Evolution vs Conservation

[Dan.Linehan]

In Steve's Meaning of Life series he says:

When I look at how life has evolved on earth, I see this force of evolution as something much greater than my own personal existence. I see that life has been continuing to upgrade its complexity, its intelligence, and its overall chances of survival. When I place myself within this context, I see that I have three basic options. I can work to cooperate with evolution, I can work against it, or I can ignore it.

I took this to heart, but I'm somewhat unsure how we as a people should proceed to evolve. I see a conflict between the pursuit of our everyday conveniences and the widespread pillaging of our environmental resources.

I went vegan when I realized how many ecological issues my diet was contributing to. When I think about the evolution of our race the concept of conservation is always in the front of my mind. But it still seems to me that we may be evolving into an unsustainable future.

Is environmental conservation a step forwards or backwards?

[YouseffTheSheep]

It's a tough call man, very tough call.

Conservation is definetly important, I think the largest problem that we as humans face is the ability to truly balance and find what is IMPORTANT, and to set up priorities towards making life better for everyone on the planet, AND conserving and protecting our plants and animals.

I think there needs to be a shift in thinking on the whole issue.

[Mark Lapierre]

I don't think it's possible to work against evolution except by not participating. Even if we did nothing to aid the process but procreate, we'd continue to evolve.

But we can ignore it, or guide the process where we'd like it to go. However this is a separate issue to environmental conservation. We will continue to evolve even as the world dies around us.

So the issue we're discussing seems to be, do we focus on our own desires, or do we also have a care for the rest of the planet?

I don't think environmental conservation is a step backwards. Surely we're capable of sustaining ourselves while still ensuring that other life forms do the same? So I agree with Youseff, we need to find a balance between our needs and those of the rest of the planet.

We have the capability to focus on our own needs to the detriment of all others, but in the long (or maybe not so long) term that would lead to our own demise. Ultimately we have no choice but to look after our planet. I'd say the argument is over how far we can exploit the planet without ruining it, and that is a tough call.

[Akagi]

I see that life has been continuing to upgrade its complexity, its intelligence, and its overall chances of survival.

Evolution isn't about complexity, but by filling an ecological niche. Sometimes simpler is better for survival. Not just in evolution of species though, but on the macro level as well as Joseph Tainter pointed out.

Complexity is good up to a certain point, but when things become overly-complex is when the maintenence and requirements for that complexity become impractical to sustainably provide.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I took this to heart, but I'm somewhat unsure how we as a people should proceed to evolve. I see a conflict between the pursuit of our everyday conveniences and the widespread pillaging of our environmental resources.

The problems we're experiencing now are a result of too many people using too many resources. history is replete with examples of what happens when a population depletes one or several key resources.

The popular attitude now that we are facing an imminent peak and subsequent decline in world oil production and estimates call for impossible production increases out to 2030 is that we will become increasingly more complex and technology will somehow enable us to invent our way out of something as fundamental as an energy crisis. I believe that Mr. Tainter's observations are correct and this increasing of complexity in order to solve fundamental flaws with the way our system operates will have very predictable results.

When you consume too much, you don't solve the problem by substitution. That only drags it out and makes the problem worse than if you addressed it correctly to begin with. Rather, cutting back consumption is the elementary key. That is a requirement that is not even being considered, and much of the reason why I believe that the situation will have a less than optimal resolution, to put things lightly.

[Keith]

IME, any time you hit an "either/or" scenario it's time to search for a new way of looking at the issue (or "third alternative solution" as Steve puts it).

The problem comes when you look at evolution as change and environmental conservation as stasis.

Actually, the point of environmental conservation (IMO) is to maintain a rich and vibrant pool of genes and species so that evolution has the raw materials to do its thing. This is in everyone's best interests.

[Akagi]

Originally Posted by Keith

IME, any time you hit an "either/or" scenario it's time to search for a new way of looking at the issue (or "third alternative solution" as Steve puts it).

Depends on the situation. The first law of sustainability is that growth in population and/or resources cannot be sustained. When you live in a finite sphere, you cannot have endless growth. It simply can't be supported. Eventually a wall will be hit where the demands of the growth exceed the capacity for them to be provided for.

So with that observation, the need to stop these growths, reverse them even, seems fairly transparent.

The world population in '75 was estimated to be 4 billion people and it was growing at the rate of 1.9% per year. At this low rate of growth the world population would double in 36 years, the population would grow to a density of 1 person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth (excluding Antarctica) in 550 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in 1,620 years. Tiny growth rates can yield incredible numbers in modest periods of time.

This makes for a funny cartoon:



Now in that cartoon there is a profound lesson. And that is that zero growth is gonna happen.

Since it is obvious that people could never live at the density of 1 person per square meter over the land area of the earth, it is obvious that the earth will experience zero population growth. Now we can debate whether we like zero growth or not, but it's absolutely guaranteed to happen. People could never live at that density or anything close to it. The present high birth rate and/or the present low death rate will change until they have the same numerical value, and this will probably happen in a time much shorter than 550 years.

Current population growth is at 1.14%, so the growth rate has slowed a bit since then, but 1.1% will do every bit that that 1.9% will, it just takes longer.

[Keith]

I entirely agree with you and can't see how that contradicts my point about evolution vs conservation.

[Akagi]

It's an either/or scenario. I'm not seeing any third options. Either we stop these growths through our own rational, planned initiative; or the inexorable laws of nature will stop it for us in it's usual cruel and efficient manner.

Judging from the course we are presently on (which is the one we've been on since the industrial era), I'm seeing the latter being most likely - absent some massive wake-up call in the public consciousness well in advance of the crisis manifesting.

[Bole]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Is environmental conservation a step forwards or backwards?

Definately step forward. Advanced society will care about environment. Primitive society will care about survival. Sustainable development is a term becoming widely recognized, yet unfortunatey not politicians.

Take a look at that picture. Mirrored decline of biodiversity is huge price, since payoff is nothing more than millions of products that we basically don't need.

Huge problem with sustainable development lies with the state of development by regions. USA is accounted for 25% of world CO2 emmisions, Europe 15% and so on. But only 8% of wold population lives in USA + Europe. You can freely apply these percents to majority of other wastes/consumerism, etc. Back to the opening paragaph thought: Accoring to theory countries will go through different development phrases - agricultural - industrial - services. If you are interesed to know more about that read about environmental Kuznets U inverted curve. Link. Well I can only imagine what will happen when China and India with population of 2 bilions will start to consume with the current western world standards.

We are currenty way from sustainable development or environmental conservation. Industrial revolution practically devastaded environment in 200 years and if we won't take action we will have to deal with consequences. Capitalism is a system where profits are ahead of moral/environement. Awareness is the only solution. Europe is miles ahead of US in terms of environemental degradation awarness.