ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS: E.O. WILSON AND THE
SEARCH FOR A MIDDLE GROUND
Submitted to the
School of Interdisciplinary Studies
(Western College Program)
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor Philosophy
Interdisciplinary Studies
by
Gregory T. Dutton
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2004
APPROVED
Advisor_____________________________
(William Green)
2
ABSTRACT
ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS: E.O. WILSON AND THE
SEARCH FOR A MIDDLE GROUND
By: Gregory T. Dutton
Through analyses of today’s debate over the current and future status of the environment,
and the collected works of E.O. Wilson, we can form a realistic vision of the worlds
environmental status. Concurrently we can map out steps that humanity must take in
order to reinsert our species into the dynamic equilibrium of the environment, and thus
continue to survive and thrive. This paper begins with an in-depth analysis of
environmental optimists and pessimists. The analysis relies heavily on the writings of
Bill McKibben and Gregg Easterbrook since these set the extremes of the debate. This
chapter introduces and discusses the methods for debating the issues and outlines many
of the stances arrived at through these methods. Statistical, philosophical/ethical, and
rhetorical methods are covered. What follows, are three chapters each covering a period
of E.O. Wilsons life. I first examine his childhood experiences and what shaped his
scientific mentality up to his publication of the theory of island biogeography. The next
chapter focuses on his writings in sociobiology and explores the effects that this new
theory had on his ways of thinking. The last chapter is concerned with his most recent
work. It discusses the evolution of his thought, his current status as a staunch and worldrenowned conservationist, and his views on the present and future status of our global
environment. The point of these last three chapters is to show how, through Wilsons life,
he has been an optimist and a pessimist and how these feelings influenced his work.
Last, is a chapter pointing out the changes between optimistic and pessimistic views
during his life and how these changes correlate with the authors discussed in the first
chapter. It also assesses the possibility of enacting Wilsons plan for the future of our
planet. Overall, many of his ideas are far-fetched and unrealistic. It is determined that
our planet is in a state of environmental crisis, though not as bad as many portray. The
conclusion is that sustainability and conservation of remaining natural landscapes and
their biodiversity should be top priorities in the coming decades.
3
Introduction
4
Ch.1: Optimistic and Pessimistic Environmental Views
6
Statistical evidence
Rhetorical evidence
Ethics and Philosophy
7
13
20
Ch.2: E.O. Wilson: Early Days
27
Ch.3: E.O. Wilson: Days of Controversy
31
Ch.4: E.O. Wilson: Later Days of Philosophy
40
Ch.5: Synthesis
55
Works Cited
68
4
Introduction
Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have made enormous leaps in
their technology and scientific advancements. These leaps of invention have
brought about a standard of living in richer countries unparalleled in history.
Unfortunately, these changes have come seemingly at the cost of the planet on
which we live.
In the last several decades the environmental movement has risen from
grassroots efforts to an international cause. On one side of this debate is the
vocal group of doomsayers, or pessimists; primarily hailing from academic
backgrounds. They stand on a platform of mass species extinction, global
warming due to human interference, over- population, and declining purity of air,
water and soil. In their minds our future is bleak unless drastic changes are
made, and some even believe that we are already doomed in the near decades.
The other side of the environmental coin is the self- proclaimed realists, or
optimists, consisting mainly of economists and politicians. In their eyes we are
as a planet over-reacting to the current environmental situation. This is a more
varied category of theories from those who believe technology and science will
always find a cure to our problems, to those who suggest we actually have no
problem and that things are getting better everyday, with or without the actions of
humans. There even exists a certain sect of optimists, who believe we can do no
wrong, and that the planet will adapt to meet our needs.
E. O. Wilson views our current situation as approaching a bottleneck. In
his mind we are at a place in history where we have reached the point where the
5
actions we take in as short a time as the next decade will decide the future of
humanity. Either we will survive the bottleneck and come out on the other side
an even more prosperous civilization which will continue to survive or the
bottleneck will squash life as we know it. In that case there will be dramatic
catastrophes stemming from long ignored environmental degradation, or as
Norman Myers terms it; environmental discontinuity (Myers and Simon, 1994).
Not all scientists, writers of just those concerned about the environment
agree with Wilson. There are some people who say that the world is not as bad
as the media says. There are also people who say the world is in much worse
shape than the media suggests. In the pages this debate will be outlined and
discussed in detail. Wilsons life will be examined for indicators of the
environmental status and all authors shall be assessed for what can be used as
a realistic measurement of our environmental situation and what, if anything,
needs to be done about it.
6
Ch.1: Optimistic and Pessimistic Environmental Views
One author on the front lines of the environmentally pessimistic theorists is
Bill McKibben. His book, The End of Nature published in 1989 clearly details
many of the arguments forming the pessimistic viewpoint. Through our actions,
humans have managed to touch every part of our planet. By our actions we
have even managed to influence weather patterns thus destroying nature’s
independence. As a consequence, no part of the planet is untouched by
humans. Today we have managed to do just that. We have altered the weather
and even the air we breathe. McKibben believes these damages have been
caused by human’s altered view of nature. Nature is now viewed as a hobby as
opposed to an entity deserving respect. People no longer need nature except to
fulfill superficial wants. In another section of McKibben’s book, he provides
examples of the havoc which humans are currently reeking on the environment.
First, we are warming the globe. The years 1988 to 1999 represent seven of the
ten hottest years since records have been kept. During the same time we
increased CO2 output by fifteen percent and our cars have not gotten smaller and
more fuel efficient but larger and less efficient. McKibben as well as many other
concerned environmentalists believe the key to corrective measures lies within
our ethics and philosophy. Commonly cited problems include a Christian ethic
that views nature as subservient to humans. In order to rectify many of our
current environmental dilemma’s, we need a new ethic or philosophy, one more
in tune with the workings of nature (McKibben, 1999).
7
Gregg Easterbrook is an environmental optimist and he represents a stark
contrast to McKibben. His book, “A Moment on Earth” leads readers through a
detailed discussion of why things aren’t as bad as many make them out to be.
Easterbrook also discusses changes to the environment in the 80s. He cites only
a “handful” of reported extinction’s, a 16 percent decrease of ambient smog in
the U.S, a fifty percent decline of airquality alert- days per year, lead air pollution
declined 89 percent, carbon monoxide declined 31 percent, sulfur dioxide
declined 27 percent, nitrogen dioxide declined 12 percent, and so on (See
appendix: graph 1 and 2). Easterbrook would call McKibben an extremist and a
liar because to Easterbrook, environmental conditions are continuously getting
better. This is what Easterbrook calls “ecorealism”. One of the primary tenets of
this belief is that humans are, in essence, more important than plants and
animals. Another tenet of this philosophy is that logic, not emotions are best
used in safeguarding nature. We should try to achieve an accurate view of
nature’s state, rather than relying on panic and fear (pessimists tactics) to fuel
conservation. Easterbrook’s vision of the future includes massive genetic
engineering of everything from food to people. His plan for the future doesn’t
need a new ethic, because we will merely restructure our DNA to achieve
perfection (Easterbrook, 1995).
Statistical Evidence
There has been a great deal of research done on many aspects of today’s
environmental concerns, specifically in relation to the greenhouse effect, carbon
sinks and sources, deforestation, food production/ distribution, and population
8
growth. These statistics can many times have staggering implications. Both
optimists and pessimists frequently use these statistics to strengthen and/ or
weaken the opposite sides stance. One important aspect to keep in mind while
reading the following section is the use and manipulation of statistics to benefit
an individual’s point. The convenient use of statistics will be discussed and
analyzed at a later point, but for this section I will discuss issues as objectively as
possible and ask that you consider the statistics at face value for the time being.
McKibben boldly believes that we have already experienced the end of
Nature. In his words, “We have ended the thing that has, at least in modern
times, defined nature for us---its separation from human society” (Mckibben,
1999: 64). McKibben insists that every part of the planet from the oceans to the
atmosphere to both poles have been influenced by human actions. McKibben
feels his data accurately reflect the true nature of our current situation, especially
concerning the global warming debate. On average, spring is a week earlier in
the Northern Hemisphere than it was two decades ago. In the years from 1989
to 1999 the United States has increased CO2 output by fifteen percent and our
cars have continued to grow larger and less efficient. In fact in the next century
we are expected to raise worldwide temperature by three or four degrees.
Effects of the warming can already be seen as increased periods of intense rain
and drought, ice caps melting, smaller polar bears due to ice fields melting, and
less zooplankton due to warmer waters. To show the effects of these changes in
dollars, the cost of natural disaster damages in 1998 alone was more than that
for the entire decade of the 1980’s. The statistics don’t get better. In the last
9
three decades before 2000, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has
increased from 315-350 parts per million, or more than ten percent. From 198999, a hole has appeared in our ozone layer, and in half that time the percentage
of some European forests damaged by acid rain has risen from less than ten to
more than 50 percent.
Things can get really scary when you consider Methane. Methane, when
released into the atmosphere without being burned, is twenty times more efficient
than carbon dioxide at trapping radiation and warming the planet. On the planet
there are roughly 1.2 billion head of cattle, and quite a few camels, horses, pigs
sheep, and goats which release about 73 million metric tons of methane into the
air each year, that’s about 435 percent more than a century ago. Another
serious source of methane is termites. A mound of termites can give off roughly
five liters of methane a minute. Just consider the implications of a rain forest cut
down (release of carbon) and turned into pastureland for cattle (methane) and
the dead wood feeding the billions of termites (more methane). Other sources of
methane include rice paddies which vent about 115 million tons of the gas a
year, and landfills venting a large amount as well. In the last 160,000 years
methane levels were between 0.3 and 0.7 parts per million. In 1987 the level
was 1.7 parts per million in the atmosphere, or two and half times as much
methane in the atmosphere as there was through three glacial and interglacial
periods. The rate is still rising at a steady one percent per year.
It is believed that global temperature could even rise one-degree
Fahrenheit per decade. With a one-degree rise in temperature, the climactic
10
zones would move about 35 to fifty miles north. However since forests can’t
migrate that fast, huge tracts of forest will die off, thus releasing even more
carbon. Many factors affecting climate change are feedback loops such as this
one. In essence, once it begins to get warmer, it will be too late to do much
about for it will begin to deteriorate the world as we know it at an exponential rate
(McKibben, 1999).
In 1989, for the first time ever, Americans consumed more food than they
grew (McKibben, 1999). Many of our environmental problems of today are
directly related to overpopulation. As environmental degradation continues at an
exponential rate, so does population growth. Paul Ehrlich shows the doubling
time for world population has gone from 1,000,000 years- 1,000 years- 200
years- 80 years- and 35 years. At some point our planet will reach the carrying
capacity, or the point where no more humans can possibly survive on the planet.
At this point, we will encounter mass deaths on a global scale. There is only two
ways in which we can avoid this scenario, lower the birth rate, or increase the
death rate. In other words we can find ways to lower the birth rate, or let ways to
increase the death rate find us, most likely through hunger. Many optimists insist
that there is enough food for everyone on earth to get enough to eat. There is if
you’re measuring calories, but in terms of protein, vitamins and minerals, there is
not, this is where much of the malnutrition stems from (Ehrlich, 1978). Although
James Lovelock does not agree with this in that it’s possible to support twice our
current population according to his studies, Lovelock does not think we should
try. Even if we can support twice our current population, we would practically
11
wipe out most of the other species on the planet. Ehrlich says, “Too many cars,
too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticide, multiplying contrails,
inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide- all
can be traced easily to too many people.” (Ehrlich, 1978: 44). Lovelock sums it
all up with, “There is only one pollution…. People” (Lovelock, 1995: 114).
One person who would surely disagree with both Ehrlich and Lovelock is
Julian Simon. Trained as an economist, he has some very interesting views
concerning population, and the environment. In Simon’s eyes people may be a
small burden in the short run, in the long run they are beneficial economically.
Therefore, our world is getting better, it must be due to the fact that in the last two
centuries, the life expectancy has gone from about 30 years, to 75. There is
certainly no need to worry about trying to feed all of these people. Relative to
wages, the long- run price of wheat is down, apparently due to increased
productivity. This has led to food consumption worldwide rising still. According
to Simon we are living in an age plenty, with room only to grow (Myers and
Simon, 1994).
Our one true shortage of today is people, based as an economist bases
most things in life, on how much you much pay to obtain them. Wages are
increasing world wide, therefore, people are the scarcest resource, and hence
we need more. You may think all these people lead to more pollution, but not
according to Simon. Since the middle of the 1970s, national ambient
concentrations of pollution have fallen; as well as emissions of major air
pollutants, while air quality in urban areas have risen in the United States. Gregg
12
Easterbrook discusses changes to the environment in the 80’s. He cites only a
“handful” of reported extinctions, a 16 percent decrease of ambient smog in the
U.S, a fifty percent decline of air-quality- alert days per year, lead air pollution
declined 89 percent, carbon monoxide declined 31 percent, sulfur dioxide
declined 27 percent, nitrogen dioxide declined 12 percent, and so on. He claims
air in the United States was much cleaner in 1990 than in 1980. In 1992 alone,
13 major cities met federal standards for smog reduction for the first time
(Easterbrook, 1995). Things are getting better everyday, and the trend will only
continue to improve. In Simon’s own words, “We now have in our hands- in our
libraries, really- the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an evergrowing population for the next 7 billion years (Myers and Simon, 1994: 65).
On the other side of these issues is the biologist Norman Myers. He cites
such horrifying statistics as: in the year 1993 alone
-
the earth lost 25 billion tons of topsoil, enough to grow 9 million tons of
grain and feed 200 million hungry people
-
the earth lost 150,000 square kilometers of tropical rainforest (area
equivalent to Florida)
-
the earth lost 60,000 square kilometers to desertification (area
equivalent to West Virginia)
-
tens of thousands of species went extinct
-
we have further depleted our ozone layers in both the northern and
southern poles
13
-
93 million more people were added to the world population (roughly
equivalent to Mexico’s population)
We are destroying our planet at an alarming rate. Currently a safe estimate of
species extinction is about 30,000 a year. Before the human era the average
was about one species every four years. That puts our present rate at 120,000
times higher. At this rate, one quarter of all species could go extinct in the next
thirty years, and as many as half by the end of the 21st century. Remember
these are conservative estimates (Myers and Simon, 1994).
No matter your viewpoint on the issue, you must recognize that humans
have had a major impact on our surroundings since our time on earth. Consider
David Brower’s timeline of earth history in a six-day period of time. Earth is
created on Sunday at midnight. Noon on Tuesday, rudimentary life appears.
Saturday morning at 7 o’clock, fossil fuels begin to form. At four o’clock p.m.
dinosaurs appear, and are all gone by 9 o’clock that night. At three minutes
before midnight, something slightly resembling us appears. Homo Sapiens arrive
thirty seconds before midnight, and invent agriculture one and a half seconds
before midnight. Christ enters the picture one fourth of a second before
midnight, the Industrial Revolution at a fourteenth of a second, and one twohundredth of a second before midnight, we learn to split atoms (White, 1994).
Whether you’re an optimist or a pessimist, one way or another you must realize
we have made drastic changes to the earth in the very short time we have been
here.
Rhetorical Evidence
14
The debate has been raging for decades between the optimistic and
pessimistic environmental thinkers. It seems there may just be fundamental
differences between the two. In this section I would like to explore those
differences. First I would like to point out just how fundamental these differences
are. In many cases the pessimists are from a biological background and connect
some kind of spirituality with their efforts. On the other had are the optimists who
generally are from an economic background connecting materialism to their
efforts. Another view which seems to hit the nail on the head from Julian Simon,
“(optimist thinking) is a speculative analysis of what must happen versus my
empirical analysis of what has happened” (Myers and Simon, 1994: 148).
Gregg Easterbrook is the front man for the environmental optimist
thinkers and a stark contrast to McKibben. Easterbrook would call McKibben an
extremist and a liar because to Easterbrook, environmental conditions are
continuously getting better.
In his book, Easterbrook proposes the following:
within our lifetime we will painlessly adopt a zero- emission policy, several
categories of pollution have already ended, first world countries are cleaner than
third world countries, global warming will certainly be avoided, all technology will
be more environmentally friendly and efficient, and that humans can become a
productive element within nature. This is what Easterbrook calls “ecorealism”
(Easterbrook, 1995).
One of the primary tenets of this belief is that humans are, in essence,
more important than plants and animals. Another tenet of this philosophy is that
logic, not emotions are best used in safeguarding nature and we should try and
15
achieve an accurate view of nature’s state, rather than relying on panic and fear
to fuel conservation. P. J O’Rourke - a journalits, best selling author, and Miami
University graduate - calls this panic and fear “pop hysteria or the merchandising
of panic”. O’Rourke believes that hard science and advancing technology is the
key to conquering our environmental dilemma (O’Rourke, 1992). Julian Simon
also agrees, believing that new technology and creative activities generally
create and improve more than they destroy (Myers and Simon, 1994).
Unfortunately much of this new technology and advancement will come
from corporate ventures. David Brower makes the point that the law binds
corporations to their shareholders. The corporation must be in pursuit of profit,
regardless of environmental implications. Thus, unless there are incentives for
the corporations to move toward environmentally friendly technology and
business, it may never happen (White,1994). In another interview with Brower,
conducted by McKibben, they discuss corporations on a less reserved level.
Brower voices his opinion that the real problem with corporations is the ability
they have to distance the individual from his/ her conscience. As Brower says,
“I’d like to see the barrier between corporation and conscience removed.”
(McKibben, 1992: 244). Another author, E.F Schumacher takes it even a step
farther insisting that we should move, “away from the giantism, infinite
complexity, vast expensiveness, and violence to a system which is small, simple,
cheap, and nonviolent” (Schumacher,1995: 344). O’Rourke on the other hand
feels quite differently about corporations. In his eyes, the environmental
movement has formed a scapegoat and called in big business. This big business
16
scapegoat is the environmentalists, “every kind of business except the kind from
which the person who’s complaining draws his pay” (O’Rourke, 1992: 17). In fact
we should be thanking big business as O’Rourke show us, “it is the fruits of trade
and manufacturing that raise us from the wearying muck of subsistence and give
us the health, wealth, education, leisure, and warm, dry rooms with Xerox
machines- all of which allow us to be the ecology- conscious, selfless, splendid
individuals we are” (O’Rourke, 1992:18). However, in Lynn White’s article, he
specifically says “ I personally doubt that disastrous ecologic backlash can be
avoided by simply applying more science and more technology” (White, 1967:
1206).
Lastly, Easterbrook believes that to become more constructive with
nature, we must learn to think like nature. Central to Easterbrook's argument is
that nature has been creating far worse problems for itself than people. Hence,
if we curb our pollution output the earth will cleanse itself in a relatively short
period of time (Easterbrook, 1995). James Lovelock doesn’t even necessarily
think that we need to curb our pollution in order for the earth to cleanse itself. In
Lovelock’s words, “It may be that the white- hot rash of our technology will in the
end prove destructive and painful to our own species, but the evidence for
accepting the industrial activities either at their present level or in the immediate
and future may endanger the life of Gaia as a whole is very weak indeed.”
(Lovelock, 1995: 100). Basically we may harm ourselves, but the earth will
certainly survive our species. Easterbrook would disagree with McKibben due to
McKibbens beliefs that global warming is worsening and catastrophic
17
repercussions may come from this warming (Easterbrook, 1995). Lovelock again
supports this theory, in discussion of the ozone layer. Almost since the time it
was discovered there was a hole in our ozone layer, it has been steadily
increasing its size. Even if the ozone had a major hole in it, humans would
probably still survive without too much worry. In 1985 Krakatoa erupted injecting
huge amounts of chlorine into the atmosphere. It is believed that this chlorine
may have depleted the ozone by as much as 30 percent. Humans survived this
period of lessened protection, and most likely the ozone will not deplete that
much any time soon (Lovelock, 1995). One the other hand, McKibben cites that
25 percent of our ozone could possibly be depleted by the middle of this century.
At 20 percent decrease, two hours in the sun would cause blisters to appear
(McKibbben, 1995).
To Easterbrook, if the planet is warming due to CO2, as McKibben tries to
show, the earth is by far the largest contributor at 200 billion tons of the pollutant
annually, whereas humans add only seven billion tons annually. If we are adding
this pollutant to the atmosphere, the earth will regulate itself and fix the problem
on its own terms, not by anything humans attempt (Easterbrook, 1995).
Easterbrook, O’Rourke and Simon all agree that central to improving the
environmental situation of today is the telling of truths and dispelling many
activists’ lies and exaggerations (Easterbrook, 1995; O’Rourke, 1992; Simon,
1994). Easterbrook cites examples of people discouraging positive environmental
news from being reported, and even having been hissed at for trying to show
how the world may be getting better (Easterbrook, 1995).
18
Many environmental pessimists feel that saving wilderness is good for
your soul, by connecting a spirituality to nature. David Brower feels that
wilderness needs to be saved, “for it’s own sake, for the mysterious and complex
knowledge it has within it. Thoreau was right when he said, ‘In wilderness is the
preservation of the world’” (White, 1994: 41). Easterbrook has serious problems
with this way of thinking. Many times people push for the preservation or
reclamation of land to be wild or even to allow land to reclaim itself as wild.
However in Easterbrook’s mind, nature will never again be as it was. Before
Europeans arrived, Indians were altering the land, then Europeans, and now our
current generation. Even before people were on this land, there were ice ages,
earthquakes, fires, all sorts of natural occurrences that altered the “natural”
landscape. McKibben cites statistics of our current rate of biodiversity loss, but
man may have created much worse lose of biodiversity before today’s times.
Approximately 12,000 years ago there was a collapse of biodiversity in North
America as Paleo-Indian societies spread across the continent. As much as 75
percent of the large mammal and bird genera of the late ice age were gone by
the time Europeans arrived. According to Easterbrook, from 125,000 years ago
to the present there has been less than 20 percent loss of biodiversity of large
animal genera due to human influence. He believes this suggests that as soon
as man came on the scene species began to adapt and evolve to survive human
impacts. Since Africa had the longest time for species to adapt to humans, they
are most prepared to survive our presence. These two situations show that
possibly most biodiversity loss may have occurred before our time, and the
19
species we have on the planet today are actually the survivors (Easterbrook,
1995).
Myer has shown using E.O. Wilson’s theory of Island Biogeography, that
we may in fact be in the midst of a gigantic extinction period, possibly as much as
30,000 species disappearing per year. Unfortunately, there are many problems
in showing these numbers to be true. In many circles, a species must not have
been sighted for 50 to 100 years before it is declared extinct. Also, proving a
species is extinct is the same as proving a negative. How do you go about
proving that something no longer exists? Myer fears that we are in the midst of
an environmental discontinuity finally catching up to us. An environmental
discontinuity basically is when the environment absorbs stress over a long period
of time with little outward signs of damage. Eventually, they reach a disruption
level at which the cumulative stress reveals the consequences in critical
proportions. This is the bottleneck that E.O Wilson has so eloquently described.
All current research and signs indicate that we are currently approaching the
disruption, or bottleneck, level (Myers and Simon, 1994).
Michael Pollen supports Easterbrooks claim in his writings, only with a
different slant on his view of the situation. Many of the plant species have
evolved with humans, so that now we are not using them, but they are using us.
We use plants for a variety of reasons, but if you look for example at crops,
certain kinds of crops have been spread around the world, thus their genes are
reproducing at an astounding rate. Humans were a blessing to many of the
20
plants and animals on the planet today from the rats in the sewers to the dogs in
our homes (Pollen, 2001).
Ethics and Philosophy
As you may well be able to imagine the ethics and philosophies of these
people vary widely in relation to the environment. The arguments of the
pessimists can be broken down into two main categories. The first is to save the
environment for the sake of preserving nature. Second, to save the environment
for the sake of the human race, or self-interest. In the optimist clan, most adhere
to the fact that we don’t need to try that hard to protect our environment, but
those who do have plans for preservation of our planet mainly revolve around
technology and the human species becoming champion of both our own, and the
earth’s destiny.
No discussion of environmental ethics can begin without first paying
homage to Aldo Leopold. He practically began the environmental spirituality
movement, which can be seen today in many activists, scientists, and
conservationists. One phrase in particular has been the guiding light to many
people trying to live their lives harmoniously with the environment: “A thing is
right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (Leopold, 2003: 46). This
phrase essentially sums up a good deal of the altruistic motivation for many
environmentalists. They fight to protect the environment because it is the right
thing to do as far as their moral ideals are concerned.
21
Paul Ehrlich makes the case that it may not just be the right thing to do
morally, but it in fact is probably encoded within our genetic structure to need
natural settings. We evolved in natural settings, and have had no where near
enough time for our genes to adapt to a more urban environment. Just look at
our homes. We try to imitate the surroundings of our past with humid air, green
plants, animal companions; maybe even a greenhouse or swimming pool. On
vacations, we take our children to the mountains, or the seashore; places of
abundant natural settings and beauty. Ehrlich even draws the correlation
between rising crime, violence, drug use, riots, and the staggering lose of natural
settings we are experiencing. All in all, people try to keep themselves in touch
with nature in some way. It conjures the most soothing, and refreshing feelings in
people. Also part of the reason why so many vacations are taken to natural
settings, especially by those primarily existing in urban environments (Ehrlich,
1978). Another noted scientist and author, E. O. Wilson, has written a great deal
in supporting of this theory within his work on a theory called Biophilia (Wilson,
1984).
McKibben believes this view of nature as a vacation destination or hobby
is philosophically detrimental to the environmental movement. People no longer
have the respect for nature they once had. McKibben cites as an example a
group of corporate executives going rafting during which five of them died. They
viewed it more as a ride, than a life-threatening challenge (McKibben, 1998).
Another example of this is Mt. Everest. People die every year on the mountain,
but for about 40- 60 thousand dollars a piece, you can get a guided tour to the
22
summit of the mountain. The people who participate in these “tours” are going
on vacation, it’s just a hobby to them. Without the fear of nature that humans
used to have, nature is more like our playground than a powerful force to be
reckoned with.
Before the spread of Christianity throughout the civilized world, paganist
beliefs were the primary form of spirituality. Today they are returning in a slightly
altered form. In an article by Graham Harvey, he cites Darwin as opening up
new doors to our view of the world. He says that scientists such as Darwin,
has enabled us to refuse the human-centered and even the Godcentered vision of the world. We can see that we are not the
pinnacle of and goal of creation but one part of an elaborate and
evolving community of living beings, a web of life, an ecosystem.
(Harvey, 2003: 422).
Pagan beliefs accept that selfish reasons for conservation are enough to
truly save ourselves and the planet from our destructive actions. However, they
feel that today we have enough knowledge to move past the self-interested
rationales for environmental protection, and on to taking action for the sake of
saving species and nature. They view environmental action as a spiritual
necessity because,
“The Earth’s ecological problems are not abstract, distant,
philosophical problems. Nor are they only economic or
technological problems. They are not to be left either to politicians,
scientists, or even philosophers. Just as such problems are largely
caused by everyday life (the cars we drive, the trucks which deliver
our foods, the rainforests destroyed to make way for our fields, etc)
so the responses must involve everyday life” (Harvey, 2003: 424).
In this view, the debate must be taken out of academic and political hands, and
instead transformed into a sort of spiritual crusade. Their crusade does not
23
involve being stewards, or domineering, but mutually connected to the
environment around us.
Another group, which follows some of the same doctrinations from a more
academic or scientific stance, is that of the Deep Ecologists. They too believe
that all life on earth has intrinsic value, and that diversity of life also has value
within itself. In their own semi- religious commandments, those who believe in
the points of deep ecology have an obligation to implement the points which
deep ecology is primarily founded on (Naes, 2003).
Easterbrook seems to feel that this sort of religious devotion to nature is
almost laughable. In his eyes, it is our domination over nature that allows people
to harbor these kinds of beliefs. If man were more equal to wild animals, people
would not feel the same way. He explains, “to those of Earth’s creatures that live
to be chased and eaten, it is doubtful the natural scheme suggests Eden. What
does an antelope experience dying in terror and agony as it is gored by a tiger -blissful oneness with the sphere?” (Easterbrook, 1995: 143).
Some environmentalists make an effort to equate humans and animals as
morally equal. There are some serious problems with this way of thinking
according to Easterbrook. By this philosophical thinking, it is okay for animals to
kill each other, so that would make it okay for people to kill each other
(Easterbrook, 1995).
A central power blamed for much of today’s anti- environmentalist
philosophy is the Judeo-Christian system of organized religion. Lynn White Jr.
says, “we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the
24
Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man”
(White, 1967: 1207). The very creation story of man has anti-environmentalist
notions to it. Many of the passages discuss the domain of nature by humans
(McKibben, 1999). Another such story to consider is that of Eve eating the apple.
A snake, a tree, and an apple are all parts of nature. But it is for interacting with
these things which God punished Adam and Eve. From the very beginning,
humans have been conditioned not to trust nature, certainly not as much as than
the Judeo- Christian God. Myer actually believes that we have surpassed our
own capacity for self-awareness. We are now playing God with our planet, and
we don’t even know it (Simon and Myer, 1994). People go to church, then get in
their SUV’s and go on back to playing God with the world until the next time they
have to go to church.
To read Easterbrook is to feel as if he is sharing his strategy to survive
when nature comes to kill us all off. He sounds more like he’s preparing for a
war than discussing environmental issues. He begins by citing the conversion of
our atmosphere to larger percentages of oxygen, which in turn wiped out huge
portions of the species on the planet two billion years ago. As part of his war
propaganda he shares, “oxygenation of the atmosphere would have been labeled
an unmitigated ultra- hyper- megadisaster that would destroy the environment
forever and ever” when discussing today’s environmentalists (Easterbrook, 1995:
99). Later, he returns to his feelings that nature is getting off easy in human
minds. He feels that environmental problems caused by man are treated as
concerns of maximum priority, while problems caused by nature are viewed as
25
awe inspiring, or acts of God. Eventually Easterbrook admits his feelings, “
People should not worry that they will destroy nature. It is more likely nature will
destroy us” (Easterbrook, 1995: 143). Easterbrook cites a study comparing
immediate deaths from industrial accidents and natural disasters. Apparently this
study found that ‘natural badness’ kills 55,786 people annually, while industrial
accidents only kill 356 people. Some examples of this ‘natural badness’ includes
700,000 dead from an earthquake in China, maybe 500,000 dead from a tornado
in Bangladesh, 110,000 dead from an earthquake in the Soviet Union, 57, 000
dead from a flood in China, at least 100,000 dead from another tornado in
Bangladesh. Even though these numbers of death are staggering, as many as
60 million people have died from twentieth century wars. The figures continue to
get worse. Approximately 33 million people die every year due to diseases. In
one year from 1918- 1919, influenza managed to kill an estimated 25 million
people. Even the food we eat is not safe from nature’s deadly attacks. The
typical American diet it seems contains 10,000 times more natural carcinogens
than synthetic ones. If nature is causing cancer through the foods we eat, the
way to solve this problem is through genetic engineering of our food
(Easterbrook, 1995).
Finally, we can see Easterbrook’s true philosophy shining through.
Throughout Easterbrook’s writing he continues to reexamine why it is that
humans are one of few species that kill their own species. Finally he decides it
must be a flaw in our DNA. The solution to this problem is obviously to
genetically engineer ourselves to not kill each other using DNA from another
26
animal which may have perfected the ‘do not kill own species’ gene. With this
potential new engineering of our own species, Easterbrook envisions a “moral
new age” (Easterbrook, 1995: 155). Easterbrook also supports the notion that ‘
chance based evolution’ has gone as far as possible. Humans are now to be the
new stewards of evolution, including using genetic engineering. In a sense,
Easterbrook feels that humans should be stepping up to the plate to fulfill their
new role as God of the Earth. In his eyes, we must protect ourselves from the
savage nature while ushering in a new dawn for human achievement.
People hold many different views, philosophies, ethics and even
goals. Some people view nature as God. Some view it as an invading force.
Others even view it as biologically critical to our survival. No matter your view,
most people seem to fall on side of the debate or the other. Now that a strong
background on the issues has been presented, we must attempt to extract the
useful knowledge and ideas from the two sides of the debate. This can be
accomplished with the use of E. O. Wilsons lifetime of work and theoretical
thinking.
27
Ch.2 E.O. Wilson: Early Days
Edward O. Wilson has written twenty books, won two Pulitzer prizes,
discovered hundreds of new species, is still the leading authority on ants, and
won dozens of other awards and honors. E.O. Wilson deserves all these
respects as the Darwin of our time, also called "the father of biodiversity"
(Natural). It is Wilson’s extensive history of ground breaking innovations in
conservation, and environmental thinking which lends him so well to study.
Through an extensive discussion of his life we can see the changing of his
environmental outlook during the course of his life. Drawing on Wilson’s outlooks
and ideas in conjunction with the previous chapter, some critical ideas to the
future success of human survival and proliferation on earth can be drawn.
As a child Wilson lost the sight in his right eye while fishing for pinfish. It
was a spike on one of these pinfish that actually pierced his right pupil. He was
left with full sight in his left eye only, which happened to be 20/10, much better
than most people can see. As an adolescent Wilson also lost most of his hearing
in the higher ranges, due to a hereditary defect. As a young budding naturalist
these ailments left him with few choices of animals to study. He could not see
well far away nor hear the calls of birds, frogs and many other animals. This left
him with one seemingly obvious choice. He chose to direct his gaze to the
ground, where he could find insects, able to be picked up and brought closer to
his good eye for inspection. This was how E.O. Wilson began his long and
fruitful career; by studying ants (Wilson, 1994).
28
Wilson’s disabilities were but one of three primary experiences which
would eventually guide him throughout his life and career. When he was only
seven years old his parents separated and sent him to a military boarding school.
This was the type of place where every minute of your life is scheduled into a
routine. There is no time for nature walks, or dreaming of mighty creatures of the
sea, or even to study the bugs around you. It was at this early age that Wilson
developed his respect for those of an even more disciplined nature such as the
heroes and leaders of wars. This respect for the warriors of today also instilled
in him discipline, so that on collecting trips to exotic places he concentrated on
the science, not the sites and sounds of the attractions. Though seemingly
insignificant, both these results would guide him to some of his most amazing
theories (Wilson, 1994).
Originally raised as a strict southern Baptist, religion and faith played
primary roles in Wilson’s early life. The downfall of Wilson’s blind religious faith
surprisingly arose from his baptism. At the age of fourteen Wilson was baptized
by a minister who dunked him from the waist up into a pool of water. It was this
act that planted the seed of doubt in Wilson’s mind. He began to consider how
such a physical act could have such spiritual importance and impacts. Out of this
thought grew the idea that maybe everything in the world is physical (Wilson,
1994). This may have impacted Wilson’s life more than any other revolutionary
act or thought of his life. Biology is a difficult science to impart with religious
belief. Due to the difficulties of mentally accepting both religious belief and
29
biological science, no person could have ever developed and fully thought out
the concept of sociobiology while also accepting religious indoctrination.
Wilson’s first major discovery and achievement was accomplished in
cooperation with Robert Macarthur. They met in 1962 and at the time both were
searching for something new to explore in biogeography. What they eventually
came up with was a groundbreaking discovery which led them to publish The
Theory of Island Biogeography. Together they discovered that a dynamic
equilibrium is reached among number of species on an island depending on its
size. Basically a big island can hold a greater number of species. They also
discovered that an island more remote, or farther from some type of mainland,
would contain fewer species than an island near a larger mass of land. What
they were able to do was to quantify these relationships and actually construct a
graph showing the relationship between these two variables and what the
average number of species would be on an island. It sounds today as if that
would be common sense, more land equals more species, but it certainly was not
in the late sixties when they developed this idea (Quammen, 1996).
Macarthur and Wilson did not stop here; they went on to try and test their
hypothesis. They eventually settled on using Krakatoa as their ecological model
of going from a clean slate back to equilibrium. Using their model they predicted
that Krakatoa would reach equilibrium at thirty bird species, in forty years, with a
turnover rate of one species per year. The numbers they found showed that
equilibrium had occurred in about four decades, the number of bird species was
roughly thirty and the turnover rate was slightly lower than projected. That was
30
extremely close to their estimates but not good enough to convince the scientific
world by any means that the island theory had any validity. Wilson knew that one
observation of only one island just wasn’t enough evidence. So he devised a
plan to test a whole set of islands. In conjunction with a graduate student, Dan
Simberloff, Wilson devised a plan to take small mangrove islands in southern
Florida, eradicate them of all insect species without actually harming the
mangrove trees, and then allowing them to re-equalize. Simberloff’s part was to
stay and record data on the actual re-colonizing of the trees by insect species.
Their experiment was very successful in the fact that within a year three of the
islands had returned to equilibrium while the fourth far more remote island took
slightly more than a year to regain equilibrium. In all the trees species numbers
had returned to almost exactly what they were before fumigation and the killing of
the insect species. The experiment validated the theory and lent empirical
evidence to it. After publication of the theory, other scientists within the
ecological community began to accept the theory and its results (Quammen,
1996). It is this theory which led to the modern day debate over SLOSS. In
essence, is a single large reserve or several small reserves better for biotic
conservation? This debate is still ongoing but today it is the cornerstone of
conservation efforts.
These experiences highlight Wilson as a person and his mission in his
early days. From childhood, learning to inspect insects, to his days as a
burgeoning ecologist, you can see his intense attachment to all things natural.
He wanted to conduct a survey of all the ants in Alabama at one point, and even
31
discovered new species of insects at the age of only 14. These are all attributes
of a budding naturalist and biologist. All these factors show a very important
piece of Wilson’s personality, which may be easily missed. At this point in
Wilson’s life he is concerned with the science of nature, not its protection or
conservation, or even the ethic behind nature. His philosophical self, concerned
with nature’s health and how nature reacts to man, had not even begun to bloom.
In his latest edition of The Theory of Island Biogeography he writes a preface in
regards to Macarthur. Their theory is now the foundation for most conservation
biology, yet Wilson never mentions this use of their theory in the original book,
the new preface, or even in his autobiography. He even goes so far as to tacitly
suggest that application of his theory is others’ work (Wilson, 1967). Upon
gaining some notoriety for his theory, he wanted to become a world-renowned
scientist; even before he was out of high school that was his goal in life.
Originally he didn’t even want to study ants, but wanted to inspect flies. Our
country was at war however, and pins used to display flies were unavailable
because the aluminum was being used in the war effort. Instead he switched to
ants which could be contained in small vials filled with alcohol (Wilson, 1994).
Essentially the young Wilson was a man driven by dreams of grandeur
and fame. He would allow nothing to stop him from becoming a famous scientist.
The goal was success, not humanitarian, nor ecological aid. What was done with
his theories and discoveries seemed to be of no concern to him, only that he was
recognized for these achievements.
32
Ch.3: E.O. Wilson: Days of Controversy
In 1971 E. O. Wilson published his book The Insect Societies. Not one of
his most popular books, not even worth mentioning in his own autobiography, but
it did have a rather interesting last chapter. At a whopping three pages it was by
no means well developed or even well thought out, but “The Prospect for a
Unified Sociobiology” was a precursor for what was to come next of Wilson. It
seemed to merely be an idea bouncing around in his head which he decided to
tack onto the end of his, two column per 460 page book on insects. However he
brings up such ideas as “ an evolutionary optimization process of unknown
precision, during which some measure of added fitness was given to individuals
with cooperative tendencies—at least toward relatives” (Wilson, 1971: 458). In
other words, it marked the beginning of his theories on altruistic behavior through
the use of sociobiological theory. It seemed that Wilson had no intentions of ever
tackling the subject himself as shown by his statement, “The formulation of a
theory of sociobiology constitutes, in my opinion, one of the great manageable
problems of biology for the next twenty or thirty years” (Wilson, 1971: 458). Even
more interesting is the fact that Wilson did not even consider humans to be
included in a discussion of sociobiology as shown by his last sentence in The
Insect Societies. Wilson writes, “The discipline can then be expected to increase
our understandings of the unique qualities of social behavior in animals as
opposed to those of man” (Wilson, 1971: 460). It was only four years later in
1975 when Wilson published his formulated theory of sociobiology, and included
a chapter on ‘man’.
33
In 1975 a large, square, red book was published, bearing only one word
on the cover: Sociobiology. In this fashion E. O. Wilson introduced the world to a
bold new idea. In the years following, sociobiology was to come under a great
deal of fire from both the religious and academic alike. It was not Wilson’s ideas
regarding animals, which disturbed people but his ideas regarding humans.
Perhaps the most important, and widely criticized aspect of sociobiology is
that of altruism. Altruism is the scientific term for ‘sharing’. Humans are one of
few species in the animal kingdom that show signs of altruism, yet in humans it is
one of our strongest traits. Due to human intelligence and memory, we have
been able to transform this trait into acts of reciprocal altruism, or the act of
mutually sharing. In this fashion we have been able to divide labor, create an
economy, and even quantify reciprocal altruism through the use of money
(Wilson, 1975). It is so imbedded in human society that Jeffery Schloss described
“reciprocity as the virtually universal ‘cement’ that holds societies together,
functioning as a … common denominator of interactive expectations” (Schloss,
1996: 115).
In sociobiology, there are two deciding factors in every decision and action
people make: individual success, social success, or most frequently somewhere
in between. Below I have created a graph to illustrate this idea. A completely
selfish act would be placed at the top left to indicate highest success to the
individual and the self being in mind when the decision was made. In reverse,
the top right would be an act of extended altruism with society the only
benefactor or force in mind when the individual made his or her decision. The
34
equilibrium of the two lines is where they meet roughly the middle of the lower
third, thus indicating equal success to both society and the individual, with both
forces being in mind equally when the decision was made.
(Graph 1: Altruist/Self Success Graph)
Much of the criticism sociobiology receives seems to be due to its
inherently anti- religious nature. The anti-religious nature is not so much an
aspect of sociobiological thought or study, but an imbedded part of the theory
due to its role as a competing paradigm. Much of the dislike for sociobiology
comes from the fact that Wilson directly pits sociobiology against religion. He
refers to religion with a quote from Nietzsche: “(people would rather) have the
void as purpose, than be void of purpose” (Wilson, 1975: 561). Wilson feels that
science will replace religion as the source of the origin story. He dismisses
formal religions as only another mythology story told with no proof. Wilson
35
considers religion to be almost an extension of altruistic behavior. As a religion
describes them, sins will send you to hell, or whatever bad place the religion is
able to threaten its practitioners with. However, in an evolutionary sense, sins
are bad for the community, because they negatively affect the social fabric of the
community. It’s the same as disagreeing with the religion; it tears at the social
fabric of the culture. It used to be very common to burn heretics, or those
opposing the state-enforced religion. In other words, religion has evolved with
humans as a type of suture for the social structure (Wilson, 1975).
Wilson also discusses the possibility of species immortality through
environmental control. Wilson states: “environmental control would insure the
indefinite survival of the species, because the genetic structure could at last be
matched precisely to favorable conditions and freed from the capricious
emergencies that endanger its survival” (Wilson, 1975: 59-60). Basically he is
asserting that humans can someday control their genetic heritage or even control
our own evolution.
Wilson brings up the idea of a ‘genetic lag’ in humanity. Wilson explains
that humans have progressed so fast in the last several thousand years that
genetic evolution is unable to keep up. In essence we are working with the
genetic structures that were most useful during the ice ages when humans were
still hunters and gatherers (Wilson, 1978). Due to this genetic lag, the
opportunity is there to “occasionally manifest reproductively pathological
behaviors” (Schloss, 1996: 125)”. This has mighty implications for Wilson’s
theories on genetic modification to be discussed later.
36
One of the reasons sociobiology takes a different look at morals than
religion for example, is due to the quest for answers that have yet to be found.
Wilson believes ethics should become “biologicized” because current ethics do
not consider the ecological or genetic consequences of current ethical issues
(Wilson, 1975: 562). Schloss believes that, at the very least, sociobiology allows
us to view moral decisions from a less emotional perspective, thus removing our
intuitions from decisions, and grounding the decision in science. To those that
have moral objections to the ideas of sociobiology, Schloss has this to say, “I
would think it more warranted and more helpful to speak of moral responsibility
for the uses to which we choose to put an idea, rather than the moral
consequences inherent in an idea itself” (Schloss, 1996: 120). It is the aim of
sociobiology to identify problematic or negative behavior, decipher the origins,
and then formulate ways in which to overcome these biological impediments.
Wilson’s ideas of sociobiology were a virtual bombshell on the heads of
many scholars from different disciplines. Ethicists, ecologists, biologists, social
scientists, and religious leaders alike attempted to defame Wilson’s theories. In
response to the huge amount of criticism he received he wrote On Human
Nature. In this work he attempted to expand on his ideas involving humans from
the last chapter in Sociobiology. On of the foremost topics he did expand upon
was that of religion. Wilson believes that religion is an ineradicable part of human
nature. It has always been one of the universals of social behavior; some sort of
belief in higher beings than humans. However, Wilson goes so far as to predict
that “organized religion must continue its retreat into darkness before
37
enlightenment’s brightening dawn” (Wilson, 1978: 169). In the end Wilson
believes that sociobiology will then end all mythologies because “sociobiology
can account for the very origin of mythology by the principle of natural selection
acting on the genetically evolving material structure of the human brain” (Wilson,
1978). In purest form, Wilson seems to be saying that sociobiology will not just
replace religion and myth, but actually supercede it by explaining away its
inadequacies. Now that we understand why humans have evolved into religious
practices, we can do away with them and follow guidelines more beneficial to our
current status today.
In conjunction with Charles Lumsden, Wilson went on to write Genes,
Mind and Culture in 1981, another volume dealing with sociobiological theories.
This book was intended for scholarly colleagues in an attempt to provide more
scientific evidence for his theories. This book was much less of a pulpitthumping decree by Wilson and more a tedious mathematical, and analytical look
into the theories of sociobiology. Eventually, they also wrote Promethean Fire in
1983 in order to clarify their previous joint work for a larger, less academic
audience. All told, Wilson spent nearly a decade formulating, writing, and
defending his theories on sociobiology.
During this period of Wilson’s life he published one more, less
controversial book, although just as original and fascinating for its theories.
Biophilia is somewhat a spin-off of sociobiological theory. Wilson describes
biophilia as “the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (Wilson,
1984: 1). Wilson seems to suggest in his writings that it accounts for mans focus
38
of natural settings. An example may be that of the rich creating landscapes
visible from their home of natural settings such as the mountains, or grasslands.
This may be due to an inherited genetic trait attempting to recreate the
environment we evolved out of in the African savannas (Wilson, 1984).
Another interesting key element to Wilson’s Biophilia is his newfound
conservationist ethic. For the first time in his writings he begins to discuss the
effect humans are having on our natural environment. He brings up such topics
as biodiversity lose in the rainforests. He connects all of this to ethical situations.
Wilson introduces the point that what may be good for people now is not
necessarily good for humanity in the future. An example is depleting resources
for current economic gain, while ignoring the harm to future generations by
decreasing biodiversity. Harmful actions by our leaders such as war, or overtaxation can be nullified within several generations, but the lose of our natural
landscape cannot. Lose of biodiversity is not only harmful aesthetically, but also
because of the products such as food and medicines found through analysis of
plants. I believe as a throwback to his sociobiological theories on altruistic
behavior, he explains, “the only way to make a conservation ethic work is to
ground it in ultimately selfish reasoning” (Wilson, 1984: 131).
This period in Wilson’s scientific life is like a person hitting a midlife crisis. Wilson
ventures off into territory completely unexplored not only by himself, but also by
anyone else. He has now set himself up with such a varied canon of works as to
be able to synthesis his own works into original ideas and thoughts based on
himself. In both books discussed here he has brought up topics of altruistic
39
effects, biology as a new religion and ethic, humans control over the
environment, what effects our genetic lag may have, and biology as our new
origin story. He has now arrived to the point in his life where his discoveries are
over, now he must fight to protect and encourage his discoveries to be adopted
by those in power in order to improve the world. That will actually consume a
good deal of his life after this, convincing others that he is right and they should
be paying attention to what he has been teaching.
40
Ch.4: E.O. Wilson: Later Days of Philosophy
In Wilson’s 2001 book, The Diversity of Life, he joins his immense
knowledge of ecology and the natural sciences with his new-found passion for
conservation and conservation theory. The first two chapters deal primarily with
the basic elements of ecological study. He begins with a simple explanation of
two primary types of species. Pioneer species are considered the sprinters.
These are first species on the scene in a recovering ecosystem. When Krakatua
erupted these were the species first seen to be re- colonizing the area. Next you
have the old-growth species, or the long distance runners. These are the
species that will last for the long haul, the old growth stands of trees and other
such flora and fauna (Wilson, 1992).
Wilson then discusses the hierarchies within biological diversity. The first
is that of the energy pyramid or descending trophic levels. In this arrangement,
the primary producers–plants-are the most energy efficient transferring sunlight
into energy. Next are the herbivores which eat the primary producers as food.
They transfer the plants into their own energy. Then come the scavengers,
which eat mainly other dead animals, such as crows do. Lastly are the primary
carnivores who eat any living thing they may catch. The importance of this
hierarchy of energy transfer is the efficiency within. At each successive trophic
level approximately ten percent of the energy is actually transferred from the food
to the consumer. However, the higher the food is on the trophic chain, the higher
the percentage of usable energy within the food. As an example, eating plants
provides the most efficient transfer of energy since energy is not lost through
41
other successive steps as if a cat were eating a crow. The crow contains more
energy than a plant, but there has been a great lose of energy through the
trophic levels for the energy within the crow to get to the cat (Wilson, 1992).
His next major discussion on ecological basics concerns that of adaptive
radiation and evolutionary convergence. Adaptive radiation is when species of
common ancestry spread out to fill different niches. Take, for example, squirrels.
If squirrels were accidentally introduced to a decent-sized island with no other
mammals of its relative size and variations, the squirrel would evolve to fill as
many of these niches as it could. On the University of Louisville campus there is
a large population of albino squirrels. Although not an entirely different species,
given enough time these squirrels may evolve to fill this niche completely.
Evolutionary convergence is basically the occupation of the same niche by
related ancestors through different adaptive radiation, especially in separated
parts of the world. An example of this may be a type of species within a lake,
which during a dry spell lasting several hundred years, is separated by the
formation of four different lakes. The four populations of fish were originally the
same species but, over the course of time and isolation, the populations evolve
to specialize within their own niche, thus becoming entirely new species (Wilson,
1992).
After his overview of ecology he begins to discuss his view of conservation
and the status of our environment. What he writes in this book will motivate him
to continue writing on this topic for the rest of his career at least up until today.
One of his most important concerns is with biodiversity. He writes,
42
Certain numbers are crucial to our ordinary understanding of the
universe. What is the mean diameter of the Earth? It is 12,742
kilometers (7,913 miles). How many stars are there in the Milky
Way, an ordinary spiral galaxy? Approximately 10^11, 100 billion.
How many genes are there in a small virus? There are 10 (in
ΦX174 phage). What is the mass of an electron? It is 9.1 * 10-^28
grams. And how many species of organisms are there on Earth?
We don’t know, not even to the nearest order of magnitude. The
number could be close to 10 million or as high as 100 million.
(Wilson, 1992: 132)
Wilson estimated the known number of species of organisms to be 1.4 million.
However it is generally agreed among Wilson and his colleagues that that
number is less than one tenth of the number actually living on earth (Wilson,
1992).
Later in his book he brings up the ever-debated topic of population. He
describes the times we are in as a ‘bottleneck’, approaching the point where we
are multiplying too fast and at a rate devastating to other life on our planet. He
believes the human population will level off at approximately 10-15 billion by the
middle of this century. He reiterates his earlier revealed concerns for the
environment suggesting that what is good now may not be good for humanity in
the future. He then outlines his plans to save the biodiversity of our world
involving biologists, anthropologists, economists, agriculturists, the government,
and the law all working together for a shared goal of biodiversity salvation. The
draft of his plan involves five main components (Wilson, 1992).
The first is to survey the fauna and flora of the world. There are two
apparent options to tackle this rising crisis: go out, find and catalogue every
species on the planet-which is completely unfeasible. The other option is to
preserve the areas of most biodiversity, also called ‘hot spots’ until they may be
43
fully catalogued. The most feasible application of world catalogization is a threetier system of inventory. To begin a team would go to a small ecosystem which
may include local hotspots and catalogue the more obvious organisms, such as
flowering plants, reptiles, mammals, birds, fish, and butterflies. They can then
serve as a proxy for the entire biota. The second level of inventory would be that
of broad sweeping, long-term catalogization. At this level, large hotspots or
areas of multiple hot spots could be evaluated over many years, with a research
station set up within the area. The last step is to combine the other two formulae
and emphasize interdisciplinary co-operation. An example of this may be an
entomologist collecting insects from a plant, then taking the plant sample so a
botanist could identify the host (Wilson, 1992).
The second step in Wilson’s master plan is to create biological wealth.
Basically this is the act of making biodiversity economically beneficial. A key to
the success of this venture is ‘chemical prospecting’. This is “the search among
wild species for new medicines and other useful chemical products” (Wilson,
1992, 320). A successful example of this would be Merck and Company
working with Costa Rica’s National Institute of Biodiversity (CRNIB). To begin
with, Merck gave the CRNIB one million dollars to facilitate the collection and
identifying of organisms. In return, the CRINB sends chemical samples from the
most promising species to Merck for medicinal use analysis. If Merck does find
something useful, they pay the Costa Rican government a share of the royalties
which are then used for further conservation efforts. One compound found and
used by Merck, sold $735 million worth of the substance in one year alone. This
44
kind of return more than pays off the original investment a pharmaceutical
company spends (Wilson, 1992).
The third, and seemingly most obvious step, is to promote sustainable
development. Many of the third world countries are stuck in a cycle of
continuous poverty and starvation. When all avenues of relief have been
exhausted they turn to their one remaining hope, the last remaining biological
wilderness. The governments sell their lands to mega-corporations for the
resources. The people cut down the forest, to grow crops ill-suited of the
environment on already poor land (Wilson, 1992).
One option is that of extraction reserves for sustainable development.
Rubber tappers of Brazil survive by harvesting latex and other wild products.
Their government has set up these areas as a reserve with no logging allowed.
In addition, the tappers also hunt fish, and engage in small- scale agriculture in
forest clearings. Due to their dependence on biological diversity these areas will
be safe from destruction for generations to come (Wilson, 1992).
The fourth step in Wilson’s plan is also, by far, his most ambitious and
probably his most unrealistic: to save what remains of the world biodiversity.
Wilson does realize what an unrealistic goal this is and even sets out to discuss
why such a lofty goal is impossible. Some suggest that if most species are wiped
out, we could just re-create them in laboratories. However, even if we could,
these species would not be adaptive and probably would not survive without
generous amounts of help from humans. Another suggestion is to resurrect
species from the DNA stored in museums and fossils. The impossibly of this is
45
best explained by molecular biologist Russell Higuchi as quoted by Wilson,
“(Reconstruction is) like taking a large encyclopedia in an unknown language
previously ripped into shreds and trying to reassemble it without the use of your
hands” (Wilson, 1992: 330). Another possibility raised with regularity is letting
natural evolution replace the species we are driving extinct. However, after the
five great extinctions it took between 10 and 100 million years to fully recover
biodiversity lost. Even if humanity did wait that long, things would be
spectacularly different than they are now. There are many other options all
doomed for failure. According to Wilson, “The rescue of biological diversity can
only be achieved by a skillful blend of science, capital investment, and
government: science to blaze the path by research and development; capital
investment to create sustainable markets; and government to promote the
marriage of economic growth and conservation” (Wilson, 1992: 336).
Wilson eventually offers a realistic plan that can be enacted now. To
begin, we must expand world reserves from 4.3 percent of the landmass to 10
percent in order to encompass as much of the undisturbed habitats as possible.
The best way to enact this plan is to trade debt for conservation. As an example,
Conservation International bought $4 million in debt from Mexico’s creditors. In
reality through tricks of economics it only cost them $1.6 million, and in return
Mexico was required to spend $2.6 million on a variety of conservation-oriented
programs (Wilson, 1992).
Wilson’s fifth and last step is to restore the wild lands. Wilson seems most
optimistic about this particular step in the process. He writes, “The next century
46
will, I believe, be an era of restoration in ecology” (Wilson, 1992: 340). He writes
of a logarithmic curve basically theorizing that the greater amount of area
available, the more biodiversity able to survive. One method for the achievement
of Wilson’s goal is to allow previously cleared land to recuperate into its natural
state. One example is allowing large areas of farmland to go wild, and eventually
return to their natural state. Another option is the placement of endangered
species into already diminished ecosystems. This must be done with the utmost
care. For some species put into an unstable but still somewhat stable ecosystem
could reek havoc upon its inhabitants. However, ecosystem completely
destroyed or regenerating may be able to support exotic species (Wilson, 1992).
After The Diversity of Life Wilson published one book every two years.
The Diversity of Life was published in 1992. After this work, his books seemed to
signify that he was beginning to get into old age, and was taking life a bit easier.
It was also around this time Wilson retired from teaching at Harvard after roughly
35 years. In 1994 he wrote Naturalist, his autobiography. Although it was
fascinating to hear so much about such an important figures’ life, the book offers
little that is new. Next came In Search of Nature in 1996. This was a collection
of his works from 1975 to 1993. They are generally a series of short articles
covering materiel he has already discussed in his books. It was not until 1998
that Wilson published something new and involved with his life’s work;
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge.
According to Wilson, “Consilience is the key to unification”. consilience is
defined as, “literally a ‘ jumping together’ of knowledge by the linking of facts and
47
fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of
explanation” (Wilson, 1998: 8). Wilson’s idea of consilience is most interesting to
me since I was trained in the interdisciplinary studies. With all of Wilson’s
complicated examples, graphs, and pages of explanation, I think he’s just trying
to make the claim that the disciplines need to work as an interdisciplinary
problem-solving unit. He literally spends the entire second chapter attempting to
explain his idea of consilience, and with my fairly extensive background in
deciphering Wilson’s occasionally jumbled thoughts, I believe he is just trying to
say that we need more interdisciplinarity.
Wilson once again resumes his always interesting, and I must admit
amusing, attack on religion with this volume. He cites the many historical
instances of mass genocide in the name of the particular religions’ ‘God’, by
writing, “the cross accompanied the sword in one campaign of enslavement and
genocide after another” (Wilson, 1998: 244). Wilson seems to make clear his
philosophical aversion to religion with the statement,
The most dangerous of devotions, in my opinion, is the one
endemic to Christianity: I was not born to be of this world. With a
second life waiting, suffering can be endured-especially in other
people. The natural environment can be used up. Enemies of the
faith can be savaged and suicidal martyrdom praised. (Wilson,
1998: 245)
So exactly what are the consequences of the religious doctrine? Here in
America they are very clear with our mostly Christian, affluent population. We
can actually measure what our effect on the planet is through an equation known
as PAT. This stands for population size times per capita affluence (consumption)
times the amount of technology necessary to sustain consumption. The results
48
are effectively what a country’s ‘ecological footprint’ is; in other words how much
land is necessary to sustain one average individual within a country. For Europe
the footprint is 3.5 hectares, Canada is 4.3 hectares, and the United States a
consumptionary masterpiece with a solid 5 hectares per person1. Most
developing countries require less than half of one hectare. In order to raise the
whole world to the United States’ level, with existing technology, we would
require two more planet Earth’s (Wilson, 1998).
Wilson outlines the differences from the ethical perspectives of what he
calls the empiricists and the transcendentalists. He stresses the importance of
the empiricist view because of its emphasis on objective knowledge and its
argument that, “by exploring the biological roots of moral behavior, and
explaining their material origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wiser
and more enduring ethical consensus than has gone before (Wilson, 1998: 240).
It is easy to identify that this is Wilson’s position through his words, “I am an
empiricist” (Wilson, 1998: 241).
We are altering our natural surroundings, but what about altering our own
status as ‘natural’? We are rapidly coming to the point where our species can
decide its own heredity. We will have the option as a society to choose to
manipulate our own evolution, to let it go, or allow nature to take its course with
our evolution. If we do decide to manipulate our genetic structure, how far do we
go? We can choose to alter a child’s genes while still in the womb to avert a
hereditary defect. We will also have the choice to take people who may be
considered ‘slow’ in learning and elevate them to normal levels. Once we have
1
One hectare is 2.5 acres
49
taken that step how do we keep ourselves from improving those of normal status
to above normal intelligence, or beyond (Wilson, 1998)? This very much sounds
like a throw back to his sociobiological discussions. Especially when discussing
what choice humans should take in altering their own genetic structure. Except
originally he worried over people eventually breeding out such things as
aggressiveness in humans, and whatever human traits may be connected to the
genetic code for aggressive behavior, such as creativity. (Wilson, 1975).
Wilson’s most recent work, The Future of Life, is in essence a story of
Wilson’s thoughts on conservation and the fate of our planet, better developed
than ever before and far more candid than anything he has ever done. He
openly discusses his political views, makes fairly openly negative remarks to
those leaders he feels are doing our species a great disservice and talks about
his own fights and there effects on him. From the tone of his writing, and some
key analysis of his overall emotional sense, I think this will probably be the last
work for a while from Wilson, possibly even his last. Hence it should be regarded
with the utmost respect for it is the possibly the final public message from a man
with as impactful and inspired career as any who have ever lived.
Wilson’s second chapter is entitled The Bottleneck. While it does
discuss to some extent his fears about the ‘bottleneck’ the human race is rapidly
approaching, it has a lot to do with the debate between environmentalists and
economists. He explains the polar opinions of the two groups to begin with but
goes on to explain the real difficulty between the two groups. Their views are
entirely different in the context of space-time scale, factor forecasting the state of
50
our world, the distance they predict into the future, and their concern for nonhuman life. However, Wilson is still a conservationist, and he takes the
environmentalists’ side with an opinion of economists which I could not possibly
do justice to by paraphrasing. Wilson writes,
Most economists today, and all but the most politically conservative
of their public interpreters, recognize very well that the world has
limits and the humans population cannot afford to grow much
larger. They know that humanity is destroying biodiversity. They
just don’t like to spend a lot of time thinking about it. (Wilson, 2002:
28)
Wilson believes environmentalist views are extremely optimistic, and he feels
that environmentalism is spreading and has almost become the powerful force
that it needs to be. He writes, “Perhaps the time has come to cease calling it the
“environmentalist” view, as though it were a lobbying effort outside the
mainstream of human activity, and to start calling it the real-world view” (Wilson,
2002: 28).
Wilson stresses the problem of human population growth more in this
work than any of his earlier books. In some part, his increased concern is due to
the human population passing the 6 billion mark. At the present rate, 200,000
people are added to the planet each day at a rate of 1.4- percent increase per
year. By the time there were 6 billion people on the planet, we had exceeded by
as much as one hundred times, the biomass of any large animal species that has
ever existed on the planet. What Wilson stresses is the encouragement of
governmental instituted family planning with the goal of reaching zero percent
population growth, or even negative growth. In his opinion this will be achieved
by not only governmental planning on a local level, but the globalization of an
51
economy driven by science and technology, and women with more freedoms
both socially and economically. In countries with more freedoms afforded to
women the birth rate is lower. According to Wilson this is a miracle of human
nature for they may have just as well chosen larger families now that they may
afford them (Wilson, 2002).
Wilson discusses China’s population in great detail as an exemplary
illustration of the world’s population problem. In 2000 China’s population was 1.2
billion or one fifth of the world’s population. Their country is frighteningly
overcrowded and largely without enough arable land or fresh water to meet their
countries growing needs. In other words China can no longer support its
population with its limited resources. Wilson explains, “China deserves special
attention, not just as the unsteady giant whose missteps can rock the world, but
also because it is so far advanced along the path to which the rest of humanity
seems inexorably headed. If China solves its problems, the lessons learned can
be applied elsewhere” (Wilson, 2002: 39).
Wilson returns to the topic of biodiversity with new insights and a renewed
zeal for biodiversity conservation. Over the course of evolution, nature has been
promoting ‘overyielding’. Species coevolve with one another to exploit the niches
they build, resulting in ecosystem harmony, or a dynamic equilibrium. Our
species, however, is very bad at fitting into an ecosystem harmony. We
encounter far more species today than we co-evolved with, thus eliminating far
more niches than we create (Wilson, 2002). In other words, we are not only
destroying the dynamic equilibrium of overyielding, but we are over-consuming.
52
Wilson cites a study done by Colin Clark to begin his discussion on the
economic value of biodiversity. Clark conducted a study to see what would be
most economically beneficial to Japanese Blue Whale hunters. He investigated
whether allowing the Blue Whale to recover from the brink of extinction and then
harvesting them sustainably would be more profitable than killing the rest as
soon as possible and investing the profits in stocks. His answer: Kill them all and
invest the money. His fallacy was that he based his prices for the whale’s
products on current market value. Wilson raises the point, “What was the value
of the blue whale in A.D. 1000? Close to zero. What will its value be in A.D.
3000? Essentially limitless…” (Wilson, 2002: 113). The potential for any animal
is virtually limitless. It’s value in the future of mankind can almost certainly never
be guessed, for the situation in which it may become useful may have not even
been thought up yet.
One highly debated issue that Wilson fully supports, is that of transgenic
crops, or otherwise known as ‘frankenfoods’. He cites such achievements as
inserting a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (know as Bt I believe) into crops
which in turn allows them to create a toxin that kills insect pests. Many other
instances such as this have been replayed in many different crops for such
activities as genetic herbicide, fungicide, and pesticide. Wilson believes one of
the most important creations was that of golden rice. Genes were inserted into
the rice that allowed it to manufacture beta-carotene. As the primary food for
three billion people which is deficient in this vitamin A producing beta- carotene, it
is a huge feat (Wilson, 2002).
53
In this text Wilson lays out his plan for conservation of our environment.
To begin, we must immediately protect the world’s hotspots, especially the
rainforests. The twenty five primary hotspots cover only 1.4 percent of earth’s
land surface, yet are the remaining homes to 43.8 percent of all known species of
vascular plants, and 35.6 percent of the known mammals, birds, reptiles and
amphibians. These hotspots have already been reduced by 88 percent due to
human intervention. We must also preserve the last five remaining frontier
forests to wilderness along with ceasing logging of all old growth forests. Pay
particular attention to cleaning and conserving lake and river systems for they are
the most threatened ecosystems. In addition to conserving these ecosystems,
we must identify the marine hotspots of the world and protect them. Humans
must also undertake the daunting task of completing the identification of the
world’s biodiversity, for it will be invaluable to human kind and the conservation
effort. Wilson takes the extremist stance yet again by calling for fifty percent of
the earth’s land surface to be reserved for nature and untouched by humans. In
order to preserve species diversity we must increase the capacity of zoos for
breeding endangered species, prepare to clone species if all else fails, set up
seed and spore banks, and create reserves of frozen embryos and tissue. Other
steps necessary are such previously-discussed topics as population planning,
genetically-engineered food, and ways to make conservation profitable. In terms
of attempting to finance these goals, consider that a once-cent/cup tax on coffee
would cover the costs of protecting and managing the world’s current natural
reserves (Wilson, 2002).
54
One of the most insightful sections in Wilson’s book deals with the debate
between what Wilson calls the people first vs. the environment first groups. In
his mind the opinions are basically that the people-first side says we can take a
piece of the environment here and there, while the environment-first side says
“nature is dying the death of a thousand cuts” (Wilson, 2002: 152). It is also a
debate of the pro-people thinking short term and the pro-environment sect
thinking long- term. I could not possibly agree more with Wilson’s next
statement, “Down deep, I believe, no one wants a total victory. The people-firster
likes the parks, and the environmentalist rides petroleum powered vehicles to get
there” (Wilson, 2002: 152).
What Wilson believes is the necessary next step is to disarm both sides.
In essence he wants to cut out the stereotypes and propaganda both sides fed to
one another and to the public. Wilson has experienced all of this in his years
spent on boards and working for government advisory groups. Understandably
Wilson admits, “To tell the truth, I am a little battle-fatigued” (Wilson, 2002: 152).
What needs to be accomplished is a fact-based discussion of the issues with all
the half-truths and convenient statistical analysis left aside. A middle ground
must be reached. Finding that middle ground is the purpose of this paper.
55
Ch.5: Synthesis
Wilson began his career without ideas of grandeur, or the bettering of the
planet and our species. However, as his career and life continued and flourished
he began to realize his abilities and insights could be used for the benefit of
humans’ relationship with the environment. He grew from a hard working
scientist to one of the most influential environmental thinkers of our time. I intend
to show here that his ideas and philosophies when compared to that of other
environmental thinkers can provide profound and original ideas, possibly leading
towards a map of positive human interaction with our environment. Although not
a clear set of directions by any means, this will provide a road map for an
environmental equilibrium.
Due to Wilson’s recent years as a heroic conservationist, many would
assume that he has always been an environmental pessimist. However, in his
early years he fell more into the environmental optimist category; in fact, much of
his work may be used to strengthen the position of some of the major
environmental optimists. While working on his theory of Island Biogeography he
was what might be called a ‘hard scientist’. He focused on the facts and
scientific data while ignoring possible impacts such as spirituality and even ethics
on his work. These items make up some of the primary considerations used by
the environmental pessimists. This is a rather interesting observation since
many of the pessimists have backgrounds in biology, as does Wilson. Wilson
was a driven, logical, disciplined scientist. He based his world view on hard
evidence. Wilson’s grounding characteristics were much like those of
56
Easterbrook when he discusses his view of ‘ecorealism’. Easterbrook discusses
‘ecorealism’ as such,
The core principles of ecorealism are these: that logic, not
sentiment, is the best tool for safeguarding nature; that accurate
understanding of the actual state of the environment will serve the
Earth better than expressions of panic; that in order to form a
constructive alliance with nature, men and women must learn to
think like nature. (Easterbrook, 1995: xvii)
Wilson was grounded in logic, not sentiment, and would have certainly agreed
that the best thing for nature was to understand nature’s workings. He was, after
all, a biologist and ecologist.
Earlier I discussed the fact that several authors believed that the key to
improving the environmental situation is to dispel lies and exaggerations, while
getting to the facts. This supposition was supported by several optimistic
authors, including Easterbrook, O’Rourke, and Simon. Wilson would agree with
the statement in so far as truths−hard evidence−should be used as opposed to
lies and exaggerations. Wilson would certainly not have used such rhetorical
language to make the same point during the earlier years of his career, and
certainly would not support the authors merely because they were making the
statement, for both sides of the environmental debate uses exaggeration and
unsupported rhetorical attacks as evidence.
Even if Wilson had disagreed with the environmental optimists in his
earlier years, his research and theory most certainly could be used to strengthen
the case of the environmental optimists. David Bower presents a timeline of
earth history fit into a six-day period. Brower uses his timeline in order to
illustrate the major impacts humans have had on the planet in such a short
57
period of time, such as the mass extinctions we have supposedly caused (White,
1994). Wilson’s theory of island equilibrium calculations, however, can illustrate
exactly how long it would take in a given area for the number and variety of
species to repopulate.
Easterbrook proposes that the species surviving today may be the species
that have evolved along with humans through history and are therefore the most
fit for their niches (Easterbrook, 1995). Wilson’s theory suggests that this may be
true. Though humans wipe out certain landscapes and environments, if humans
were to leave them alone we could calculate exactly how long it would take for
these areas to repopulate. These areas would repopulate most likely with
different species than before but the newly arrived species would be more
genetically adept at surviving human perturbation. Easterbrook believes that
curbing our pollution would allow the earth to cleanse itself. James Lovelock
believes that we may not even need to go that far. Wilson has shown that the
earth will repopulate itself until equilibrium is reached. Lovelock has advanced
the argument that earth will actually regulate itself until equilibrium is reached,
with or without human influence. He cites the example of the peppered moth in
England’s industrial areas. It changed its wing color from gray to black in only a
few decades in order to preserve its camouflage as the trees were being covered
with soot. Now that the clean air act is taking effect they are changing their wing
color back to gray (Lovelock, 1995). Easterbrook even reveals his belief that
humans should be more cautious with nature. More than likely, our environment
will eliminate us long before we can ever hope to eliminate it (Easterbrook,
58
1995). In essence even if humans were completely wiped off the planet by our
own misguided deeds, the earth will replenish itself of the life we destroyed.
By 1975, just eight years after Wilson had co-published his book on Island
Biogeography he had already changed not only the focus of his scientific
endeavors but in many ways his stance on the environmental debate. After
publishing his book Sociobiology you can practically sense Wilson removing the
self inflicted blinders from his eyes as he turns to problems of a more metaphysical nature and eventually directly to the environment. With this eye-opening
experience Wilson’s voice turns much more towards a pessimistic stance on the
environment and human interaction with it.
One of the first ideas Wilson attacks in his new philosophical writing is that
of structured religions. Wilson feels that religion is inherently anti-environmental
due to its anti-paganistic origins and archaic belief system focusing on people as
the stewards of the planet as opposed to a direct link between people and the
environment. He believes religion should be changed to incorporate science.
Religious practice throughout history has evolved because it has a genetic
advantage. The problem with studying religion is that its genetic motivation is
hidden from consciousness because people give up their own self- interest for
the interests of the group. Wilson believes religion is an essential and
inextinguishable part of human nature, but is no longer beneficial in today’s form
(Wilson, 1975 and 1978). He sees a future based largely on science, and in no
particularly egocentric fashion, on writings such as his own Sociobiology and
Biophilia.
59
To a large degree, the pessimist community has supported many of
Wilson’s views. As Harvey writes,
The earth’s ecological problems are not abstract, distant,
philosophical problems. Nor are they only economic or
technological problems. They are not to be left either to politicians,
scientists, or even philosophers. Just as such problems are largely
caused by everyday life (the cars we drive, the trucks which deliver
our foods, the rainforests destroyed to make way for our fields, etc)
so the responses must involve everyday life. (Harvey, 2003)
The key to incorporating a belief and faith in an idea is through religious zeal.
We are living in an age where science has more than proved that neither the
universe nor our planet revolves around humans. We are an interconnected
piece of the global puzzle. For humans to separate themselves from everything
around them is extremely detrimental to the survivability of our species. Some
scientists and activists believe that we should be protecting the planet for the
sake of the environment alone. Most, however, believe that environmental
conservation and preservation as a self-interested act is by no means wrong
(Harvey, 2003). According to Wilson, most, if not all, altruistic acts are committed
with some conscious or even sub-conscious goal of receiving benefits from the
act. Hence saving the environment in order for our species to survive is in no
way amoral or an act to be ashamed of (Wilson, 1978).
Such optimistic environmental thinkers as P.J. O’Rourke and Gregg
Easterbrook agree that science and new technology will be the key to
overcoming any environmental dilemma humans may encounter (O'Rourke, 1992
and Easterbrook, 1995). Lynn White disagrees with this statement and argues
that change in how people think of the environment is necessary for
60
environmentally beneficial progress to occur (White, 1967). Wilson would agree
with Easterbrook on the issue that humans need to think more like nature;
however Easterbrook believes this in the sense that we do not need to worry as
much because nature will tend to its own needs (Easterbrook, 1995). The point
that Lynn White and Wilson are trying to make is that nature most likely tends to
its own needs, but we must also tend to the needs of nature if we are to survive
alongside the natural environment.
Wilson has ideas on just how the human species may be able to realize
the faults in our relationship with the environment and fix them. In his mind the
genetic lag which we are experiencing is keeping us from realizing how
precarious our situation is. As Wilson writes in Biophilia these ideas become
even more clear and concise.
Wilson raises the questions about why it is that
humans feel such a draw to natural environments, whether on vacation or when
viewing a pretty scene in a picture, or a large sprawling estate of the rich.
Ehrlich reiterates these ideas by noting that as crime, drug use, riots, poverty,
and other factors increase, our natural settings diminish (Ehrlich, 1978).
As far as correcting our environmental problems Wilson also has some
original views in terms of genetic technology. This is one of the few points during
Wilson’s life where he departs from his standard pessimistic viewpoint and
sounds a good deal like some of the more radical optimists. Easterbrook feels
that it is time to begin with genetic exploration. Wilson agrees, suggesting that
humans begin to experiment and manipulate our own genes in order to retrofit
ourselves into the equilibrium of the environment around us. His goal is for
61
humans to eventually manipulate their genes to the point where they exactly
equal the most favorable conditions for our environment. As Greenwood points
out, this logic is completely wrong when based on evolutionary theory. If humans
were to succeed in this venture, evolution would cease to occur. Evolution is the
process of adapting and changing to meet new environmental requirements, or
functioning within a dynamic equilibrium (Greenwood, 1984). McKibben points
out that we may some day grow animals solely for the use of food; genetically
engineer them without a head, feet or wings, just tubes going in and out for
nutrients and waste. Next we may be able to alter plants in order discontinue the
practice of ‘wasting’ sunlight. Instead all sun could be used for productivity, most
likely benefiting humans. Or, as McKibben suggests, “We could just change our
habits” (McKibben, 1999: 170). For humans to perfectly coexist with our
environment we would have reached a complete equilibrium, which is physically
impossible in terms of ecological theory. This is a rare position of optimism
during Wilson’s life, though it is far-flung and may be impossible to achieve.
In The Biophilia Hypothesis, edited in part by Wilson, he gives an
explanatory summary of the important concept. Biophilia is “the innately
emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” (eds. Kellert and
Wilson, 1993: 31). He questions why more people visit zoos than all professional
sporting events combined. Humans have a genetic predisposition towards a
spiritual need for nature. Our genes evolved in times of hunter-gatherers and
that is why people today are intrinsically afraid of heights, snakes, spiders, and
moving water, more so than they are of guns, knives, or cars which are far more
62
dangerous in today’s times. Paul Ehrlich earlier raised this point in his book The
Population Bomb. If humans were able to notice changes over longer periods of
time, we would be appalled at the environmental degradation in our own areas,
such as the build-up of smog. Since humans evolved as hunters and gatherers,
they needed to notice things immediately such as a bear in front of them, not the
growth of a single tree.
Humans need nature; we are genetically programmed
to exist in a natural setting (Ehrlich, 1968).
The key to sustaining the health of people is in saving the world’s
biodiversity. According to Wilson, approximately half the world’s species live in
the rainforests and a conservative estimate might be ten million different species.
From clear cutting alone we are losing 50,000 species a year, 137 a day, and 6
an hour. As opposed to trying to stress the aesthetic value, or even economic
value of these species, Wilson is trying to stress their necessity in relation to our
genetic makeup and survival. If humans are to have a creation myth, which we
seem genetically pre-disposed to need, it will most likely be found within the
biodiversity of our planet, our true origins. These other species are our kin, our
genetic relatives. Humans also seem to have a need for exploration and
discovery, and since space is highly unlikely to be a feasible realm of exploration,
the biodiversity of our planet is a more realistic object of exploration (eds. Kellert
and Wilson, 1993). David Takacs cites Wilson as saying:
If we can gain a sense of emotional reward from contemplating our
environment and living closer to it, perhaps our descendants might
evolve further in that direction and discover deeper emotional
rewards. (Takacs: 315)
63
Takacs believes this is the beginning of Wilson’s plan to connect our genetic
evolution to an ethic or religion of biodiversity conservation. Sociobiology
connects these theories of a need for nature and creates an ethic of conservation
based on genetic programming. Wilson’s goal, as quoted by Takacs, is to “join
emotion with the rational analysis of emotion in order to create a deeper and
more enduring conservation ethic” (Takacs: 316). Wilson believes that
sociobiology forms the foundation for this study. Today, Biology can already
explain many of our species unique qualities. In the future sociobiology will
facilitate the explanation of complex behaviors such as religious beliefs and
moral reasoning. When these traits are explained we can use them to guide our
ethic of environmental spirituality.
Since the beginning of Wilson’s career he has swung from one pole of the
environmental debate to the other. The last phase of his life is where he truly
began to shine and possibly his largest contribution to human interaction with the
environment may be drawn from. During his mature, older years I believe hidden
within the depths of his writing he has given us the tools necessary to develop
what Wilson calls a truly “real-world view” (Wilson, 2002: 28).
Throughout Wilson’s life he has constantly returned to the idea of a
‘bottleneck’. He originally discussed it in terms of ecosystems but at some point
he began to realize that humans are reaching their own bottleneck on the planet
Earth. In his eyes, our population is just expanding too fast for either our own
species or this planet to keep up with. In order for our species to deal with this
64
up and coming bottleneck we must begin to work together through an
interdisciplinary approach involving all facets of life.
Wilson has always discussed with great optimism the possibilities of
genetic engineering. One of his biggest hopes for the future is the possibility of
genetically engineered or modified crops. Easterbrook, a constant optimist, also
shares these views with Wilson. It is their belief that in order to pass through the
bottleneck we are approaching, or just to raise the carrying capacity of our
planet, we must begin to experiment with genetically engineered foods. This
may include creating higher crop yields, healthier foods, crops resistant to
weeds, insect, fungus, and even drought (Easterbrook, 1995 and Wilson, 2002).
Wilson also returns to the idea of genetically modifying humans. He
approaches the topic at this point in his life with an obviously more mature and
conservative edge. He realizes that we must be careful if we are to begin
experimentation with human genome modification. He poses some important
questions regarding both morals, and physical restraint. If humans are to begin
attempting to improve our own genetic structure we must know before beginning
the process at exactly point we are to draw the line (Wilson, 2002).
At this point I would like to attempt to pin-point the key ideas within
Wilson’s canon of work which if used as prescribed have the ability to lead our
species into a future of unimaginable prosperity, not just economically but
spiritually, altruistically, and environmentally. These ideas will comprise a
combination of both pessimistic and optimistic opinion eventually leading to a
65
synthesis of ideas, which are a realistic and completely plausible list of actions to
be taken in the future.
Wilson’s idealistic vision of environmentalism based religion is almost
laughable on a large scale. Christianity and Judaism have been around for
thousands of years. Just because a scientist says it’s time to change does not
mean we will. Religion is based in deep-seated devotion and faith to that which
can never be proved. Attempting to convert a truly religious person to a factbased faith is a waste of time. Even in this age of computer technology and
genetic engineering, the Christian right is still one of the most powerful forces, at
least in the United States as shown by our last presidential election. However,
environmental education on a wide scale basis is possible. Education is the
most powerful tool our species possesses, after fire. In order to actually change
the mindsets of a mass audience, our young must be educated on the
importance of the environment. We teach math, history, and even foreign
language yet we ignore the very thing that each and every person relies on every
single second of their lives; the environment. Forget converting people to a
sociobiological and biophilic faith; educate them on the importance of an
environmental ethic.
It has been shown through history that whatever science is able to
accomplish it most certainly will. We have reached the point in our evolution
where we must realize that at some point we may go too far. The same
sentence almost exactly has been written or spoken through history as well.
Unfortunately, if humans are to experiment with trying to perfect our genetic
66
structure, the consequences could have unimaginable impact upon not only our
future but also the future of the planet as we can even begin to imagine it. As is
human nature, we will move forward with the engineering of human genetics. I
believe Wilsons hope for this venture is in essence to act conservatively, and
refrain from giving some individuals an outright advantage on life which was not
originally prescribed to them through their original genetic sequencing.
Achieving these goals will require an interdisciplinary effort unfathomed by
our generation. It will require an unparalleled effort of altruistic trust across the
globe. Politicians will have to allow real, unadulterated science to begin, and
then actually pay attention to the results. Scientists will need to recognize the
need for economically feasible actions, which can if necessary be self-sustaining.
Though possibly optimistic as I try to attempt objectivity, these are realistic
possibilities if we begin to work toward them today. Wilson’s five-step plan, while
idealistic, does have many useful possibilities. His idea of cataloging the world
hot spots of biodiversity can be economically beneficial and feasible while
protecting some of the worlds last pristine area and its organisms. A joint
venture with corporations at bioprospecting and taking inventory of the areas'
species will prove beneficial to all involved. A worldwide catalogue of biodiversity
is implausible at best. We simply do not have resources to undertake this
behemoth of a task, though we can begin to take steps in this direction.
Promoting sustainable development is a process already in action. Our
economy is slowly but surely providing an ever-widening space for businesses in
green architecture, design, and sustainability. What needs to occur next is
67
looking for a way to become a completely sustainable society here in the United
States so that we may set an example of a prosperous nation living sustainable.
This is a complexly feasible task, although realistically not achievable for at least
the next century. In terms of saving the worlds remaining biodiversity this is once
again laughable and Wilson knows it. Efforts should continue to save what is
remaining of the worlds biodiversity. If these efforts were to suddenly cease,
unimaginable destruction could occur in a very short period of time. Once again
we should strive for sustainability as quickly as possible, for then what remaining
biodiversity we have should no longer be in danger. Restoring wildlands is also a
process already in action. Once sustainability has been achieved there will be an
ever-continuing process of resource extraction and decades of time for the
wilderness to regrow. There is a rising environmental crisis, or a bottleneck of
environmental problems fast approaching. The steps outlined above will guide
us though this bottleneck mostly unharmed if we follow the steps.
The fulfillment of these ideas will certainly be left to many generations
after us, but it is time for our species to plan far into the future and not just to the
next election or for the next 100-year flood we hope we never see. At this point
in human history we are making plans which do not pass, at best, the generation
after ours. In order to take a realistic look at our actions and their impacts upon,
and with the environment we must begin to plan as if our species were never
going to go extinct. Optimistic again, but as a species we must be optimistic
about our chances for survival, and plan−as a pessimist−for them.
68
Appendix
(Graph 2: Myer and Simon, 1994: 16)
69
(Graph 3: Myer and Simon, 1994:17)
70
Works Cited
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1995. A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental
Optimism. New York: Viking Penguin
Ehrlich, Paul R. 1978. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books
Greenwood, Davydd J. 1984 The Taming of Evolution: The Persistence of
Nonevolutionary Views in the Study of Humans Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Harvey, Gaham. 2003. “Paganism and the Environment” In Worldviews, Religion, and
the Environment: A Global Anthology. (Ed. Foltz, Richard C.) Canada: Thomson/
Wadsworth
Leopold, Aldo. 2003. “The Land Ethic” In Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. (eds.
Light, Andrew and Rolston III, Holmes) Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Lovelock, James. 1995. Gaia: A new look at Life on Earth. New York: Oxford University
Press
Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward O., 1981 Genes Mind and Culture: The
coevolutionary Process Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward O., 1983 Promethean Fire: Reflections on the
Origin of the Mind Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Macarthur, Robert H. and Wilson, Edward O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton: Princeton University Press
McKibben, Bill. 1992. “An Interview with David Brower.” In The Rolling Stone
Environmental Reader. Washington D.C.: Island Press
McKibben, Bill. 1999. The End of Nature. New York: Random House
71
Myers, Norman and Simon, Julian L. 1994. Scarcity or Abundance? A debate on the
Environment. New York: W.W. Norton and Company
Naes, Arne. 2003. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” In
Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. (eds. Light, Andrew; Rolston, Holmes III)
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Natural Connection Edward O. Wilson Profile
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/swd/naturalconnections/edward_wilson_bio.htm
O’Rourke, P. J. 1992. “The Greenhouse Affect.” In The Rolling Stone Environmental
Reader. Washington D.C.: Island Press
Pollen, Michael. 2001. Botany of Desire: A Plant’s Eye View of the World. New York:
Random House
Quammen, David. 1996. The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of
Extinction’s. New York: Touchstone
Schloss, Jeffrey P. 1996. “Sociobiological Explanations of Altruistic Ethics: Necessary,
Sufficient, or Irrelevant?” In Investigating the Biological Foundations of Human
Morality. (ed. James Hurd) Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press (107- 145)
Schumacher, E.F. 1995. “The Age of Plenty: A Christian View.” In A survey of
Ecological Economics. (eds. Krishnan, Rajaram; Harris, Jonathan M. and
Goodwin, Neva R.) Washington D.C.: Island Press
Takacs, David, 1996 The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press
White, Jonathan. 1994. Talking on the Water: Conversations about Nature and
Creativity. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books
72
White, Lynn Jr. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155:
1203- 1207.
Wilson, Edward O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On Human Nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1993 “Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic” In The Biophilia
Hypothesis. (eds. Kellert, Stephen R. and Wilson, Edward O.) Washington D.C.:
Island Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1994. Naturalist. Covelo, California: Island Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1996. In Search of Nature. Covelo, California: Island Press
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf
Wilson, Edward O. 2002. The Future of Life. New York: Vintage Books