What the ecological perspective on the human habitation of the planet has to offer people is a box outside of which they cannot think. Nature as box may seem like an unnecessarily rigid confinement of it's apparent boundlessness and the adaptibility of it's creatures, but whenever that question of it's limits is broached, it is with the place of human life as a part of nature which we are truly concerned. Nature will continue with or without us, to be sure. The question of nature's boundlessness, however true, does not mean it is always useful to think about it in that way. There are completely natural habitats humans could never hope to survive in, let alone flourish, so the question of infinite human adaptibility has to be put to rest.
The human struggle to overcome the crueler aspects of nature and the large measure of success achieved lends a lot of historical credibility to the view that humans have been liberated from the animalistic constraints imposed by ecology. But what may be true in a relative sense is not necessarily true in an absolute sense. The hard part is knowing how to measure the limits of our achievements and to determine what is possible and what is impossible. This is where ecological concepts, principles, and laws are very useful to judge the human place in the natural world.
One broad and useful way to measure human's ultimate limit is the ecological footprint, an idea which sprang from the concept of carrying capacity used in ecology to understand an ecosystem's population limit. The ecological footprint puts the weight of human needs against the regenerative capacity of nature. It is specific to humans and is used to determine the sustainibility of a given level of economic activity. As a way to illustrate in a hopefully not simplistic way, if you use X number of trees to build a house and it takes Y number of years to regrow the trees, then Z number of houses can be built in some number of years sustainably. This can be applied to aquaculture, agriculture, energy use, and anything else that cycles through the human economy. All of this can be scaled up to the planetary level to give a grand total of how many humans can live at what economic level indefinitely within some margin of error.
Barring problems in methodology, it is a work in progress after all, the notion that it is possible to measure the impact of human civilization on the natural world, and to measure both the utmost human habitation and a desirable human habitation on the entire planet is entirely logical. There is not much that is mysterious about how people live or what people use to live and where they get it from. It really comes down to getting good data, which isn't always easy. The good news is the ecological footprint, like it's offspring the carbon footprint, can be used to guide public policy and personal behavior. The bad news is what it tells us about the human situation.
According to at least one version of the footprint (the main one), humanity surpassed the carrying capacity of the Earth sometime around 1980. As of 2006, as it says in the wikipedia article, humanity was living at 20% beyond carrying capacity. This means that humans are in overshoot of their global ecological support system. Currently human civilization needs 1.4 Earths to sustain it's current way of life. Barring an intragalactic raw materials trade opening up soon, the amount of basic natural stuff for human use will soon become scarce. And if there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the ecological footprint concept, I would point to two clear examples of resource overuse. Soil erosion is happening nearly everywhere there is agriculture. The recent flooding in Iowa showed that millions of tons of topsoil can be lost in a single thunderstorm. But soil erosion is happening at slower but still relentless rates all the time. The midwestern U.S. farm belt has lost half of it's natural topsoil since European settelment. Topsoil is still eroding faster than it is replenished in most places. Obviously, this state of affairs cannot continue for much longer. The other easily researched example of ecological overshoot is the overfishing of oceans. Several areas of the world's oceans have been overfished so much that the fish populations cannot recover by themselves. North Sea and Newfoundland fishing has seen the disappearance of makeral and Atlantic cod for commercial use and may be gone for good. Many other species are threatened with the same fate.
There are countless other indicators of human overshoot that are clear to anyone who studies the problem. Behind these examples lies a very potent and apparent fact: Humanity cannot sustain itself as it currently inhabits the Earth. The question is how far can we continue and what it means for us as we surpass the limits of natural bounty. It is possible for populations to continue to grow beyond the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for a while. What happens after that ecosystem is effectively tapped out is what should worry everyone.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Non-Negotiable Nature
Everything I post on this blog is informed primarily, maybe even exclusively, by the recognition that humans are animals and subject to the laws of nature. Call it a first principle. To be clear, I don't consider this the same as promoting a scientific understanding above, below, or equivalent to a religious experience with life and existence, but I would assert that a faith or a spirituality that is not informed by a scientific version of the Truth is inadequate for the times we live in. With that in mind, I think it is useful and valid to interpret the place of science and the various effects it has had on the history of the western world, whether good or bad, as the ultimate Faustian bargain(myth is an excellent way to understand existence as well). But is science as a means to humans to understand nature really the same as the Faustian drive for power and riches? There is certainly power to be had through the understanding of the workings of nature, but can the knowledge of something be responsible for the acts that knowledge enables? Mmm, maybe.
This may seem like a roundabout way to talk about a new economics for a resource-constrained world, but I believe that the magnitude of what needs to be considered should match the magnitude of the condition you find yourself in. In periods of dramatic change, one struggle you might find yourself in is between the way you thought the world worked and how the way you thought served to cause the changing circumstances. Examining your underlying assumptions is critical to achieving some new understanding that will be of use further down the road. To put some flesh on all of this, the changing circumstance is the steady depletion of economically extractable resources, especially the Ur-resource of crude oil. The underlying assumption is that the domination of nature by humans can continue without serious or fatal repercussions.
The domination of nature finds it's fullest expression in industrial civilization and the consumption driven economy it enables. The exploitation of the natural world for human use was given an enormous shot in the arm in the form of fossil fuels coupled with the advent of science and the technologies that the scientific method made possible. To bring back Faust for a bit, fossil fuels, playing the role of Mephistopheles, provided the power for humanity to use to dominate nature in ways it could not have otherwise done. The deal between Faust and the devil was for the devil to be the servant of Faust for a limited time in exchange for his eternal soul. During this time, the devil would give Faust everything he wished for; power, money, riches. Of course, Faust wound up in hell because he was unable to quit the bargain before the term expired.
The discovery and use of fossil fuels has produced a tricky predicament for humanity. We have come to believe during the course of the last 300 years that humans have liberated themselves from the hardships of past generations through their own cleverness. But the power we used to accomplish this is completely natural. No technology has created any fossil fuel energy but has instead just drawn it down from the Earth's natural endowment. Like the devil's bargain, the supply of hydrocarbons is limited in quantity and, therefore, in time. The cruel lesson in all of this is that, despite our cleverness, we cannot escape the natural bases of our lives. Yet we've behaved as though we had escaped the confines of the natural world and had created a world entirely seperate from it. The first principle of any economic system, or any society, of the future has to be as I stated it above because we in fact have not defeated or escaped nature by any stretch, not even in the industrial heyday.
The basis for any future society, then, has to be in accordance with ecological conditions. This essentially means it will be based on the flows of energy through the systems we rely on and human economic needs will be balanced with the needs of the natural systems that support us. All this seems obvious enough but when you consider that, sans any fossil fuels, the eventuality we all should be preparing for, the only energy source you are left with is the sun (fossil fuel is just old sunlight anyway). Of course, the sun produces wind, waves, photosynthesis, and heat. All our technology will have to be designed to make the most of these sources of energy. It will not be concentrated energy in the way fossil fuel energy is concentrated so the ability to power things we are accustomed to powering will likely not be there for us. This means industrial level production will not be possible over the long haul.
One concept used in ecology, and other fields like engineering, is the energy returned on energy invested(EROEI). Expressed as a ratio, it is one determiner of whether or not something is worth doing. A good way to think about it is through the example of a predator, like a lion, expending it's effort in catching food. It is worth it for a lion to go after bigger game like a gazelle or something, but not so much to go after rabbits. In fact, the lion would not be able to survive if it went after rabbits because, even if were able to catch one, it would have spent more energy getting the rabbit than the rabbit has to offer. At the very least, it would be barely worth it and the lion would have to either evolve to live off of rabbit meat or go extinct.
Humans ultimately face ecological limits to the economic systems they rely upon. It is like Faust choosing to give up earthly riches and return to the staid life of a normal person. It will be like the lion forced to hunt rabbits. Closer to home, it will be like a suburban mom downscaling her SUV for a moped. This could be achieved (except for the lion, perhaps), but requires something largely unprecedented. But, when the human situation is viewed from the perspective of science, and is viewed in a long enough time scale, then the stark reality becomes evident and the choices disappear. A particular future, one that believes humans will populate other planet, or one even in which we escape simple human labor, will not be occurring. Rather, it will likely be one in which we work the land, own less and travel less. In short, a future of smaller scale. Machines will be smaller and simpler and more costly to make. Things we use will be made to last a long time. Refitting the human presence on Earth to match these quite measurable physical constraints is the project for everyone.
Next week I will talk more on EROEI and other ecological concepts that will be the basis for future systems.
This may seem like a roundabout way to talk about a new economics for a resource-constrained world, but I believe that the magnitude of what needs to be considered should match the magnitude of the condition you find yourself in. In periods of dramatic change, one struggle you might find yourself in is between the way you thought the world worked and how the way you thought served to cause the changing circumstances. Examining your underlying assumptions is critical to achieving some new understanding that will be of use further down the road. To put some flesh on all of this, the changing circumstance is the steady depletion of economically extractable resources, especially the Ur-resource of crude oil. The underlying assumption is that the domination of nature by humans can continue without serious or fatal repercussions.
The domination of nature finds it's fullest expression in industrial civilization and the consumption driven economy it enables. The exploitation of the natural world for human use was given an enormous shot in the arm in the form of fossil fuels coupled with the advent of science and the technologies that the scientific method made possible. To bring back Faust for a bit, fossil fuels, playing the role of Mephistopheles, provided the power for humanity to use to dominate nature in ways it could not have otherwise done. The deal between Faust and the devil was for the devil to be the servant of Faust for a limited time in exchange for his eternal soul. During this time, the devil would give Faust everything he wished for; power, money, riches. Of course, Faust wound up in hell because he was unable to quit the bargain before the term expired.
The discovery and use of fossil fuels has produced a tricky predicament for humanity. We have come to believe during the course of the last 300 years that humans have liberated themselves from the hardships of past generations through their own cleverness. But the power we used to accomplish this is completely natural. No technology has created any fossil fuel energy but has instead just drawn it down from the Earth's natural endowment. Like the devil's bargain, the supply of hydrocarbons is limited in quantity and, therefore, in time. The cruel lesson in all of this is that, despite our cleverness, we cannot escape the natural bases of our lives. Yet we've behaved as though we had escaped the confines of the natural world and had created a world entirely seperate from it. The first principle of any economic system, or any society, of the future has to be as I stated it above because we in fact have not defeated or escaped nature by any stretch, not even in the industrial heyday.
The basis for any future society, then, has to be in accordance with ecological conditions. This essentially means it will be based on the flows of energy through the systems we rely on and human economic needs will be balanced with the needs of the natural systems that support us. All this seems obvious enough but when you consider that, sans any fossil fuels, the eventuality we all should be preparing for, the only energy source you are left with is the sun (fossil fuel is just old sunlight anyway). Of course, the sun produces wind, waves, photosynthesis, and heat. All our technology will have to be designed to make the most of these sources of energy. It will not be concentrated energy in the way fossil fuel energy is concentrated so the ability to power things we are accustomed to powering will likely not be there for us. This means industrial level production will not be possible over the long haul.
One concept used in ecology, and other fields like engineering, is the energy returned on energy invested(EROEI). Expressed as a ratio, it is one determiner of whether or not something is worth doing. A good way to think about it is through the example of a predator, like a lion, expending it's effort in catching food. It is worth it for a lion to go after bigger game like a gazelle or something, but not so much to go after rabbits. In fact, the lion would not be able to survive if it went after rabbits because, even if were able to catch one, it would have spent more energy getting the rabbit than the rabbit has to offer. At the very least, it would be barely worth it and the lion would have to either evolve to live off of rabbit meat or go extinct.
Humans ultimately face ecological limits to the economic systems they rely upon. It is like Faust choosing to give up earthly riches and return to the staid life of a normal person. It will be like the lion forced to hunt rabbits. Closer to home, it will be like a suburban mom downscaling her SUV for a moped. This could be achieved (except for the lion, perhaps), but requires something largely unprecedented. But, when the human situation is viewed from the perspective of science, and is viewed in a long enough time scale, then the stark reality becomes evident and the choices disappear. A particular future, one that believes humans will populate other planet, or one even in which we escape simple human labor, will not be occurring. Rather, it will likely be one in which we work the land, own less and travel less. In short, a future of smaller scale. Machines will be smaller and simpler and more costly to make. Things we use will be made to last a long time. Refitting the human presence on Earth to match these quite measurable physical constraints is the project for everyone.
Next week I will talk more on EROEI and other ecological concepts that will be the basis for future systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)