium). The Scotch Thistle is a native of Europe, introduced into the United States as an ornamental flower, in the 1800=s. It is now present throughout the country except the Southeast. It crowds out native species and crops (United States Department of Agriculture, AScotch Thistle@ 2007, p. 1.
iii The Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii). The Spotted Knapweed is a native of Europe, introduced into the United States in the late 1800=s, through contaminated seed or ballast. It is now present throughout the country, crowding out native species and livestock forage. In much of western United States, the Spotted Knapweed has become a serious agricultural pest (United States Department of Agriculture, ASpotted Knapweed@ 2007, p. 1. Noss 1990, p. 11).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Land Species, continued)
b. Animals:
i. The Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes albopictus). The Asian Tiger Mosquito is a native of Asia, having been transported to the Continental United States, in 1985, on tires imported from Japan. It transmits viruses, such as the Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus and the West Nile Virus (United States Department of Agriculture, AAsian Tiger Mosquito@ 2006, p. 1. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., Aquatic Species, Item b, Animal: The Mosquito Fish. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Microbes, Item b: The West Nile Virus. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Laissez-faire, The Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 3, Speed up the Homogenization of the Continents).
ii. The Formosan Subterranean Termite (Coptotermes formosanus). The Formosan Subterranean Termite is a native of China, having arrived in the United States during the 1960's, on ships coming from the Pacific. It is now present in the Southeast United States. It competes with native species and causes structural damage to buildings (p. 10. Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007. p. 1. United States Department of Agriculture, AFormosan Subterranean Termite@ 2007, p. 1. See also the present document under Solution which is both reasonable and ethical, Outer Changes, All Ecosystems).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., continued)
Aquatic Species
a. Plants:
i. The Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). The Eurasian Watermilfoil is a submersed plant, native of Eurasia, introduced into the U.S. around 1900 through the aquarium trade. It is now present throughout the country, crowding out native species (United States Department of Agriculture, AEurasian Watermilfoil@ 2007, p. 1).
ii. The Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) (water thyme). The Hydrilla is a submersed plant, native to Africa, introduced into the U. S. in 1960 through the aquarium trade. It is now present in the southern United States, invading all types of water bodies, and crowding out native species. Feeding on the run-off from farms, suburban development and sewage treatment facilities, Hydrilla reaches densities not previously encountered in natural settings (p. 10. United States Department of Agriculture, AHydrilla@ 2007, p. 1. University of Florida 2005, p. 1).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the United States, Aquatic Species, continued)
b. Animals:
i. The Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). The Sea Lamprey is a native of the Atlantic Ocean, introduced into Lake Ontario in 1835, and into Lake Erie, in 1921 B both times by way of Welland Canal. The Lamprey is now present throughout the Great Lakes region, where it preys on native species (United States Department of Agriculture, ASea Lamprey@ 2007, p. 1. Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1).
ii. The Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). The Zebra Mussel is a native of Eurasia, introduced into the United States in 1988, in ballast water. It is now present in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River region, where it competes with native species and clogs water pipes (United States Department of Agriculture, AZebra Mussel@ 2007, p. 1. Wikipedia AWeedy Species@ 2007, p. 1. See also the present document under Solution which is both reasonable and ethical, Outer Changes, All Ecosystems).
(Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the United States, continued)
Microbes
a. The Avian Influenza Virus (Orthomyxoviridae, Influenza Type A, subtype H5N1). The Avian Influenza Virus (bird flu virus) first appeared in Italy and is projected to be introduced into to the United States transported on migratory birds. It infects poultry, waterfowl, and some mammals, including humans (United States Department of Agriculture, AAvian Influenza@ 2007, p. 1).
b. The West Nile Virus (Flavivirus). The West Nile Virus was discovered in Africa and introduced into the United States in 1999. It infects birds and mammals, including humans. It is now present throughout most of the country (p. 70. United States Department of Agriculture, AWest Nile Virus@ 2006, p. 1. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., Aquatic Species, Item b, Animal: The Mosquito Fish. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Land Species, Item b, Animals, Item i: The Asian Tiger Mosquito. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Laissez-faire, The Implications of Laissez-faire, No. 3, Speed up the Homogenization of the Continents).
c. The SARS Virus. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is a human disease caused by the SARS corona-virus. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that the virus probably originated in bats and spread to humans, either directly or though civet cats. To date, there has been one major epidemic in 2002-2003, with 8,000 cases and a mortality of 10 percent (Wikipedia ASevere acute respiratory syndrome,@ 2007, pp. 1 and 10. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Nihilism, Implications of Laissez-faire, Item 6: The SARS Virus).
SUMMARY, EXAMPLES OF SPECIES IN EACH SURVIVAL CATEGORY
(Present Document, pp. 7-25)
Ghost Species:
a. The African Lion
b. The Tiger
c. The Tuna
d. The Swordfish
Relic Species:
a. Natural:
Many, undiscovered by science.
b. Forced:
i. The African Bush Elephant
ii. The Giant Panda
iii The Sumatran Rhinoceros
iv. The Great Apes
v. The California Condor
vi. Hawaii=s endemic Plants
Weedy Species:
Not necessarily invasive in the U.S.
Land Species
a. Plants:
i. The Dandelion
ii. Lesser Celandine
b. Animals:
i. The Raccoon
ii. The Coyote
iii. The White-tailed Deer
iv. The Rabbit
v. The Dog
vi. The Rat
vii. The Mouse
viii. The Fly
ix. The Cockroach
x. The Centipede
Aquatic Species
a. Plant:
Purple Loosestrife
b. Animal:
The Mosquito Fish
Invasive in the U.S.
Land Species
a. Plants:
i. Cheatgrass
ii. The Scotch Thistle
iii. The Spotted Knapweed
b. Animals:
i. The Asian Tiger Mosquito
ii. The Formosan Subterranean Termite
Aquatic Species
a. Plants:
i. The Eurasian Watermilfoil
ii. The Hydrilla
b. Animals:
i. The Sea Lamprey
ii. The Zebra Mussel
Microbes
a. The Avian Influenza Virus
b. The West Nile Virus
c. The SARS Virus
HOMOGENIZING THE PLANET: During the present century, half of the Earth=s species now living in the wild, are destined to become either relic or ghost species (See also the present document under The Extinction of Species).
Filling the space will be weedy species. They will constitute an ever-growing proportion of the plants and animals in our environment. The land and the oceans will continue to teem with life, but it will be life as a homogenized assemblage of organisms selected for their compatibility with humans.
Already now, habitats in various parts of the world are invaded by virtually the same set of cosmopolitan weedy species. In the future, every continent will carry similar plants, insects, mammals, birds and other organisms, organized in similar, simple communities. Regions will be homogenized B they will lose their Acharacter.@ All areas which have a similar climate will look the same. Most ecosystems will be incomplete, missing the apex of the food chain.
The end result will be an impoverishment of global diversity. The web of life will become the strand of life.
The biotic world as we know it, is collapsing (pp. 4, 16-17, 19, 21-22 and 63. Noss 1990, p. 22. See also the present document under The Human Selection of Species).
SOLUTIONS
SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF THE MAGICAL
GENETIC ENGINEERING: Store DNA and, once the technology of genetic engineering matures, bring all the species back and release them into the wild.
This Jurassic Park thinking ignores the fact that all of the factors which now contribute to species loss, will remain in place, and probably will be increasingly powerful. At best, these re-engineered organisms would be genetic relics, able to exist only in a zoo.
The wild will cease to exist, even if we can individually manufacture each of its constituent parts (pp. 60-61. See also the present document under My Conclusions, No. 4, Threat to Life from converging Technologies, Item d, Genetic Engineering).
SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE TOKEN, WINDOW-DRESSING
1. WILDLANDS: The wildlands concept, advocated by the deep-ecology movement, has two main components both of which would apply to all continents:
a. Resettle Humans: Resettle human communities into tightly drawn sustainable enclaves.
Example:
Convert 50 percent of the land in the United States into an expansive set of connected wildlands with surrounding buffers. Prohibit human access to this half of the country.
b. Alter human Habits: By means of social engineering, alter land use and consumption patterns to so reduce the ecological footprint of humanity as to achieve a planet mostly free of human exploitation.
This ecologically-centered strategy is most likely the only strategy which could truly reduce the scale of the present biotic collapse.
Its flaws are that it is:
a. Improbable: World population is projected to be 9.4 billion by 2050. The notion that a population that size and growing exponentially could be made to bend its own needs to nature=s, is difficult to envisage. Global society is moving rapidly and inexorably in the opposite direction.
b. Too slow to be of help: The vision would take at a minimum 100 years to implement B by which time, the end of the wild will be well at hand (pp. 58-60. United States Bureau of the Census 2006, p. 5).
(Solutions which are token, window-dressing, continued)
2. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: The goal of sustainable communities is to live within the carrying capacity of their environs, and thereby ease the pressure on terrestrial and marine ecosystems. This is commendable.
However, sustainable communities are:
a. Sustainable for Humans, not Species: In the context of the extinction crisis, sustainable development is an anthropocentric resource-use policy, not an ecological model. The notion of sustainable communities is not about the wild. It is about long-term economic efficiency and the wise use of natural resources. The relationship between consumptive demand and resource supply, not ecosystem function, determines the limit of sustainability.
b. Always evolving: As communities grow in size and wealth, so do their economic aspirations and demand for resources. Economic targets move accordingly.
Example:
Africa=s wildlife population has gradually collapsed in the face of the bush-meat trade. What had been sustainable for a Kenyan village in 1950, is now no longer sustainable.
c. Not immune from the Global Market: Economic globalization prevents realization of the goal that those who benefit from over-exploitation (such as, for instance, by selling on the global market) also pay its costs.
Example:
The global demand for the originally sustainable and environmentally friendly crop of Brazil nuts in the Amazon, has so driven the harvesting, that the crop is now unsustainably harvested. Local economics has trumped ecology (pp. 54-57).
SOLUTION WHICH PARTAKES OF NIHILISM
LAISSEZ-FAIRE: Why continue to do anything to protect and manage biodiversity? Why not let the unfettered market determine how and where we consume natural resources? Why not let human selection, operating through benign neglect, allow the weedy species to define the new wild?
The Kuznets= Curve: Economists, in particular, tell us to wait for the downside of the Kuznets curve. The Kuznets curve is the graphical representation of Simon Kuznets= hypothesis that economic inequality increases with time, and then decreases. The trend is an inverted U-shaped curve.
When applied to the environment, the hypothesis holds that at the beginning of economic development, there is little interest in the quality of the environment, and pollution increases with industrialization. After basic physical needs are met, however, interest increases, funds are available, and the trend is reversed.
Predictions of the Kuznets= Curve:
a. Holding True: The prediction holds true for a few pollutants, principally those with local effects, such as
i. Sulfur dioxide.
ii. Nitrogen oxide.
b. Not holding True: To date, for developed countries, the prediction is not holding with respect to:
i. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Greenhouse gases have principally distant, rather than local effects. Their emission by developed countries is still increasing.
ii. Ecological Footprint: The ecological footprint of developed countries has not diminished with rising income. Their energy use is still increasing, and their soil fertility, fresh water quality and fish populations are all still in decline. (A country=s ecological footprint is its combined consumption of energy, land and resources).
iii. Biodiversity: Biodiversity in developed countries is still diminishing.
iv. Landfills: The toxicity of landfills in developed countries continues to increase.
(Solution which partakes of Nihilism, continued)
Kuznets= Curve Not necessarily invalid: The fact that the Kuznets theory does not hold for crucial environmental trends, does not necessarily mean that it is invalid. Developed countries may still be on the upward leg of the curve, and may have to get richer still before they reverse their damage to the environment. However, while this might be true, it is also irrelevant. Our environmental damage is irreversible. The extinction of species and the loss of wilderness cannot be undone (p. 76. Wikipedia AKuznets Curve@ 2007, pp. 1-4).
The Implications of Laissez-faire: The end of the wild will come despite our efforts at conservation. In fact, conservation efforts have already reached the point of little additional positive return. They cannot prevent the collapse of nature. Nevertheless, doing less would produce a far more speedy end.
The multiplicative (compounded) effects of human selection means that the benign neglect approach would:
1. Speed up the Collapse of Nature:
Benign neglect would cause the present gradual degradation of ecosystems to
become a sudden collapse, contracting the time scale for the effects of
human selection from more than a century to mere decades.
2. Speed up the Homogenization of Nature: In the long term, the laissez-faire approach would effectively eliminate the relic species. The Earth=s biota would comprise only weedy and ghost species. Virtually all the organisms which, helped by conservation efforts, would have become relics (some persisting with a fairly stable presence), would instead become ghosts. Natural communities would be pauperized, and the extinction debt would be multiplied.
Weedy species would be elevated to keystone status in every ecosystem and community. (A keystone species is one which has a disproportionately large impact on ecosystem processes, such as biomass production, energy transfer and nutrient cycling).
(Solution which partakes of Nihilism, The Implications of Laissez-faire, continued)
3. Speed up the Homogenization of the Continents: Doing nothing would cause weedy species on all continent, to face serious threats from the influx of alien weedy species.
Example:
In the United States, American crow and blue jay populations have been decimated by the alien West Nile Virus (which first struck in 1999) (See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Land Species, Item b, Animals: The Asian Tiger Mosquito. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Microbes, Item b: The West Nile Virus).
4. Make the Planet inhospitable to Life: The laissez-faire approach would speed up not merely the simplification but also the impoverishment of ecosystems to such a degree that these would be unable to provide a range of services on which we depend.
Example:
Coastal wetlands would rapidly become too fragile to blunt the storm surge of hurricanes.
5. Cause Famines: Benign neglect would allow human over-consumption to precipitate the collapse of key natural resources, such as timber trees and marine fish. The effects would reverberate through the economies of every continent (See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Ghost Species, item c, The Tuna, and Item d, The Swordfish).
(Solution which partakes of Nihilism, The Implications of Laissez-faire, continued)
6. Increase human Diseases: Doing nothing would increase human disease by speeding up the introduction among weedy species of pests, parasites and disease-causing organisms, many of which are vectors of human disease.
Examples:
i. The SARS virus is a virus which has spread rapidly recently (See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the U.S., Microbes, Item c: The SARS virus).
ii. Lyme disease, spread by the White-tailed Deer (See also the present document under Species according to their Future, No. 3, Weedy Species, Not necessarily invasive in the U.S., Land Species, Item b, Animals, Item iii, The White-tailed Deer).
7. Make Life more Dumb: A laissez-faire policy would allow the demise of a large proportion of the relic species which have particular psychological importance for humans, such as elephants, gorillas, whales, owls, hawks, and other charismatic animals.
The United Nations Great Apes Survival Project estimates that every single one of the great apes species is already a relic, and is at risk of becoming a ghost within the next 50 years (See the present document under Species according to their Future, The Relic Species, Forced Relics, Item iv, The Great Apes).
The quality of life for humans would plummet, as life would be much less able to capture the awe and wonder of the human spirit (pp. 63-72 and 90. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, No. 1 Ghost species, and No. 2 Relic Species).
SOLUTION WHICH, BY ITSELF, IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
PROHIBITORY REGULATIONS: Virtually by definition, all regulatory efforts at species protection and recovery, are focused on relics and (unknowingly) ghosts, which have no chance of true recovery. Occasionally, there are extraordinary exceptions, such as that of the American alligator which, having been almost extinct, is one again abundant. But these very few alleged successes are once again evidence of the growing dominance of human selection in evolution.
The notion that we can regulate ourselves out of the extinction crisis B that government could force the wild to remain wild B is based on the fundamentally false premise that the causes of species extinction are finite and reducible, and that the number of species truly threatened is limited.
Although legal prohibitions and strict enforcement can preserve some relic species at the margins and forestall temporarily the extinction of ghost species, they cannot prevent or even slow the end of the wild. Regulations do little more than transform nature into a product of the human imagination B like a Disney cartoon (pp. 42-43 and 47).
Regulations:
Examples of regulations:
1. The Endangered Species Act of the United States (1964).
2. The Habitat Directive of the European Union.
3. The International Whaling Commission Rules.
4. The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973).
5. The more than 10 percent of the Earth which is now either protected or pledged for protection (pp. 37-39).
(Solution which, by itself, is counter-productive)
Characteristics of Regulations:
Rules do the following:
1. Institutionalize human-driven Evolution: All agreements institutionalize the notion that humans can and should guide evolution. We decide which species are to be protected, which of their habitats are critical and which expendable, what the recovery goals are to be, which areas of the Earth are to be protected and how large they will be.
2. Convert human Values into biotic Structure: Rules are human-, not species-centered. They are not regimes designed for ecological restoration, but rather are made for the benefit of humans. Human decisions are based on aesthetics and economics more than on ecology or biology.
Examples:
a. Aesthetics: Pandas get a lot of attention. Many thousands of disappearing aquatic invertebrates do not.
b. Economics: How may minke whales are sufficient to allow hunting? (pp. 37-38 and 44-46).
SOLUTION WHICH IS REASONABLE BUT SEVERELY FLAWED
REFUGES AND PRESERVES: Refuges and bio-reserves are meant to wall off the wild from the harmful disturbances of humanity, and allow nature to proceed unhindered in its special space. This too is largely an illusion.
Refuges and preserves:
1. Represent our own paltry Conception of an Ecosystem.
2. Contain many Species which are Relics and Ghosts. The entire wildlife refuge system of the United States, for example, can, at best, assist in the meaningful conservation of about 20 percent of the animal species listed in them B the list itself being but a fraction of the total number of species in decline.
3. Increase the Vulnerability of Animals within them: Animals within refuges and preserves are more concentrated than in the wild, and hence are:
a. More easily hunted.
b. More vulnerable to catastrophic losses, such as natural disasters (fires), epizootic diseases and war.
4. Cannot be immune from human Encroachment: With an ever-expanding human population, refuges and preserves cannot be made immune to relentless human encroachment, direct or indirect.
5. Are embedded in a Matrix of human Habitation: Refuges and preserves cannot be insulated from the broader human disturbances in the region, even if their own boundaries remain inviolate.
6. Encompass Ecosystems which themselves are already degraded:
Example:
The lack of insulation of refuges and preserves from global warming.
Ultimately, the transformation of wilderness into a patchwork of static refuges and bio-reserves is but another form of human selection B the antithesis of the wild (pp. 47-50 and 53).
SOLUTION WHICH IS BOTH REASONABLE AND ETHICAL
SAVE THOSE ECOSYSTEMS STILL HEALTHY
This solution is based on the knowledge that there is nothing we can do to avoid the major manifestations of the end of the wild in the centuries ahead. The accumulation of our extinction debt is of such magnitude as to make recovery and restoration an illusion B even with Herculean efforts. We must stop pretending that the haphazard strategy of protecting some relic and ghost species, while preserving natural communities and areas where biodiversity is most crippled, are actions of any lasting ecological value (pp. 73-74).
We would reset our expectations of what is possible to do with the means and time we have.
Inner Changes
We would:
1. Come to Terms with the Results of our Actions: We must come to terms with the basic fact that the end of the wild is fundamentally about ourselves B not about an outside thing we call Athe environment.@ It is about our cultural norms, our values, and our priorities. The end of the wild is about how we have chosen to live, and how these choices affect the world around us. Our demand for instantly-on appliances, out-of-season vegetables, and ten-miles-per gallon armored vehicles to carry groceries home, means that we have to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (pp. 74-75).
2. Broaden our View of the World: We must see the implications of our shared existence and shared fate with all life on the planet, and must broaden B within ourselves, not because of laws or other mandatory institutions B our anthropocentric view of the world to include all life (p. 77).
(Solution which is both
reasonable and ethical, continued)
Outer Changes
Healthy Ecosystems::
Our primary focus would be healthy ecosystems. We would concentrate on protecting and preserving ecosystems and natural communities which are still strong and vibrant, and abandon trying to save biodiversity piecemeal at its weakest points. Many vestigial relic communities and ghost species must, unfortunately, be allowed to vanish.
In order to do this, we would:
1. Set up Natural Area Trusts (NATS): We would set up meta-preserves B Natural Area Trusts (NATS). Our aim would be to decouple human activity and human selection, and thereby minimize human selection.
NATS would be huge swaths of sea- and land-scape with connections across regions and continents. They would be preserved and protected. As much as possible, they would insulate from the effects of human selection:
a. Those ecosystem functions which are healthy.
b. Those evolutionary processes which are intact.
This would not an easy task, given that all surviving ecosystems and habitats are submerged in a far larger ocean of human activity, where human selection operates in full force and weedy species proliferate.
NATS would meet the following Criteria:
a. Be able to protect broad Ecosystem Functions and Processes in a dynamic Environment. These meta-preserves would be much more than Acritical habitats@ for specific species. Their environment would be dynamic.
b. Have future as well as present Ecological Value. We know that in the future, the effects of human selection (such as landscape fragmentation and global warming), will manifest themselves more fully. We must provide for that now.
(Solution which is both reasonable and ethical, Outer Changes, Healthy Ecosystems, NATS Criteria, continued)
c. Be Areas in which natural Selection can be managed. Life within NATS would be managed intensively in order to emulate as much as possible the natural processes of evolution. Species must be able to escape human encroachment, and humans must intervene to disperse species to new potential habitats.
Examples of species which humans would help disperse:
i. Species which have a restricted range.
ii. Species which are sessile.
d. Have highly porous Boundaries for Wildlife. NATS must be located within a broad network of corridors and connections, which allows wildlife to move freely and stochastically (randomly, probabilistically) to new areas. Movement, migration, and colonization are the goals, not imprisonment. The objective would be not so much to isolate human activity but rather to isolate the effects of human selection.
e. Have highly enforceable Boundaries for Humans. In order to isolate evolutionary pathways from human selection, it would be essential to protect the integrity and complexity of ecosystem processes within these areas. The areas would have strictly enforceable boundaries.
(Solution which is both reasonable and ethical, Outer Changes, continued)
Compromised Ecosystems::
We would save or delay the death of nature which is already severely compromised.
In order to do this, we would:
1. Continue prohibitory Policies. We would continue restrictive policies, even though their effects will only be transitory, and we know that they are not a prescription for restoring nature.
Policies such as the Endangered Species Act (1973) and the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES, 1973), buy time in the near term, giving us the opportunity to examine the ecological roles of relic and ghost species, and assess the impact of their loss on ecosystems. These policies may enable us to maintain viable populations of still-plentiful relics for the next 100 years, as we try to put in place larger-scale landscape protection.
2. Minimize human Selection: We would study the processes of natural selection even as they are dying, and thereby find ways of minimizing the human-selection component of human activities. Function, not form, such as aesthetics, would be our sole priority.
All Ecosystems::
We would protect both healthy and dying ecosystems from alien and invasive species.
In order to do this, we would:
Manage alien Plant and Animal species rigorously. We would control the flow of exotic parasites, pests and predators, such as the Formosan Termite and the Zebra Mussel (pp. 73-88. Wikipedia AEndangered Species Act@ 2007, p. 1. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the United States, Land Species, Item b, Animals, Item ii, The Formosan Termite. See also the present document under Species according to their Future, The Weedy Species, Invasive in the United States, Aquatic Species, Item b, Animals, Item ii, The Zebra Mussel).
STEPHEN MYER=S CONCLUSION: What is the essence of our morality, if it fails to encompass most of life on Earth? (p. 88).
Since the invention of the first stone tool, humans have pounded the wild into a shape that fits their needs. They have converted the bounty of nature into commodities. As the human population has jumped into the billions, the rise of human selection as the dominant evolutionary force was inevitable, and so was the end of the wild (p. 89).
We have lost the wild for now. Perhaps it will return in 5 to 10 million years. (I think 35,000,000 years is a more probable figure. See under My Conclusions, under Not in 10, but in 35 million Years) (p. 90. Wilson 1992/1999, pp. xviii, xxii-xxiii and 15).
MY CONCLUSIONS
1. PRAISE
Stephen Myer=s The end of the wild, is a thoughtful book, lucidly drawing the obvious, horrendous conclusion from the accumulated data of the past several decades. The biosphere, as we know it, is dying, and the cause of this, is ourselves. Myers makes constructive suggestions for what we can do to avoid an even more cataclysmic end than the one which is happening now.
2. THE END OF THE WILD NEITHER INEVITABLE NOR OUR CHOICE
I have a criticism which centers around Myers= conclusion. The conclusion has two parts, one contradicting the other.
On the one hand, Myers considers the end of the wild Ainevitable.@ He states:
ASince the invention of the first stone tool, humanity has pounded the wild into a shape that fits its needs. Forests are transformed to fields. Swamps are drained. Arid landscapes are irrigated. Mountains are flattened and valleys filled. The bounty of nature is converted into commodities: timber, food, luxuries. Co-existing with nature has always meant taming it B consuming it. As the human population jumped into the billions, the rise of human selection as the dominant evolutionary force was inevitable, and so was the end of the wild@ (p. 89).
On the other hand, Myers considers us, humans, responsible for the end of the wild. Our choices have made it happen. Myers states:
AThe end of the wild is fundamentally about us, not about this thing we call the environment. It is about our cultural norms, our values, and our priorities. The end of the wild is about how we have chosen to live and how those choices relate to the world around us@ (p. 74).
AThe end of the wild is about us. Demanding instant-on appliances, out-of-season vegetables, and ten-miles-per-gallon armored transports to move groceries home, means drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . To achieve lawns free of weeds, fruits and vegetables free of defects, and picnics free of mosquitoes, we unload millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the soil, water and air. Weedy species proliferate; others retreat@ (pp. 75-76).
The end of the wild cannot both be inevitable and the result of the voluntary choices of humans.
The contradiction arises from Myers= assumption that the level of consciousness of humans has not changed in 2 million years B that is, since the Paleolithic Period (The Old Stone Age), which extended from 2 million years ago to between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago (Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).
This is not so, as Ken Wilber, in his many books, has elaborated in detail. Wilber traces the phylogenetic evolution of human consciousness in the following major stages:
Time of beginning of Stage Stage
700,000 B.C.E. Foraging (hunting and gathering)
200,000 B.C.E. ATyphon@ (Body-self)
9,500 B.C.E. ALow Mythic-membership@
4,500 B.C.E. AHigh Mythic-membership@
2,500 B.C.E. ALow Egoic@ (in the West)
500 B.C.E. AMiddle Egoic@(in the West)
1,500 C.E. - Present AHigh Egoic@ (in the West)
1,980 C.E. APsychic,@ just beginning in the West.
Higher stages are available on an individual basis, but all humans pass through all the stages in sequence [Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden). Wilber 1983/2005 (A sociable God). Wilber 1995/2000 (Sex, ecology, spirituality). Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything). Wilber 2000/2001 (The eye of Spirit); all of these summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), pp. 23-42].
The AMiddle Egoic@ stage (500 B.C.E. - 1,500 C.E.) and AHigh Egoic@ stage (1,500 C.E. - Present) in the West, have been characterized by a dissociation of the mind (our ego) and our body (the material world, nature, the environment, the wild). This dissociation has played a crucial role in our development of a technology insufficiently balanced by inner values (depth, emotions, post-rational wisdom, a sense of being part of the universe, not merely an observer).
The present end of the wild was not pre-determined. It did not have to be. It was not Ainevitable.@ Our choices have indeed brought it about B and our choices have been determined by our stage of consciousness, the specific way in which we have navigated each stage, and our pathology within each stage.
The boundary which we, in the West, have drawn between Aus@ and Athe world around us,@ has now proved disastrous for the continuation of evolution.
I place in context the two crucial stages in Europe and the Near East, as follows.
9,500 - 2,500 B.C.E.:
The Mythic-membership Stage of Consciousness: Around 7,500, the cult of the Great Mother begins, reflecting the AMythic-membership@ stage of consciousness to which humans now have gained access. The stage is characterized by a consciousness which is little more than an awareness of the body, instincts and nature. The Great Mother is a simple biological nourisher and fertility token, magically amplified to cosmic proportions [Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything), pp. 48, 53, 64 and 322. Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden), p. 93; both books summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 25].
2,500 - 500 B.C.E.:
AThe Low Egoic Stage,@ in Europe and the Near East: The ego B the unique individuality B emerges. Consciousness now has an egoic structure. A new type of myth, the hero myth, expresses this major development. The theme of the myth is an individual hero who triumphs over the Great Mother and wins the battle against her, not allowing himself to be sacrificially swallowed up and returned within her B that is, returned to a consciousness prior to ego development, a sub-consciousness.
In the East, the Great Mother is transformed (is differentiated from the ego) and becomes an egoic AGreat Goddess@ taking her place among the array of egoic divinities, respected and venerated. She would even participate in the subtle level of consciousness, as this stage would become available, at least to some.
In the West, however, the ego would dissociate (rather than differentiate) from the Great Mother. She would be suppressed, and hence (except for Mary), be left out completely from subsequent mythology. There would be no Great Goddess in the West. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are patriarchal in the extreme, without a trace of a high level Goddess [Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden), pp. 192-198; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 29].
500 B.C.E. - 1500 C.E.:
AThe Middle Egoic Stage,@ in Europe and the Near East: The dissociation of the ego (the mental) from the typhonic and membership structures (the body-bound) B the mind from the body B becomes a permanent element in the European tradition. This dissociation would henceforth be the distinguishing mark of European and Western man. Reason and instincts are at war. The ego is the new self, and pretends to be God B it is cosmo-centric and immortal [Wilber 1981/1996 (Up from Eden), pp. 188, 199, 200, 202, 206-209, 211 and 225; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 33].
1500 C.E. - Present:
AThe High Egoic Stage,@ in Europe and the Near East: Around 1600, the Enlightenment is heralded by Rene Descartes (1596-1650), followed by John Locke (1632-1704), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The approach to knowledge is the representation paradigm B the ANewtonian,@ ACartesian,@ Amechanistic,@ Amirror of nature,@ Areflection@ paradigm. The self is left out completely, as not being part of the world observed. The Amap-maker@ is not included in the map. The paradigm assumes that the thought process is so radically different from the material world that it, by itself, can accurately reflect the world [Wilber 1996 (A brief history of everything), pp. 53-54, 58-60 and 64-65; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 36].
The Age of Reason: Around 1700, in the West, reason emerges as the basic organizing principle of society. Two trends characterize the Age of Reason:
a. ANo more Myths!@: The new egos of Modernity reject all myths B and with them, religion. They achieve the separation of Church and State. They demand to be politically, legally and morally both free and equal. Democracy begins and liberation movements (women, slaves, gays) emerge.
b. ANo more Ascent!@: The new rational-egos cease to look upward for salvation, and focus instead on the glories of the manifest world.
The AModern West@
i. Recognizes as real only exterior, empirical, sensori-motor objects:
ATrue observation must necessarily be external to the observer.@
Auguste Comte (1798-1857)
ii. Derisively rejects church religion and refuses any pre-rational, anthropomorphic, mythic God figure:
AGod is dead.@
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Rational egos are contemptuous of the great contemplative philosopher-sages, from Plotinus (205-270 C.E.) to Meister Eckhart (c.1260-c.1328). They refuse virtually everything these sages have to say, and deny the validity of virtually the entire corpus of mythological belief [Wilber 1995/2000 (Sex, ecology, spirituality), pp. 380-384, 389, 392, 397-398, 405, 409 and 423, 425 and 427; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 38. Wilber 1977/1993 (The spectrum of consciousness), pp. 20-21; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War), p. 50].
Set in motion by the Enlightenment, Modernity is characterized by rationality and industrialization. The Modern West increasingly knows and manipulates the world. It is a world, however, which is objectified:
* AA dull affair, soundless, scentless, colorless, merely the hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly @[Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)].
* AThe disenchantment of the world@ [Max Weber (1864-1920)].
* AThe disqualified universe@ [Lewis Mumford (1895-1990)].
* AThe nightmare of one-dimensional man@ [Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979)].
* A[Seeing humans] as objects of information, never subjects in communication@ [Michel Foucault (1926-1984)].
* AThe colonization of art and morals by science [Jurgen Habermas (1929-)].
Western culture is dominated by an Ainstrumental,@ Atechnical@ rationality. The universe is a massive interlocking order of surfaces, a great net of systems theory, merely empirical and physical, to be known only with the senses or their extension. Monological reason marginalizes all non-reason. Internal nature (the body, emotions, interior depth) is repressed. Nothing but reason seems valid [Wilber 1995/2000 (Sex, ecology, spirituality), pp. 427, 432-433, 452 and 465-466; summarized in Hall 2005e (A transpersonal View of War,@ p. 39. Wilber 2000 (Integral psychology), pp. 59, 61, 64 and 70-71); summarized in Hall 2006a (Integral Psychology), p. 6].
At The Root of the End of the Wild: Wilber shows, therefore, that the dissociation between mind and body, which began during the AMiddle Egoic Stage@ (500 B.C.E. -1,500, C.E.), distorted ego development in the AHigh Egoic Stage@ (1,500-Present). It led to the development of a cold rationality, insufficiently balanced by the humanity of humans B their emotions, interior depth, wisdom, their feeling that they are inexorably part of the universe (not merely observers of it), their drive to grow interiorly and encompass an ever-larger part of the Kosmos.
Our monological rationality, the very rationality which has enabled our technological feats, is at the root of our marginalization of the body, nature, the environment, the wild. Hence, we are destroying the very nest in which we live, and on which we depend of our lives.
The dissociation of mind and body mind is a pathology of the egoic stage in the development of consciousness in the West. From the perspective of the stages in consciousness development, and the possible pathology inherent in each stage, the conclusion that the end of the wild is Ainevitable@ is unwarranted.
The end of the wild is indeed the result of our choices B choices which spring from the stage of consciousness in which we find ourselves, the way we navigate the stage, and whether we succumb to the inherent pathologies of that stage. In the West, our technological feats have been unbalanced by a commensurate emphasis on inner growth, a connection to a higher, intangible Reality, a connection with the All.
3. NOT IN 10, BUT IN 35 MILLION YEARS: Meyer ends his book looking into the future:
AWe have lost the wild for now. Perhaps in five or ten million years, it will return.@
This is sad enough, but the probability is that, if biodiversity ever returns, it will not be in ten, but in around 35 million years.
There have been five great extinction spasms since the origin of life on Earth 3,850,000,000 years ago. These have been spaced over 440,000,000 years, at very approximately 100,000,000-year intervals. Combining the Permian and Triassic extinctions because they were so close together, evolution has required on the average 35,000,000 to restore pre-disaster levels of diversity. Table 2 shows the data.
Table 2: Recovery Time after Great Extinctions (a)
|
Life/ Great Extinction Spasm Number |
Years ago |
Years for Recovery to the Original Level of Diversity |
|
Life begins |
3,850,000,000 |
|
|
No. 1: During the Paleozoic Era, ending the Ordovician Period. |
440,000,000 |
25,000,000 |
|
No. 2: During the Paleozoic Era, ending the Devonian Period. |
365,000,000 |
30,000,000 |
|
No. 3: During the Paleozoic Era, ending the Permian Period. |
245,000,000 |
Recovery incomplete before Spasm No. 4. |
|
No. 4: During the Mesozoic Era, Triassic Period. |
210,000,000 |
Recovery from the Permian and Triassic extinctions combined takes 100,000,000 years. |
|
No. 5: During the Mesozoic Era, ending the Cretaceous Period |
65,000,000 |
20,000,000 |
|
No. 6: At Present |
0 |
- |
|
Average time to recovery |
- |
35,000,000 |
(a) Wilson 1992/1999, pp. xviii, xxii-xxiii and 15; summarized in Hall 2005a (Ask the Mosquitoes), p. 7.
(My Conclusions, continued)
4. THREAT TO LIFE FROM CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer shows, with the example of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), how the power of human selection comes from its multiplicative nature. Urban development, agriculture, resource consumption, pollution and alien species, considered separately, may seem manageable problems. These forces converge, however, and small effects of one are magnified by small effects of others. Relic species face an overwhelming web of threats impossible to disentangle. Meta-disturbances, such as global warming and economic globalization, amplify and make irreversible the more easily accessible, localized human disturbances (pp. 23-35).
Another perspective (not exclusive of Meyer=s) is to look at the issue from the point of view of our wish to be God, and how it drives us to develop the technologies which are now destroying life.
We want to be:
* Omnipotent. Fossil fuel technologies, atomic energy, genetic engineering and nano-technology are helping us powerfully toward this (impossible) goal.
* Omnipresent. Fossil fuel-powered transportation and nuclear-powered space exploration are helping us to almost achieve the goal of being everywhere at the same time.
* Immortal. We harness all of our technologies toward the goal of making life more secure and warding off the grinning skull. Artificial intelligence and cyberspace, for example, mimic a mind separate from a body, and hence, immortal.
Nothing in life comes free, and the side-effects of all modern technologies include the destruction of the wild. Their convergence decreases exponentially the chances that nature will ever again be as we know it today.
Modern Atranscendental@ technologies, dangerous to the wild: Modern technologies, pursued vigorously, and yet converging to pose a serious threat to life, include the following:
a. Fossil Fuel Technologies: Our profligate use of coal, oil and natural gas has made us almost omnipotent. Global warming is a side-effect. Our present dilemma is to give up our near omnipotence for the sake of the wild [Monbiot 2007; summarized in Hall 2007 (Global Warming), pp. 1-64].
b. The Manipulation of the Atom: Atomic weapons and atomic power, the latter either for space exploration or civilian use, make us almost omnipotent. Radiation contamination of the environment, whether intentional (as in war or terrorism), accidental, or simply from the accumulation of nuclear waste, is an unintended consequence. The destruction of the gene pool of all species, including ours, has the potential of being disastrous for all life [Dumas 1999; summarized in Hall 2004 (Nuclear Power), pp. 1-16. Hall 2005b (Silent Omnicide). van de Keur 2001, pp. 1-4; summarized in Hall 2005c (Depleted Uranium), pp. 1-10. van Wyck 2005; summarized in Hall 2005d (A psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary ecological Threat), pp. 1-16].
c. Genetic Engineering: Genetic engineering is helping us not only to be God but to Aimprove@ His work. Ecological integrity and biological diversity seem very secondary considerations in comparison to the desire to Aown@ (patent and monopolize) plant, animal, and even human Alife forms@ [Noble 1997/1999, p. 206; summarized in Hall 2004a (Technology driven by Faith in God). p. 20. See also the present document under Solution which partakes of Magic, Genetic Engineering].
In 1998, Daniel Koshland, former editor of Science, expressed it thus:
AIs there an argument against making superior individuals?@
[Daniel Koshland, cited in McKibben 2003, p. 27; summarized in Hall 2004b (Besting God), p. 7].
In 2002, Gregory Stock, Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote about the re-triggering by genetic engineering of our dream for immortality:
AIn light of our yearnings for immortality, the underlying biology of aging may well be the first germ line intervention to truly tempt us.@
[Gregory Stock, in Re-designing humans B our inevitable genetic future, 2002, p. 150, cited in McKibben pp. 47 and 147; summarized in Hall 2004b (Besting God), p. 7].
d. Artificial Intelligence: The aim, overtly verbalized, of pioneers of Aartificial intelligence,@ Aartificial life,@ cyberspace and virtual reality, is to create an immortal mind, superior to our present one, and able to participate helpfully in the processes of the wild [Noble 1997/1999, pp. 205-206; summarized in Hall 2004a (Technology driven by Faith in God), p. 17].
The Afather@ of artificial intelligence, Alan Turing (1912-1954) revealed the hubris:
AOne may hope that this process [of a machine learning new tricks] will be more expeditious than evolution. The survival of the fittest is a slow method of measuring advantages. The experimenter, by the exercise of [machine designed] intelligence, should be able to speed it up@ [Noble 1997/1999, p. 151; summarized in Hall 2004a (Technology driven by Faith in God), p. 16].
e. Nano-technology: The power of nano-technology to make us feel like God is enormous. The first biological computer was produced in 2001. It consists of naturally occurring enzymes able to manipulate DNA. It can be programmed by choosing particular software molecules and mixing them in the solution. The number of these computers which can co-exist and compute in parallel, at room temperature, is one trillion (1,000,000,000,000 ) in a drop of aqueous solution the size of 0.1 milliliter (ml) [McKibben 2003, p. 66; summarized in Hall 2004b (Besting God), p. 5].
f. Robotics: Interfacing with machines, such as cars and computers, necessarily turns us into machines ourselves B at least temporarily while we are using the machine. Only those faculties of ours to which the machine responds, are used, and these faculties most glaringly do not include emotions, depth, perspective, meditation, wisdom, a sense of connection with the All.
In his 2002 book, Flesh and machines B how robots will change us, Rodney Brooks, former robotics engineer at Stanford university, predicts:
AThose of us alive today, over the course of our life times, will morph ourselves into machines@ [Brooks 2002, p. 22, cited in McKibben 2003, pp. 68, 72 and 214; summarized in Hall 2004b (Besting God), p. 8].
That is, robotics will foster in us a state of mind in the opposite direction to the one we need, if we are to care about the wild. We already are too much like Amachines.@ Machines cannot save the wild. More machines, more technology, more cold monological rationality cannot stop our crime against life on Earth. Only a regained sense that we are part of nature, emotionally and spiritually connected with it, can help us move in the direction of saving what we can of the wild.
(My Conclusions, continued)
5. TIME ROBBED FROM EVOLUTION: The Sun is a star which has been shining with approximately the same intensity for the past 5 billion years. It is in the middle of a probable total life span of 10 billion years. From this perspective, 35 million years of Alost time@ for the evolution of complex life, including the evolution of consciousness, is but a mere 0.7 percent of the remaining life of the sun.
However, the luminosity of the sun is expected to double during the second half of its life span (the next 5 billion years). How will this affect the ability of Earth to sustain life? Will global warming compound this shortening of time during which Earth will be able to sustain life?
Will there be sufficient time for the majority of humans to progress in consciousness development to the point where they feel one with the universe (they already are, of course), such as the enlightened sages of yesteryear and today? From the point of view of consciousness development, this is the trajectory of evolution B a trajectory having reached the point now at which one species, us humans, has self-consciousness. Will evolution ever see its culmination, its apogee? In other words, will the majority of people ever reach the stage of consciousness hitherto enjoyed only by sages? [Ferreira 2006, pp. 76, 140, 143 and 144. Arnett 2006. Both sources summarized in Hall 2006b (Our Universe), p. 27].
Any human interference would seem to be detrimental to evolution.
(My Conclusions, continued)
6. THE SIZE OF THE HUMAN POPULATION
Myer does not discuss the size of the human population. In my opinion, a discussion of the end of the wild cannot be divorced from the exponentially increasing numbers of humans. The end of the wild is related both to resource use and population size.
a. Resources and Physical Area: In 1999, David Pimentel, at Cornell University, estimated that it would require at least three times the earth=s entire resources and physical area to provide the world population with the material and energy consumed by an average North American [Pimentel 1999, cited in McCluney 2005, pp. 177, 182 and 304; summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), p. 6].
Since the Earth=s resources are presently diminishing, humans need to decide the level of resource use which will be sustainable in the long-term, and adjust their population size accordingly. A larger population size will mean fewer resources available per capita. A smaller population size will mean more available resources per capita [See Hall 2007 (Global Warming), pp. 6-7 and 48-49].
b. Ecological Footprint: In 1961, the ecological footprint of humanity was 0.5 planets. In 2002, it was 1.2 planets (The ecological footprint of humanity is the biologically productive land or sea area required to produce a yield sufficient to support a human population and absorb the corresponding carbon dioxide emissions [Living Planet Fund 2006, pp. 2-3. Wackernagel 2002, cited and quoted in McCluney 2005, pp. 176 and 304; both of these sources summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), pp. 6 and 32].
The more than doubling of humanity=s ecological footprint during 41 years, was due both to the almost doubling of the population size (from 3.3 billion in 1964 to 6.2 billion in 2002), and to increased demand [United States Bureau of the Census 2006, pp. 1 and 3. See also Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), p. 73].
c. Energy Consumption: In 1994, Pimentel estimated that the consumption of energy in the United States was 60.0 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year. For humanity as a whole, the consumption was 11.4 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year.
Pimentel calculated that:
i. With a human per capita energy consumption of 30 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year (that is, half that of the United States in 1994), a population of between one and two billion would be sustainable with solar power.
ii. With a human per capita energy consumption of 11.5 barrels of oil equivalents per capita per year (that is, equal to the present world average, and equal to 19 percent that of the United States in 1994), a population of 3 billion would be sustainable with solar power [Pimentel et al 1994, pp. 2-4; summarized in Hall 2006c (Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality), pp.70-72. See also Hall 2007 (Global Warming), p. 51].
Population numbers cannot be omitted from discussions of resource use B or, in the case of Meyer=s discussion, the end of the wild.
REFERENCES
Unless specified otherwise, all page numbers refer to:
Meyer, Stephen. 2007. The end of the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Somerville, MA: Boston Review.
Other references are:
Arnett, Bill, AA Multimedia Tour of the Solar System B One Star, eight Planets and more.@
http://www.nineplanets.org.html. Updated August 25, 2006. Accessed September 9, 2006.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2006b. AOur Universe.@ August 31, 2006 (38 pages, unpublished).
Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6th edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/Gale Group.
Dumas, Lloyd. 1999. Lethal arrogance. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin=s.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2004c. ANuclear Power B an infallible Technology for infallible Humans?@ May 6. (16 pages, unpublished).
Ferreira, Pedro. 2006. The state of the universe B a primer in modern cosmology. London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2006b. AOur Universe.@ August 31, 2006 (38 pages, unpublished).
Ghazanchyan.com, 2002. AMalaria in Armenia B Malaria Vector Control.@
http://chsr.aua.am/malaria/eng/vector.php Accessed July 2, 2007.
Hall, Francoise,
2004a. ATechnology driven by Faith in God.@ April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).
2004b, ABesting God B Genetic engineering, Nano-technology and Robotics.@ April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).
2004c. ANuclear Power B an infallible Technology for infallible Humans?@ May 6. (16 pages, unpublished).
2005a. AAsk the Mosquitoes.@ March 19 (13 pages, unpublished).
2005b. ASilent Omnicide B the Destruction of the human Gene Pool.@ April 16 (13 pages, unpublished).
2005c. ADepleted Uranium.@ April 30 (10 pages, unpublished).
2005d, AA psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary ecological Threat.@ May 21 (16 pages, unpublished).
2005e. AA transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness. November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).
2006a. AIntegral Psychology.@ January 22 (16 pages, unpublished).
2006b. AOur Universe.@ August 31, 2006 (38 pages, unpublished).
2006c. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).
2007. AGlobal Warming B An Assessment of possible Solutions.@ May 26 (64 pages, unpublished).
International Rhino Foundation, 2002. ASumatran Rhino.@
http://www/rhinos-irf.org/rhinoinformation/sumatranrhino/index.htm. Accessed June 29, 2007.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 2006. AThreats Authority File (Version 2.1). Red List of threatened Species.@
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/major_threats.
Kirby, Alex. 2003. AUN=s Clarion Call for Great Apes.@ BBC News. UK Version. November 26.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/sci/tech/3237726.stm. Accessed July 1, 2007.
Living Planet Fund, 2006. ALiving Planet Report 2006.@
http://www.livingplanetfund.com/infro 1pr.aspx.html. Accessed December 31, 2006.
Marchant, Joanna, 2001. ALions face Extinction in large Parts of Africa.@ NewScientist.com. November 1.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/endangered-species/dn1500. Accessed June 30, 2007.
MarineBio.org, 2007. AThreatened and Endangered Species.@ June 25.
http://marinebio.org/Oceans/ThreatenedEndangeredSpecies.asp. Accessed June 30, 2007.
McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough B staying human in an engineered age. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt/ Owl.
Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004b, ABesting God B Genetic engineering, Nano-technology and Robotics.@ April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).
Mittermeier, Russell et al, 2005. APrimates in Peril B The World=s 25 most endangered Primates, 2004-2006.@ April.
http://www/sumatranorangutan.org/site_mawas/UK/NEWS/diasDB/OTHER_news/2005. Accessed July 4, 2007.
Monbiot, George. 2007. Heat B how to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End.
Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2007. AGlobal Warming B An Assessment of possible Solutions.@ May 26 (64 pages, unpublished).
Noble, David. 1997/1999. The religion of technology B the divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.
Summarized in Hall, 2004a. ATechnology driven by Faith in God.@ April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).
Noss, Reed, 1990. AThe Ecological Effects of Roads, or The Road to Destruction.@ Reprinted from Killing Roads.
The date of this article is uncertain. Reed Noss was the first to review the literature on the ecological impact of roads. A bibliography with 6,000 citations for this article was published in The Road RIPorter 2000, Vol. 5.4 (July/August). Noss is presently Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation Biology at the University of Central Florida. He is on the Advisory Committee of the Wildlands Center for the Prevention of Roads, Missoula, MT.
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/roads1.ht
Pimentel, David and Mario Giampietro. 1994. AFood, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy.@ Executive Summary, November 21. Carrying Capacity Network, Washington, D.C.
http://dieoff.org/page40.htm. Accessed November 26, 2006.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2006c. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).
Pimentel, David, 1999. AHow many People can the Earth support?@ Population Press, Vol. 5, No. 3. March/April. Cited in Ross McCluney, 2005. APopulation, Energy and economic Growth B the moral Dilemma.@ In Andrew McKillop with Sheila Newman, Editors. 2005. The final energy crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2006c. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).
Rylands, Anthony, undated (after 2003). AHow many Great Apes are there?@ International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Species Survival Commission (SSC).
The date of this article is uncertain. Anthony Rylands is with the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, D.C. He is Deputy Chair of the IUCN/SSC, Primate Specialist Group (PSG). The IUCN/SSC/PSG, Section on Great Apes (SGA) was created in 2003, and Anthony Rylands is the Co-Regional Vice-Chair of its Neotropical Section (IUCN/SSC/PSG/SGA/Neotropical Section). The article was probably written around 2005.
http://www.primate-sg.org/apetaxa.htm. Accessed July 1, 2007.
United Nations 2006, AGreat Apes Survival Project (GRASP), Partners.@ November 23.
http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/43.html. Accessed July 1, 2007.
United States
Bureau of the Census, 2006. ATotal mid-year Population for the World, 1950-2050.@ August 24.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html. Accessed October 11, 2006.
Department of Agriculture
National Agricultural Library, National Invasive Species Information Center.
2006. Animals, Asian Tiger Mosquito.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/asiantigmos.shtml. Last modified September 21. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2006. Microbes, West Nile Virus.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/microbes/westnile.shtml. Last modified November 20. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Animals, Formosan Subterranean Termite.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/watermilfoil.shtml. Last modified February 20. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Aquatic species, Eurasian Watermilfoil.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/watermilfoil.shtml. Last modified June 19. Accessed June 26, 2007.
2007. Aquatic species, Hydrilla.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/hydrilla.shtml. Last modified June 12. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Aquatic species, Sea Lamprey.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/lamprey.shtml. Last modified February 12. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Aquatic species, Zebra Mussel.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/zebramussel.shtml. Last modified April 4. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Microbes, Avian Influenza.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/microbes/avianflu.shtml. Last modified February 12. Accessed June 28, 2007.
(United
States,
Department
of Agriculture
National Agricultural Library, National Invasive Species Information Center, continued)
2007. Plants, Scotch Thistle.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/scotchthistle.shtml. Last modified June 18. Accessed June 28, 2007.
2007. Plants, Spotted Knapweed.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/spotknapweed.shtml. Last modified June 18. Accessed June 28, 2007.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. ATiger (Panthera tigris). June.
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_tiger.html. Accessed June 27, 2007.
Geological Survey, 2001. APrescribed Fire, Grazing impact Sierran Forests.@ (Jon Keeley). Reprinted from People, Land and Water (the employees= news magazine of the Department of the Interior), July/August 2000.
http://www.usgs.gov/invasive_species/plw.
National Arboretum, 2006. AInvasive Plants.@ July 2.
http://www.usna.usda.gov/Gardens/invasive.
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004. APlant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas B Herbaceous Plants: Lesser Celandine.@
http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/rafi.htm. Updated October 7, 2004. Accessed July 3, 2007.
State of California, Humboldt County, 2006. AWest Nile virus B Frequently-asked Questions.@ July 20.
http://www.humboldthealthalert.org/documents/WNV FAQ.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2007.
University of Florida, 2005. AAquatic, Wetland and invasive Plants B Hydrilla verticillata.@ Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants.
http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/hyvepic.html. Accessed June 27, 2007.
University of Tennessee, undated. AInvasive Aquatics.@
http://plantsciences.utk.edu/pdf/InvasiveAquatics.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2007.
van de Keur, Henk, 2001, AWhere and how much Depleted Uranium has been fired? B A March 2001 Update of a Workshop held at the Campaign against Depleted Uranium (CADU) Conference, Manchester England, November 4, 2000.@
van Wyck, Peter. 2005. Signs of danger B waste, trauma and nuclear threat. (Theory out of Bounds, Volume 26). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005d, AA psychoanalytic Approach to contemporary ecological Threat.@ May 21 (16 pages, unpublished).
Wackernagel, Mathis, 2002. AThe ecological Footprint of 146 Nations.@ Redefining Progress, media release. Cited and quoted in Ross McCluney, 2005. APopulation, Energy and Economic Growth B the moral Dilemma.@ In Andrew McKillop with Sheila Newman, Editors. 2005. The final energy crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.
Summarized in Francoise Hall 2006c. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).
Wikipedia, 2007.
AAfrican Bush Elephant.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Bush_Elephant. Updated June 25, 2007. Accessed June 29, 2007.
ACalifornia Condor.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Condor. Updated June 26, 2007. Accessed June 29, 2007.
ACheatgrass (Drooping Brome).@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drooping_Brome. Updated July 4, 2007. Accessed July 6, 2007.
ACoyote.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote. Updated June 28, 2007. Accessed July 1, 2007.
ADandelion.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelion. Updated July 1, 2007. Accessed July 3, 2007.
(Wikipedia, 2007, continued)
AEndangered Species Act.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act. Updated June 20, 2007. Accessed June 24, 2007.
AGiant Panda.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant Panda. Updated June 29, 2007. Accessed June 29, 2007.
AIUCN Red List.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List. Updated June 25, 207. Accessed June 30, 2007.
AKuznets Curve.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve. Updated May 8, 2007. Accessed June 24, 2007.
ALesser Celandine.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_celandine. Updated June 12, 2007. Accessed July 3, 2007.
ALyme Disease.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/List of people who have died of Lyme disease. Updated June 27, 2007. Accessed June 28, 2007.
ARaccoon.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon. Updated July 1, 2007. Accessed July 1, 2007.
ASevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe acute respiratory syndrome. Updated June 27, 2007. Accessed June 28, 2007.
ASumatran Rhinoceros.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatran Rhinoceros. Updated June 25, 2007. Accessed June 29, 2007.
ASwordfih.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish. Updated July 6, 2007. Accessed July 6, 2007.
ATiger.@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger. Updated June 27, 2007. Accessed June 27, 2007.
ATuna.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna. Updated July 6, 2007. Accessed July 6, 2007.
AWeedy Species.@
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Weedy_Species. Updated January 2, 2007. Accessed June 27, 2007.
Wilber, Ken.
1977/1993. The spectrum of consciousness. 20th anniversary edition. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006a. AIntegral Psychology.@ January 22 (16 pages, unpublished).
1981/1996. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
1983/2005. A sociable God B (1983 subtitle: a brief introduction to a transcendental sociology), 2005 subtitle: toward a new understanding of religion. Boston: Shambhala.
1995/2000. Sex, ecology, spirituality B the spirit of evolution. 2nd edition, Revised. Boston: Shambhala.
1996. A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.
2000. Integral psychology B consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
2000/2001. The eye of spirit B an integral vision for the world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.
The last five of these books summarized in Francoise Hall 2005b. AA transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).
Wilson, Edward. 1992/1999. The diversity of life. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton. Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005a. AAsk the Mosquitoes.@ March 19 (13 pages, unpublished).
World Bank and United Nations University, 2000. Millennium ecosystem assessment B ecosystems and human well-being, synthesis. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute/Island Press.
Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006c. AOur physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality and our Spirituality.@ November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).
World Wildlife Fund, 2007. ATiger Study.@
http://www.worldwildlife.org/tigers/index.cfm?sc=AWY0707WCG00&searchen=google. Accessed June 27, 2007.
Zhang, Baowei et al, 2007. AGenetic Viability and Population History of the Giant Panda B Putting an End to the Evolutionary Dead-end.@ Molecular Biology and Evolution, May 19.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org.cgi.content.abstract/msm099vl. Accessed June 29, 2007.
***