![]() This book was recommended to me by Dr. Carolyn Kissane, the director of the SPS Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab and the coordinator of the Energy and Environment concentration at NYU's school of professional studies. She was kind enough to meet with me to discuss the program after I was admitted, and during our conversation I asked if she had any book recommendations. She asked if I had already read this book, showing me how popular and recommended it must be. Responding truthfully, she insisted that I add this to my list to read prior to entering graduate school, so I did! The primary argument of this book is that Earth is entering into it's sixth extinction, this one being man-made. That is not though how the book starts out. The book essentially dives into the study of extinction sciences and its first chapter actually dives into a case study of the Golden Toad, outlining how their demise can only be connected to humans because no other species would've been capable of spreading a fungi that was the cause of their extinction. This seems to be the way Kolbert builds her argument. She slowly starts by introducing the reader to these concepts of extinction and how humanity is connected. In the 11th and 12th chapter, she introduces the history of fossil discovery that permitted the understanding of the concept of extinction, and how it points contradicted with previous theories of existence and future theories of evolution. Ocean acidification is a process that this book has enlighten me too, and I'm shocked that it is not as widely known as global warming. In fact, this book even refers to it as global warming equally evil twin, but it is not gonna be nearly as much attention (120). This is a result of the rising CO2 levels that come from human activity. Just to name a few, the burning of fossil fuels has added 365 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere, and deforestation contributing another 180 billion. Where does it all go? Well, thankfully we discovered that it has been creating a hole in the atmosphere (global warming) that causes glaciers to disappear, coastal cities to go underwater, the polar ice caps to melt, but I figure that we all know that by now. We don't realize that the ocean cover 70% of earths surface, and at every point where that water comes into contact with the air there is exchange of carbon dioxide. Perhaps we can do this process with gratitude, thinking the oceans for absorbing much of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise destroy the atmosphere, but we are ignorant to the ocean acidification that it is causing. At this rate, the pH of the ocean will drop to 7.8 by the end of the century (presently being 8.1 but previously being 8.2). In exploring the species that can survive in these low pH zones, scientists explored the waters of Italy where they were vents bubbling out gas out of the seafloor. Tear, some of the most resilient and invasive species were able to survive, but a loss of biodiversity is evident. In a 7.8 pH zone, 1/3 of the species found in the vent free zone were not present. This is what our future could look like in less than 80 years. Imagine the impact of the loss of the oceans biodiversity. Does this not terrify you? Something else I'm coming to realize is the class between my ethics on the treatment of animals and true environmentalismSomething else I'm starting to realize how environmentalist purposes can clash with my personal ethics on the treatment of animals. A lot of compromises have to be made in order to preserve the ecological community as a whole, including sacrificing certain species. This can include invasive species, general population control, habitat restoration, and a lot of other environmentalist efforts. Something is booked out into extensively is how humans play a significant role in the movement of species. Even Darwin himself explain how it is virtually impossible for a species to cross oceans, including those that fly and swim. Humanity, however does not face that same difficulty anymore. Along with the spread of civilization we have seen that most species are no longer confined to the spot where they were introduced, and this happens without being noticed. This was even documented by Native Americans. Certain plants were used as a reliable sign of European presence and movement. Plantains were called the “white man's footsteps.” A lot of extinction is caused by the spreading of fungi from continents, and we have seen that this has been responsible for the death of golden frogs, chestnut trees, and millions of bats in New England. Here's where my ethics become problematic. I'm not exactly against the idea of eradicating a fungi species to protect establish species from novel interactions that are spectacularly deadly. However in Australia, the problem of these aquatic hitchhikers has become so extreme that they have employed kids to conduct regular hunts for cane toads. To dispose of them humanely, they were told to essentially freeze them. Humanely? That doesn't seem humane to me, but is there a more productive and efficient way to sustain the ecological well-being of an environmental community? More complicated is the notion of rights to land. Obviously, humanity has an extremely problematic of way of determining who land belongs to. As for other animals, the spread of species in the past couple of hundred years makes it hard to know who came first. Case is more obvious, like the Australian cane toads being poisonous to an established native specie like the northern quoll, who eat them and die. In other situations, it is less clear, and deciding on solutions that are ethically sound is all the more complex. I don’t even know if the freezing of these toads by children was a remotely ethical tactic for the government to employ, but I hope that they had rightfully determined for this to be the best way. But do I really? I feel wrong hoping that killing these toads this way is “right” but my moral standards. Regardless, this book is open my eyes to a future of moral qualms that I will likely face in environmental policy making. Just like a good fiction novel, this book just kept getting better. In fact, the last three chapters (particularly "The Rhino Gets An Ultrasound" and "The Madness Gene") were by far my favorite, but perhaps the most saddening. My hopes that there remains possibility o harmony between humanity and nature has been tarnished. We know the indirect causes of ecological damage caused by unnecessary human activity - to the point where I don't even need to list off examples - but what about the necessary? So it turns out, simple early humans were the responsible of many extinctions, particularly those similar to the most charismatic and lovable animals today. These large animals, such as giant sloths, mammoths, and rhinos, evolved to prioritize size over reproductive rate. This essentially made them more difficult to prey on, but much slower to repopulate. Once hungry and tool-using humans came along, they did not stand a chance, not even long term. Using simulations, it was found that even "if every band of ten hunters killed off just one diprotodon a year, within about 700 years, every diprotodon within several hundred miles would have been gone." (234). The chapter concluded by supposing that there might have never been a time where man existed harmoniously with nature. I concluded this chapter riddled with questions. There must have been other powerful predators that were capable of causing similar rates of extinction prior to the settlement of man... right? Is it even possible, with our present capacity, to ever live in harmony with nature? Is nature even suppose to be harmonious - as life is inherently competition is it not? Maybe it doesn't have to be, maybe we can make it harmonious but it seems like in its most natural state, planet earth was not in natural harmony, more like a competitive balance. The chapter on the Neanderthals was immensely fascinating. If you are into genetics, this chapter is a must read, but really, so is the whole book. I really expected Elizabeth Kolbert to conclude be really honing in on the human caused state of disaster we are in, but she didn't. Only the last 2 pages or so focused on this fact, the rest of it was done subtly through the anecdotes of diverse circumstances of human caused excitation. It is almost like she compiled a journal of her field notes and accidentally wrote a book persecuting humanity of ecological crimes. By doing so, it is extremely convincing but riddling as to how to make a change. The pessimistic ending even ridicules book readers, and levels them to a logger in the Amazon. Humans can't make a change, but humanity can. Well - isn't that kind of a bummer. Instead of telling us to do our part, we are told that we can't do enough, but that's sort of the point. It's a constant effort with no end, it has to be reframed as a new way of existence. I hope we can make it there. There is nothing more finite than life. Grasping the irreparable nature of species extinction is a hard pill to swallow.
1 Comment
3/30/2022 10:43:23 pm
Great post to have shared Auva! Thank you for sharing!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories |