Guest post: Still no foresight, beyond the quarterly statement
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Hurtling down the path to extinction.
In War of the Worlds, the Martians meet their demise through lack of foresight, because they have no resistance to Earth germs; they are killed “after all man’s devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.” Now, with our devices and technology working all too well, and plenty of warning (but still, no foresight, beyond the quarterly statement), we may bring about our own end by killing off the insects. Who knows, this might have a bigger, faster impact on human thought (and numbers) than the comparatively slow motion disaster that is climate change.
Time to nationalize agriculture.
I’m not sure that would really help at this point. We would probably have to internationalize agriculture. For the time being, because of our numbers, I think we are trapped in industrialized, mechanized, chemical and energy intensive agriculture. Shifting over to methods that are less destructive would likely require more people working in the agricultural workforce. It would take time, and a lot more state intervention in the economy than many are going to welcome, but whatever we do, whatever happens, there is going to be massive societal and economic disruption as knock on effects of the ongoing ecological and climate disruption we have loaded the system with. The longer we wait to act, the less we will be able to control or mitigate that disruption, and the worse it is going to be. We are racing headlong into crisis and the earth is going to slough off a few billion humans (and countless other species) before it reaches some new equilibrium.
Too few people (and certainly too few people in power) are aware of the fundamental connections between the human sphere and the biological foundations from which it arises and upon which it depends. We’re still learning about those connections in our slow, halting way. Traditional societies that are/were more immediately tied to the cycles of the living world around them might have had some awareness of this, but perhaps in too much of a mythological or metaphorical sense (where propitiation of spirits might be seen as more important than not actually overhunting an animal or exhausting the land), rather than the nuts and bolts causality that the scientific method offers. Whatever traditional awareness of the intimate bond humans have to all other life, that awareness was lost, set aside or ignored as we adopted agriculture and adapted our ways to it.
Hunter-gatherer pre-agricultural Australia supported a maximum number of around 1 million humans. When times were hard, they practiced infanticide. Most of the babies born presumably died before they could reproduce. Agricultural Australia has 24 million humans, and is arguably over-populated already, and unsustainable ecologically. And these pre-agricultural people learned to harmonise with nature after a fashion, but on their way to it arguably wrought enormous ecological changes (selecting in fire-tolerant species like eucalypts for example) and exterminating some large animal species.
BUT today there are land reserves where all hunting is illegal, and marine reserves (eg a substantial part of the Great Barrier Reef) where all fishing is illegal.
On a visit some years ago to Alaska, I could not help noticing the difference. Alaskan wildlife conservation operates on bag limits for hunted species, but with no reserves. The net effect of this: the gun-hunters select out the biggest and best of the game species (grizzly bears etc) to decorate the walls of their ‘dens’ as trophies, and select in the weediest and scruffiest individuals (which they leave alone) to form the breeding population. This is exactly the opposite of what animal husbandry practice in the light of neo-Darwinian biology favours.