Natural World Consciousness

With 04/01/2011 revisions 

 [Click here to download a pdf copy of this article]

(Cropped Earth flag image created from public domain sources and released into the public
domain by Derrick Coetzee at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_flag_PD.jpg)

Whatever else we might cherish is for naught if we don't genuinely respect, and foster the renewal of, the essence of our continuing existence.

You've very likely heard before how humanity can't go on the way it is, but just as likely either don't see the immediacy/seriousness of the issue, or dismiss the idea as fringe lunacy, or are resigned to humanity ending in some cataclysmic event regardless of our actions. On the other hand, you might have enough of a grasp of the ecological underpinnings to appreciate the issue, but as an individual are either confused about what you can do, or too intimidated to challenge culture's steamroller.

It is scientifically accepted that on a cosmological timescale the Earth’s period of habitability is at least half over. In about another billion years the Sun will start to be too luminous and warm for water to exist in liquid form on Earth. Even within the next billion years, there are numerous factors we can't control that threaten our existence on Earth (e.g. volcanism, earthquakes, asteroids, global epidemics, etc.). The future is undoubtedly a bumpy ride.

The issue here though is not about factors over which we have no control, that are likely to occur within the next billion years. It's about factors we're creating now, that we could better influence. Factors we're already seeing the detrimental consequences of, and which at the current scope and pace will cause substantially increasing harm to humanity well within the next couple hundred years. That is, the issue is about surviving our own controllable actions in the shorter term, to have time to possibly learn to survive uncontrollable factors in the longer term.

This isn't another prophecy, or mythology, but rather is based on our accumulating objective understanding of natural world ecology, in which our continuing existence is rooted. Our expanding knowledge and focus is more realistically encompassing the discontinuity in the gradient of human interaction with the natural world, yet the scope and pace of our detrimental actions are accelerating frantically.  The shorter term state of human existence on Earth depends on whether wisdom or irrationality prevail.  That is, whether objective understanding or subjective beliefs prevail. 


In addressing this issue we can't look to our leadership and institutions because they are nothing more than an embodiment of the existing critical mass of thinking.  Thus the burden of ecological consequences is upon personal responsibility in fostering a new critical mass of objective understanding.

To try to get across the essence of this issue, this article begins with a small sampling of how we are disrupting Earth's biosphere, then generally explores our cognitive processes, outlines what productive ecosystems entail relative to human existence, and finally focuses in on our major disruptive practices.  To those that allow themselves an objective understanding of the ecological realities of the natural world, the probable consequences of continuing along our current path are starkly clear.

"Seek ye wisdom early oan, leest ye die ay regrets." ~ Laura Cullens (c 1940)

One generalized way of perceiving the extent of human impact on Earth's biosphere is the I=PAT formula (preceding graph).  Such relates a reasonable approximation of environmental impact (I) through the product of three key driving forces: population (P), affluence (A as per capita consumption or production) and technology (T as impact per unit of consumption or production).   T may be used in more specific illustrations (e.g. CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption), but here is stated in terms of overall patent applications because our technology development thus far has been contra-nature for the most part.  There are also other measures of the ecological deficit we're accumulating, all opposed or ignored by the many that wont or can't recognize natural world realities. 

Considering that all organisms are consumers, humans currently consume, directly and indirectly, at least a quarter of the Earth's net primary production (production meaning the creation of new organic matter).  In so doing we are displacing many other organisms, and thus reducing biodiversity necessary for human sustaining ecosystems, that our technology can't for the most part compensate for.

"Three hundred trout are needed to support one man for a year.  The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, that must consume 27 million  grasshoppers that live off of 1,000 tons of grass." ~  G. Tyler Miller Jr.

Following is but a small sampling of the ways we're destroying the biodiversity, and thus the productivity, of Earth's ecosystems that support our existence.  

Chesapeake Bay - satellite Landsat photo, from circa 2000
(image is public domain work of the United States Federal Government)

In the 1970s, the Chesapeake Bay was discovered to contain one of the planet's first scientifically identified marine dead zones, where hypoxic waters were so depleted of oxygen they were unable to support life.  As of 2008 there were 405 identified significant marine dead zones worldwide.

"Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all animals who returned the questionnaire." ~ Robert Brault

(public domain image created by the US Federal Government)

Currently the most notorious dead zone is a 22,126 square kilometre (8,543 mi²) region in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River dumps high-nutrient runoff from its vast drainage basin, which includes the heart of U.S. agribusiness.  There are also 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells beneath the Gulf that generally are not checked for potential environmental problems.  Between 1985 and 2008, the dead zone area roughly doubled in size.

(public domain image created by NASA)

Red circles on this map show the location and size of many of our planet’s dead zones. Black dots show where dead zones have been observed, but their size is unknown. It’s no coincidence that dead zones occur downriver of places where human population density is high (darkest brown). Darker blues in this image show higher concentrations of particulate organic matter, an indication of the overly fertile waters that can culminate in dead zones.

Use of chemical fertilizers is considered the major human-related cause of dead zones around the world.

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire

(published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license in Public Library of Science journal article Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being)

Forest ecosystems in the tropics and subtropics are being quickly replaced by industrial crops and plantations. This provides large amounts of goods for national and international markets, but results in the loss of crucial ecosystem services mediated by ecological processes. In Argentina and Bolivia, the Chaco thorn forest (A) is being felled at a rate considered among the highest in the world (B), to give way to soybean cultivation (C).

(image released to public domain by Jamidwye at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lacanja_burn.JPG )

As a further example of escalating habitat destruction, and with it accelerated biodiversity reduction, this is a jungle burned for agriculture in southern Mexico.

Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century and the area covered by rainforests around the world is shrinking considerably. Biologists have estimated that large numbers of species are being driven to extinction (possibly more than 50,000 a year).  Rainforests also serve as part of the world's moisture and temperature regulators, and their reduction exacerbates climate change issues.

The accelerating loss of forests is a triple whammy in ecological terms. First, it is accelerating soil nutrient losses and increasing the use of chemical fertilizers.  Second, it is reducing habitat and increasing biodiversity losses.   Third, and probably the most significant from a geologic perspective, it is changing the composition of the atmosphere. The climate warming from increasing carbon dioxide levels is contributing to biodiversity loss, acidifying the oceans, and sea levels are expected to raise significantly, which will displace substantial populations.  

"The key to intelligent tinkering is to keep all the pieces." ~ Aldo Leopold

Wheat harvest on the Palouse is an example of vast monocultures.

Credits: PD as an image of the ARS of the USDA [ http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/k1441-5.htm last accessed 03/26/11]

As is explained latter in this article, conventional agriculture's vast monocultures and agrochemicals are deteriorating the natural ecosystems necessary for our existence. 

The El Chino mine near Silver City, NM is an open-pit copper mine.

(licensed under CC 3.0 Attribution: Marshman at the English language Wikipedia)

Surface mining is used when commercially useful deposits are found near the surface.  They are typically enlarged until either the commercially useful deposits are exhausted, or the cost of removing larger volumes of overburden makes further mining no longer economically viable.  Surface mining causes numerous environmental problems, including destruction of large tracts of deciduous forests and/or other natural ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, and significant pollution.

Coal strip mine in Wyoming

(public domain image created by Bureau of Land Management employee as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coal_mine_Wyoming.jpg)

There are five types of surface mining termed strip mining, open-pit mining, mountaintop removal, dredging, and highwall mining.  Another form of fuel extraction is hydraulic fracturing technology, which also has environmental and human health issues.  These include contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, and potential mishandling of waste. 

Athabasca Oil Sands (Alberta, Canada) NASA Earth Observatory image

public domain image created by NASA as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athabasca_oil_sands.jpg

Oil sands are found in large amounts in many countries throughout the world, but are found in extremely large quantities in Canada and Venezuela.  Oil sands projects affect: the land when the bitumen is initially mined and with large deposits of toxic chemicals; the water during the separation process and through the drainage of rivers; and the air due to the release of carbon dioxide and other emissions; as well as deforestation. Additional indirect environmental effects are that the petroleum products produced are mostly burned, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  In 2007, Environment Canada completed a study that shows high deformity rates in fish embryos exposed to the oil sands operations.  Heavy metals such as vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc are present in oil sands. 

Marine debris on a Hawaii beach.
(image public domain by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/marinedebris101/photos_ecosys.html )

Is this to be humankind's legacy on Earth?

"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~ Pierre Troubetzkoy

 Human Cognition

"The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking."  ~ Albert Einstein 

Mankind's cognition has preoccupied philosophers since antiquity, and developing disciplines of modern cognitive science more recently.  Examining the question of why we make the choices we do from another direction, science has also been trying to understand our present nature by attempting to study what led to the development of our cognitive abilities, from a primitive hominid to an essentially modern human.  Yet despite all the effort expended, we know little more than anatomical and physiological aspects of our cognition, and behavioral issues associated with various abnormalities. 

We're all aware that human perspectives vary considerably, and that such is a manifestation of differences in individual thinking.  Many may also be aware that this cognitive variability is, in good part, a result of ongoing individual experiences and metaphysical influences.  Fewer may be aware though, that we can influence our perspectives just by thinking about how they developed—that is, we can change our thinking with something as intangible as simply thinking about thinking (i.e. metacognition).  Actually, with our afforded cognitive latitude, we can individually believe just about anything, depending on the extent and combination of relative influences at play in one's mind.  On one hand it's discouraging that because of such we make so many bad choices.  On the other hand it's encouraging that, with our cognitive latitude, it's possible to become a more objectively enlightened species and make better choices. 

From what we know of the anatomical and physiological aspects of cognition, the human brain is a highly interconnected vast network (contrary to the 19th-Century "top-down" view), structurally analogous to today's internet, that can individually adapt its own interrelated networking to adjust cognition.  A human brain has the same general structure as the brains of other mammals, but is around three times as large as the brain of a typical mammal with an equivalent body size.  It has been estimated to contain 50 to 100 billion neurons (nerve cells), which pass signals to each other via possibly as many as a quadrillion (1000 trillion) synaptic connections (declines with maturity to possibly 500 trillion).  It is functionally the patterns of formation and fading of these synapse connections (enabling networking variations—termed neuroplasticity) that facilitate our ability to learn and function.

Neuron Cell Diagram

Public domain image as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Complete_neuron_cell_diagram_en.svg

A neuron is a special type of cell that is found in the bodies of most animals (all members of the group Eumetazoa). These cells communicate with one another via synapses, where the axon terminal or en passant boutons (terminals located along the length of the axon) of one cell impinges upon another neuron.  Many properties of neurons, from the type of neurotransmitters used to ion channel composition, are maintained across species.  Neuron cells are but one of the many biological apparatuses we share with other organisms, exemplifying our elemental relationship in the natural community. 

The fact that learning and memory produce changes in the structure and function of brain cells provides us all with a certain unique biological individuality and independence of thought. Even though the overall anatomy and physiology of the brain is similar for everyone, the unique environments and stimuli we each experience modifies our brain structure, giving us distinctly different brains at the cell-to-cell level.  At the same time, as a social species we integrate various general cultural influences to varying degrees, such as socioeconomic norms. 

An individual's cognitive state (and thus their interpretive perception) evolves throughout their lifetime, with at least perceived divergences, seriousness, and immediacy of individual experiences and related metaphysical influences.  The key word here is "perceived" as these experiences and metaphysical influences are filtered by an individual's evolving cognition (involving in part instinctual factors, emotional influences, social and economic biases, extent and scope of previous experiences and influences, and so on), in turn further affecting perception. 

"Ours is the age which is proud of machines that think and suspicious of men who try to." ~ Howard Mumford Jones

Thus, relative to cognitive discipline, scope, and objectivity, individuals' perceptions diverge to various degrees.  Contributing to this cognitive conundrum, is that the more thoroughly we try to perceive a phenomena, the greater the mental effort we must exert (especially in sorting out biases).  On the other hand, the less mental effort we exert, the more prone to misinterpretation individual perception is, and regardless less immediate aspects (e.g. longer term consequences) are given less consideration, if any. 

Now consider the inconsistent influences of our cognitive processes, present (in part) because we live not only in the natural world that evolved physically, chemically, and biologically over Earth's roughly four and a half billion years, but also in a largely artificial world modern humans have progressively created in the last ten to fifteen thousand years (i.e. significant agricultural, then industrial societies).  What occurs (for this and other reasons) are insufferable contradictions that our cognitive processes deal with, mostly unconsciously, further skewing our perceptions. 

Quiz time: How many people do you suppose have a natural world understanding of the essentialness of healthy ecosystems to our very existence, or for that matter, of even what constitutes naturally healthy ecosystems in this context?  On the other hand, how many people do you suppose don't believe in humankind's interdependence with the natural world, or at a minimum believe that humans are superior in the natural world and that nature can be sustainably manipulated to humankind's advantage with our science and technology? 

We all know that both perceptions exist, in their extremes and to various degrees, in the population at large, but coming up with actual counts is not the point here.  Rather than consider the foregoing questions literally, it's more instructive to view them as defining points of a span of individual perspectives.  That is, since the span defining perspectives are polar opposites (i.e. harmony vs. mastery), an encompassing span of focus related perspectives that necessarily involve varying degrees of rationalizations (i.e. cognitive defenses against insufferable contradictions). 

"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Another misleading aspect of human cognition is our propensity to reductionist analysis and solutions (as opposed to a holistic approach).  Analogically speaking, we commonly fail to conceptualize the totality of a forest because our focus is exhaustively engaged in getting our head around the complexities of individual trees.  This reductionist tendency, in combination with cognitive biases, further skews our perspectives and thus our attempted solutions to recognized problems.  These reductionist solutions often involve the replacement of acute problems with chronic ones that may not be open to solution but which, instead, demand constant maintenance, leaving us exerting more effort than if we had never acted against the problem in the first place.  An example might be our focus on individual nutrients, especially in artificially supplementing processed (i.e. denatured and adulterated) foods, rather than on the synergies of naturally occurring combinations of nutrients, enzymes, antioxidants, amino acids, various cofactors, etc., in whole, mostly raw, natural foods (that our biochemistry evolved on).  A broader example is industrial agriculture's reductionist solutions involving monocultures, chemicals, and genetic engineering, which are the source of many chronic disruptions to natural ecosystems (i.e. inflicting increasing harm and demanding increasing maintenance). 

"It is one of the miracles of science and hygiene that the germs that used to be in our food have been replaced by poisons" ~ Wendell Berry 

The more comprehensive manifestations of our cognitive fallibility are there to see every day in our modern world.  While we're individually trying to get by, and hopefully better ourselves (in a status quo socioeconomic sense), in this world modern humans have created, we're for the most part avoiding critical issues that are incongruous with our lifestyle.  For example, many seem to delight in pictures of what they believe to be pristine nature, and even take enjoyable walks in public areas passing for wilderness nowadays, but mostly avoid the obviously blighted areas.  Far fewer though, make any real effort to try to conceptually understand our natural life support ecosystems that are in essence the nature we sentimentally embrace.  Many do however, immerse themselves in various distracting social and economic issues, that are at best remotely secondary to the consequences of our deteriorating natural life support systems.  It's obvious that in going about our daily lives, many are in good part mentally blocking out the substantial and growing evidence that we're increasingly disrupting the state of the natural ecosystems that underpin our existence. 

The most glaring example of our cognitive fallibility though, has to be the popular cultural belief that we are some sort of super intelligence that can "adjust" nature to our own devices—that belief we champion in our modern human pride of achievement perspective.  Surely our history and current predicaments should be sufficient evidence to the contrary.  It seems our afforded cognitive latitude allows a serious to fatal disconnect in the self we're trying to understand, that in its disaccord further skews our interpretations of reality. 

"I distrust any system which allows us in our intellectual arrogance to picture ourselves as independent of the natural matrix in which we live, and from which – ultimately – we have sprung." ~ Jacquetta Hawkes 

Beyond how we employ the physiology of our brains, there is the aspect of how well we develop and maintain this physiology through diet and exercise.  Given our "modern" lifestyles, we're not doing a great job in the development and maintenance departments.  This is another impairment to objective enlightenment, but also another obstacle that can be overcome. 

 Ecosystem Significance to Human Existence

Beyond the complexities of human cognitive processes, is the much more complex nature of the collective individually varying consciousnesses, and activities, of all the various life forms in even smaller natural ecosystems—for which we haven't yet even discovered all the players in, let alone understand all the dynamics of.  Then there is the additional dimension of dynamic environmental influences, resulting in systems many times more complex than we can yet fully mimic with our advanced modeling techniques, even if we knew all the factors.  Of course, the existence of higher life forms like ourselves depends on larger ecosystems (collective smaller ecosystems), which introduces an even greater degree of complexity.  Given the level of complexity, many tune out rather than try to grasp the concept of natural world ecosystems and their overall importance to our existence, or if considered, commonly oversimplify concept and lessen importance. 

Overall, one should keep in mind here that Earth's collective ecosystem has evolved over billions of years to support inclusion of the human life form, and that throughout this evolutionary process many life forms have come and gone.  Where this evolutionary process leads in the future is anybody's guess, but of the innumerable changes that will occur there are significant factors that humankind can influence to its potential benefit (if timely) or further detriment.  Ignoring, or inappropriately addressing, root ecosystem issues influenced by humankind of course defaults to the detriment column. 

"How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children." ~ Charles Darwin 

In the simplest terms, an ecosystem is a community of interacting organisms and their physical environment, linked together through nutrient cycle and energy flow.  An ecosystem works because all the organisms act paradoxically to bind the system together.  No life form within such is (in a natural sense) essentially good or bad, but is simply a functional component that reacts to the myriad of changes in the ecosystem, in turn initiating further changes, in an ongoing series of varying successional ecosystem state changes. 

We commonly view component ecosystems relative to varying physical environments (e.g. a small pasture or pond, a major watershed, ...).  The Earth's biosphere is a collective ecosystem of continuing dynamic aggregation, existing in finite space, and thus a closed loop system (self-contained and self-sustaining apart from solar and cosmic radiation).  Ecosystems sustain every life-supporting function on the planet, including climate regulation, water filtration, soil formation, food, fibers, medicines, and so on.

In the modern human world the question of what a healthy ecosystem is, is ultimately a policy decision.  That is, after scientists provide their input, then a societal body defines the policy by which ecosystems are deemed healthy or not.  Given the potential range of individual perspectives, one person’s sick ecosystem may be another person’s healthy ecosystem, but it is the arbitrating authority's decision (based on policy) that legally prevails.  What few seem to take into account, is that regardless of the societal policy making body, policies are essentially based on socioeconomic biases and influences (i.e. relative to shorter term interests, and often predominately in the interest of the most influential). 

"Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do." ~ Wendell Berry

If we consider the question of what a healthy ecosystem is, in terms of what it is to sustain human existence, then it means preserving and fostering Earth's natural ecosystems, to the extent possible, that allow our habitation—everything else is undeniably secondary.  From a human perspective, the notion of “saving the world” ends up meaning, first and foremost, saving the world as a human habitat. 

In natural world terms (i.e. irrespective of our "healthiness" perspectives), ecosystems will continue to exist as long as there is life on Earth (even if only microbial).  As they have since the beginning of life forms billions of years ago, they will ebb and flow, relative to biotic and abiotic disruptions, in an irregular series of state changes, with some involving mass extinctions.

Pertinent to higher life forms, like ourselves, the two key measures of ecosystem health are sustainable long term productivity and relative stability.  Productivity builds up over time as the biological community builds to an optimum level of biodiversity to exploit all the ecological niches (in time, space, and kind).  In other words, greater diversity leads to greater primary productivity through better coverage of habitat heterogeneity by the broader range of species traits in a more diverse community.  The second key measure (i.e. relative stability) is dependent on the overall balance of ecological processes in minimizing ecosystem state shifts to background evolutionary changes, as much as possible.  That is, the idea is to avoid chaos, which is particularly harsh on higher life forms. 

Extensive biodiversity is necessary for a biological community to exploit all the ecological niches in an ecosystem.  Important components of biodiversity are species richness (number of different species present), species composition (taxonomic array of species present), and species redundancy (multiple species that play similar roles in ecosystem dynamics).  Species redundancy is important because it helps ecosystems respond to stress, disturbance, or other environmental changes.  Closely allied is genetic fitness of species populations—i.e. genetically adapted to a current environmental regime, and possessing some degree of genetic redundancy (a diversity of alleles) to facilitate degrees of response to environmental change. 

Ecosystem productivity is only sustainable in the long term through the natural buildup of extensive biodiversity.  Our reductionist and short-termism thinking, such as monocultures, agrochemicals, and genetic engineering, are demonstrably exacerbating the problem of declining biodiversity.  Yet another case of such thinking replacing acute problems with chronic problems, resulting in the need for ever increasing effort, with the effect of ever decreasing ecosystem productivity. 

Ecological processes (aka ecosystem functions) are the dynamic attributes of ecosystems, including interactions among organisms and interactions between organisms and their environment, and are the basis for self-maintenance in an ecosystem.  Community interactions, such as limited competition, predation, parasitism, and various forms of symbiosis (e.g. mutualism, facilitation), are inherently stabilizing factors (natural checks and balances).  The more balanced, on the whole, the dynamic, opposing attributes are, the more stable the system will be. 

These natural checks and balances (i.e. dynamic, opposing attributes) in an ecosystem are necessary to maintain a level of integrity and diversity (i.e. avoid chaos).  Within an ecosystem, innumerable minute disturbances resulting in minor state changes are ongoing in an evolutionary process of slow successional change.  However, when ecosystems are stressed to the point where opposing attributes are sufficiently unbalanced, then ecosystem state shifts become more abrupt, and shorter term transformations more pronounced.  These accelerated ecosystem metamorphoses involve many ramifications, but are characterized by successively reduced biodiversity, and with such, degradation of food chains, in preparation for reconstructing a new state of relative integrity and diversity.  In this deteriorating cascade, biodiversity reduction begins with the higher life forms because the way that the cells in higher life forms work together makes fundamental biochemical changes too disruptive to be practical.  Microbes, on the other hand, can adapt biochemically, and can experiment with their chemical processes and how they use their amino acids. 

"It is not the strongest species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives, but the one most responsive to change."  ~ Charles Darwin  

As a general example of natural checks and balances, consider a hypothetical higher life form species in an encompassing natural ecosystem, that over time gains a destabilizing advantage relative to the ecosystem state.  Given the narrowed, shorter term, frame of focus of individual species, and their instinctual desire to better their lot, they can be expected to use whatever advantages they possess against perceived rivals.  As this hypothetical species greatly diminishes, and possibly eventually exterminates, their restraining rivals in the food chain, and other life forms for varying reasons, they would prosper and grow to fill newly acquired territories, so the benefits would seem to justify their actions. Of course, with the diminishment/extermination of other species would come the secondary diminishments/exterminations (ecological cascade effect), then the tertiary, and so on.  With diminishing biodiversity comes the insidious degradation of the food chains, and in turn reduced health and increasing disease.  Also, with the growth of the hypothetical species would come ever increasing wastes that would pollute resources necessary for their, and others, existence (destabilized closed loop system), and further diminish biodiversity.  Of course, not all life forms would be reduced in this deteriorating cascade, and some would even flourish, at least for a time.  For example, vermin and pathogens that benefit from the increasing wastes would flourish.  Also, prey of diminished species would flourish for a time, creating additional dimensions of ecological cascades.  In addition, since ecosystems exist in finite physical space (with finite resources), growth would eventually come up against obstacles that could not be overcome, and intraspecific competition and exploitation would escalate to widespread savage internecine warfare. In time, in the diminishing phase of this ecosystem metamorphosis, the hypothetical species would suffer severe decline, possibly to the point of extinction.  In the redevelopment phase of this metamorphosis, ecosystem biodiversity would increase, eventually reaching a new state with a more balanced optimal level again, as it has many times before.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."  ~ Albert Einstein 

The preceding example could also play out similarly relative to a sufficiently disruptive abiotic destabilization.  How an ecosystem responds to disruption depends on ongoing severity, the preexisting state of the ecosystem, and the myriad of interrelated changes cascading throughout the ecosystem.  Over the span of life on Earth there have been a number of substantial shifts in ecosystem states that involved mass extinctions.

A sample freshwater aquatic and terrestrial food-web.

(Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication)

Food web illustrations are by necessity overly simplistic as representatives of the relationships of living organisms in nature. One reason is that only a limited number of representative organisms, of the multitudinous organisms in a biological community, can be included.  A second reason is that the extent of the relationships is more complex than can be clearly illustrated.  Even so, the point intended here is that disruption of a food web at any point causes cascading effects (ecological cascades) throughout interrelated food webs, which reduces essential biodiversity and thus the productivity of the ecosystem.  Arguably, overall, industrial agriculture's chemicals are the greatest polluters of our water resources, and are substantially accelerating the loss of biodiversity.  Human focus is on providing for humans in a manner that is destroying biodiversity, and thus the productivity of the ecosystems that make human existence possible.  Continuing along this path is a sure way of shortening humankind's existence considerably. 

Recall from the preceding that Earth's ecosystems sustain every life-supporting function on the planet, including climate regulation, water filtration, soil formation, food, and so on.  That is, the sustainable longer term productivity, and relative stability, of the collective ecosystem of Earth's biosphere is undeniably absolutely essential to the longer term existence of humankind.  Our science and technology isn't capable of supplanting the natural world ecosystems, at a minimum either in the extended term or in the scope necessary.  Even so, as incongruous and absurd as it seems, whether consciously or unconsciously many modern humans believe us independent of, or at the least superior in, the natural world, and that nature can be sustainably manipulated to humankind's advantage with our science and technology (despite all our failures thus far).  Thus we ride roughshod over Earth's ecosystems and deplete its finite resources, ignoring the obvious consequences. 

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

One consequence, relative to the essential biodiversity of higher life form conducive natural ecosystems, is that we're causing the extinction of an alarming number of other life forms daily just to support our own biomass.  In increasing the biomass of a lesser number of organisms to support our own biomass (e.g. cows, chickens, corn, beans, tomatoes, wheat, ...), we're decreasing the biomass of the many other organisms we're not intelligent enough to recognize the need for, and (among other issues) increasing the pathogens that function to help balance food web trophic levels.  That is, we're systematically diminishing the biodiversity of the natural biological communities, and in so doing are destabilizing nature's infrastructure that is keeping us alive. 

Relative to species extinctions, what should be kept in mind is that we don't know all the species of organisms in Earth's biosphere—especially microbial species.  The "background extinction rate" refers to the estimated rate of species extinctions before humans became a primary contributor to extinctions.  The present rate of species extinctions is estimated at 100 to 1000 times the background extinction rate.  Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. 

What too many are loath to recognize fully is remarkably the overly obvious—that humankind is not above the natural ecological processes (i.e. natural checks and balances), as understood for all other life forms.  We're just another component of the overall biological community—albeit one that has developed a destabilizing advantage.  This superiority belief tendency persists because it's ingrained in our culture, since long before we had a better understanding of the natural world.  The belief isn't unnatural in itself because it springs from the single species perspective—i.e. how might any single species perceive (through whatever means) its existence in the absence of certain knowledge otherwise.  Our belief came about through leaps of faith, arising before we knew enough to know better.  We're seemingly suffering from hubris because of the temporary gains we've experienced thus far in destabilizing Earth's natural ecosystems.  The denial that abounds, of the seriousness of the ecological problems we face, doesn't speak well for the so-called superiority of human intelligence. 

"Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man."  ~  C. S. Lewis

Overfishing is leading to a global collapse of all species fished, possibly as soon as mid century, which is already initiating ecological cascade effects throughout the world.  Overfishing has also led to fish farming which, given our shortsighted reductionist approaches, is proving to be as much of a disaster as terrestrial animal farming.  A very serious complicating issue, is with our CO2 emissions significantly contributing to ocean acidification.  It's estimated that by the year 2100 only dull mats of algae will prevail in the oceans.

 "It is a curious situation that the sea, from which life first arose, should now be threatened by the activities of one form of that life." ~ Rachel Carson

Given our limited species specific perspectives, with our socioeconomic, reductionist, and contra-nature biases, it's not surprising that so far the influences of modern humans have been predominantly and demonstrably detrimental to the natural ecosystems that underpin our existence.  If on the whole we did reach a sufficient level of objective enlightenment, then the most important questions on our minds would be, how, and to what extent, are human influenced disruptions affecting change in ecosystems overall that may shift them to a state not conducive to human existence, and what might we do to alleviate the consequences.  The crux of the problem in answering these questions is that, despite all the evidence of extensive ecosystem disruptions, we don't really know enough to predict potential combining abiotic disruptions, nor identify and predict all the cascading effects and potential consequences with any detailed reasonable accuracy, let alone any potential timetable.  What can be safely said, is that if we forgo any appropriately holistic human initiated remedial actions until manifestations of ecosystem problems become sufficient to provoke widespread reaction, then it will be too late to avoid widespread trauma to the human species.  Even in focusing on current isolated manifestations of ecosystem problems, we're demonstrating a lack of wisdom to sufficiently address, and begin to rectify, root issues of human involvement that influence these manifestations (especially root issues that are integral to our status quo socioeconomic model). 

Examples of pollinator insects
(A: public domain from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pollinator _insects_(Hymenoptera,_Lepidoptera,_Hemiptera).jpg )
(B: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Aphaia from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plumpollen0060.jpg )
(C: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 by Silvio Sorcini from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bombus.png )

Take for example the case of the honeybee (a keystone species at the very center of the entire food web, and directly involved in producing a third of all the food we eat), and other pollinators, being in steep decline.  Based on what we know about our existing food chain, the potential loss of pollinators is very ominous, especially since the loss of keystone species results in a range of dramatic cascading effects that alters trophic dynamics, other food-web connections, and causes the extinction of many other species in the community.  Loss of keystone species, like pollinators, can easily be as cataclysmic to the human species as a major abiotic disruption (e.g. a large meteor impact)—the difference being that where a major abiotic disruption may occur in an instant, the loss of keystone species may occur over decades.  Ongoing research into this issue seems mostly interested in identifying and treating the manifestation (i.e. the observable phase of the problem), but a more holistic and fundamental examination would recognize the ecological cascade unsustainability of our modern globalized industrial agriculture (chemically dependent, genetically engineered, highly hybridized, monoculture systems).  The root issue here, being integral to our status quo socioeconomic model, clouds our perspective.  This prevalent socioeconomic contra-nature propensity is a significant self-destructive aspect of individual human  consciousness.  

Our ancestors existed as nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers during much of the Paleolithic period, then with the emergence of agriculture (circa 12,000 years ago) began settling into more permanent communities.  Overall the relative security and increased productivity of farming communities allowed humans to devote more time to other interests, such as increased procreation, and in turn more soldiers.  Surplus food made possible an increasing division of labor, the rise of a leisured upper class, more sophisticated commerce, and the development of cities.  In other words, this lifestyle change ushered in what we term civilization and our modern economic model, and with the short term benefits of prosperity and growth (and the cognitive socioeconomic biases fostered by such), also a Pandora's box of increasing human excesses.  Together with the Industrial Revolution (18th century), affluence also ushered in an epidemic of what we call the diseases of affluence—i.e. chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancers, asthma, gout, allergies, and depression.  The 20th century saw the development of new global threats, such as nuclear proliferation, financial turmoil, extensive pollution (including toxics), human influenced climate change, massive deforestation, overpopulation, increasingly dwindling natural resources, decreasing nutritional quality of food, and epidemics of diseases (infectious and chronic) hand in hand with increasingly widespread pathogens. 

Ozone depletion is just one small example of humankind's tinker-toy reductionist science and technology to date.  Though we belatedly caught on, it's a consequence we'll live with for some time (just like DDT).  It's calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of about five to seven years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.
 
Many people in the world today, especially those prospering to some degree, see our civilization for the most part in positive terms.  After all, this world modern humans have progressively created has increasingly satisfied many of our desires over several hundred generations.  It's not surprising that a majority of us seem distracted to varying degrees from many of the manifesting problems, and those we do address we try to solve with mostly the same thinking that influenced their development.  However, the natural world evolves on a geological time scale (in which modern human existence is equivalent to the blink of an eye in our time scale), and we don't know how far along the span of our existence we are on our present course.  What seems safe to say, is that if we have erroneously taken an increasingly unsustainable path (as is borne out by considerable evidence), and continue along it, then our span of existence will be shortened considerably (e.g. what will the consequences be if pollinators do become extinct).  It's also safe to say, that there are a growing number of people (increasing ecological awareness) that see many of the serious problems we're experiencing as interconnected with the ongoing disruptions of our natural life support ecosystems, and understand the need to find paradigm shifting practicable root counteractions that truly promote sustainability.  At the same time, it's accepted that there are those too deeply rooted in their own realities to acknowledge humanity's ecological underpinnings and dependencies.  So, needless to say, there is apprehension as to whether there will be a timely critical mass of ecological awareness.

"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds . . . An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise." ~ Aldo Leopold

Once we took the first stumbling steps along this path, then the inherent desire of any species to better itself, together with the shorter term advantages experienced, have propelled us onward to the present.  Now we find ourselves in a quandary where increasing scope and awareness of our life sustaining natural ecosystem problems, and our contribution to such, is empirically at a point where further ignoring them is arguably untenable.  One need only consider the preceding general example of natural checks and balances to see the correlation between our deteriorating natural ecosystems and our increasing socioeconomic problems. 

Rather than addressing these growing problems with more of the same thinking that influenced them, maybe, if we reexamine this path in light of its divergence from natural world ecosystems, we might see how to reorient ourselves along a potentially more sustainable path.  That is, we might individually make more positive use of our afforded cognitive latitude through more objective metacognition to reorient our behavior.

Given humankind's potential, with our afforded cognitive latitude, the shorter term existence of the human species is not a matter of fate, leaps of faith, or prophecies.  Rather, it's a question of whether we can muster the wisdom to understand the consequences of our activities, have sufficient compassion for our children and other life forms, and adapt our ways to those of a beneficial member of the natural world's biological community. 

"If there are still people here in two hundred years, they won't be thinking the way we think, because if people go on thinking the way we think, then they'll go on living the way we live — and if people go on living the way we live, there won't be any people here in two hundred years." ~ Daniel Quinn

Major Disruptive Practices

A key aspect of our civilization that distinctively exemplifies divergence from (i.e. disruption of) natural world ecosystems is the emergence and ongoing development of agriculture.  Archaeologically we recognize evidence of the emergence of agriculture through environmental manipulation (e.g. cultivated field patterns, irrigation systems, deforestation), and human interference in the reproductive behavior of managed plants and animals (naturally inconsistent genetic changes in the behavior and structure of plants and animals).  In other words, we recognize human agriculture practices of the past through evidence of humans imposing their own reductionist conceptions of order, efficiency, and yield, as distinct from natural ecosystems.

Agricultural practices such as irrigation, crop rotation, fertilizers, and pesticides were developed long ago, but have advanced considerably in the past century.  One significant advancement was the synthesizing of ammonium nitrate (fossil fuel dependent), which made the traditional practice of recycling nutrients with crop rotation and animal manure much less necessary.  However, chemical fertilizers have substantially increased pollution of the environment because crops use them inefficiently, and because of widespread wasteful application.  Thus the significant amount of chemical fertilizer not recovered by the crop ends up in the environment, mostly in surface water or groundwater.  This pollution contributes to greenhouse gases, smog, and acid rain; and is a primary cause of "dead zones" in coastal waters.  In contributing to acid rain, it's also involved in leaching of nutrients from the soil, such as calcium, magnesium and potassium out of the root zone, and mobilizing aluminum which inhibits root growth.  Moreover, epidemiological studies have linked excesses of nitrates in drinking water to reproductive problems, bladder and ovarian cancer, and blue baby syndrome.  

Through the increasing use of nitrogen fertilizer, which is added to the already existing amount of reactive nitrogen, nitrous oxide (N2O) has become the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane. It has a global warming potential 296 times larger than an equal mass of carbon dioxide and it also contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion.

Excessive nitrogen fertilizer applications also exacerbate crop pest problems by increasing the birth rate, longevity and overall fitness of many agricultural pests, thus increasing other agrochemical use.  In a like manner, aquatic and marine dead zones are caused by an increase in chemical nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) in the water, known as eutrophication. 

The synthetic fertilizers and monocultures typically used in intensive agriculture foster increases in insect pests and unwanted plants (weeds), so the use of insecticides and herbicides has escalated, further increasing pollution.  Also with the escalating use of insecticides and herbicides, we're seeing the emergence of insecticide-resistant pests and herbicide-resistant weeds.  It seems rather obvious that nature has its own agenda and our reductionist approaches are exacerbating our lot.  Of course, human excess and profit stream drive seemingly have no limit, and in our reductionist thinking we've come up with the latest A-bomb of agriculture practices, in the genetic engineering (GE) of plants and animals.  Relative to the great extent that non-GE practices have disrupted the natural ecosystems, GE practices have the very real probability (approaching certainty if allowed to continue unfettered) of exponentially escalating ecosystem state changes.  Consider that where our past practices created disruptions through significantly interfering with natural selection, GE practices, without any real appreciation of, or any idea of where it will lead, mess with the DNA at the core of life, creating hitherto unknown transgenic life forms, which can't help but escalate state changes in the natural ecosystems underpinning our existence. 

Where selective breeding is a controlled form of natural selection, which is disruptive enough, genetic engineering changes the genetic makeup of cells through the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes.  The idea of genetic engineering has been around since the early 1900s, but was not successfully accomplished until the 1970s.  An increasing proportion of our foods have been genetically modified since 1994.  To place this unfettered commercially driven tinkertoy science of genetic engineering in perspective, consider that nature has the advantage of around 3.8 billion years of "research and development." 

PD as a work of US Federal Government
Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

"Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays."  ~ Aldo Leopold

Arguably, the most obvious and worrying example of human cognitive fallibility, is reflected in the majority of people that believe in industrial agriculture for whatever reasons.  It is so obvious because industrial agriculture is the very antithesis of our life supporting natural ecosystems.  Recall from the foregoing ecological concepts that the key factors of healthy ecosystems (in the sense of being conducive to human existence) are sustainable long term productivity through extensive biodiversity to exploit all the ecological niches (in time, space, and kind), and relative stability through the overall balance of ecological processes in minimizing ecosystem state shifts.  This more complete utilization of limiting resources at higher diversity increases resource retention through more thorough and efficient recycling increasing productivity, and the balance of inherently more intricate ecological processes promote stabilization. 

Then contrast the ecological concepts with industrial agriculture which intrinsically involves the simplification of nature's biodiversity and ecological processes (i.e. a reductionist approach), reaching an extreme form in crop monoculture and synthetic agrochemicals—the end result being artificial ecosystems requiring constant human intervention, and an unsustainable supply of polluting agro-industrial inputs, soil nutrients replacement, and sufficient quality water.  [As an advanced example of these artificial ecosystems, look into the "scorched earth" approaches of industrial agriculture in California's Salinas Valley, in the wake of the 2006 food safety issues.] 

To illustrate the scope of biodiversity reduction of edible plants alone, of the more than 30,000 species identified so far, major crops include only some 12 species of grain crops, 23 vegetable crop species, and about 35 fruit and nut crop species—that is 70 plant species spread over approximately 1.44 billion hectares (3.56 billion acres) of presently cultivated land in the world.  Within species, examples include 86% of the 7,000 apple varieties used in the U.S. between 1804 and 1904 are no longer in cultivation, and of 2,683 pear varieties, 88% are no longer available.  Flora extinctions result in habitat changes,  and in turn fauna extinctions. 

Another way to view the issue, is considering just the nutrient flow aspect in the soil level of a healthy (relative to human sustainability) ecosystem.  Between soil minerals, ground water, and niche filling biodiversity of soil organisms and plants (live and dead) providing and using organic matter, the system is more optimally nutrient-gathering and nutrient-conserving.  In contrast, conventional agriculture strategies decrease soil organism and organic matter nutrient containers allowing considerable nutrient leaching loss.  This occurs through monocultures, chemical fertilizers oxidizing (i.e. chemically burning) organic matter and killing soil organisms, pesticides and herbicides affecting non-target soil life, and soil disruption limiting development.  Even in organic farming, soil disruption and killing unwanted vegetation and pests sets back the natural nutrient conservation processes and full development of soil organism communities.  Considering the ever decreasing soil fertility from these practices, and in consequence the increasing burden on humankind to replenish leached nutrients artificially and increase pest control agrochemicals (increasing pollution), a major factor in our food chain deterioration should be obvious.  You are what you eat, and the ever increasing health issues in the population at large is testament to our deteriorating food chain.  

Naturally healthy terrestrial ecosystems are dependent on the primary production productivity of the soil.  Optimally productive soil contains multitudinous microbes, and numerous species of soil fauna.  It's not just numbers that are ecologically important though, but the biodiversity of organisms, the adaptability of the biodiversity to fill all the ecological niches (in time, space, and kind), and the balance of the ecological processes in the community.  Management practices, like industrial farming, that reduce the deposition and persistence of organic matter in soils, and bypass biologically-mediated nutrient cycling, reduce the nutritional productivity of soil communities systemically degrading land in a downward cycle. 
 

 

Categorized Schematic of Soil Food Web

 Authors illustration adapted from USDA NRCS Soil Biology Primer at http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html [accessed 03/16/11] 

One example of detrimental agriculture practices is that predatory nematodes (eat other nematodes keeping their populations in check) are easily killed by plowing and other physical disturbance of soils (which also shreds fungal networks and kills many other soil organisms).  This initiates ecological cascades in both increasing the populations of their prey (e.g. root feeding nematodes) and diminishing the food chains of their predators (e.g. arthropods),  and in turn throughout the food web destabilizing and diminishing natural ecosystems.  The conventional agriculture approach to these kinds of problems is to add more chemicals, which, as another example, reduces vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (aka VAM fungus) that forms inside root tissue cells.  Where VAM fungus is present the plant is protected from root rot disease and parasitic nematodes.  Hyphae of the VAM fungus reach out into the soil to collect phosphorus, other nutrients, and water for use by the host plant.  Thus conventional agriculture applies even higher rates of chemicals, systemically destroying soil ecology (not to mention polluting our waters) and diminishing the natural ecosystems our existence depends on.   Plant diseases are controlled over the long term only with naturally balanced soil ecology, not with agrochemicals which destabilize soil ecology and reduce soil fertility in a downward cycle.  All the obvious, detrimental consequences of our short-termism reductionist thinking, strongly suggests that our species priding itself on its intelligence is akin to a drunken driver's pride of their driving skills. 

Understand that, relative to the importance of biodiversity, the word organisms includes plants.  Plants are the support basis of most other soil organisms through their root exudates, and each kind of plant supports unique flora and fauna.  Thus the more diverse the plants in an ecosystem, the more diverse the soil food web, and the more productive the ecosystem.  One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand how conventional agriculture's monocultures and chemicals are degrading the land, diminishing our food chain, and disrupting our life supporting ecosystems. 

This example of human cognitive fallibility is so worrying because industrial agriculture has increased to currently involve almost a third of the world land area in homologous agricultural landscapes (very limited areas remain totally unaffected by agriculture-induced land use changes), substantially reducing natural habitat and biodiversity, and crowding out our life sustaining natural ecosystems.  Additionally, nearly 40% of the world's agricultural land is now seriously degraded (the overuse of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers damages the long-term fertility of the soil), and a substantial amount (no reliable estimates) of our fresh water (up to 70% is used by agriculture) is polluted, both of which seriously impedes renewal of natural ecosystems essential to our existence.

Modern agronomy, plant breeding, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and technological improvements, have sharply increased yields from cultivation in the short term, but at the same time have caused widespread ecological disruption and negative human health effects.  Selective breeding and modern practices in animal husbandry, such as intensive animal farming, have similarly increased the output of meat, but have reduced the nutrient quality of the meats, have increased pollution with concentrated wastes, and have raised concerns about animal cruelty, inappropriate diets, and the health effects of the antibiotics, growth hormones, and other chemicals commonly used in industrial meat production.  More objective consideration of our reductionist contra-nature approach to agriculture would certainly identify the interrelation with diminishing biodiversity and deteriorating food chains.  Might not reorienting our agriculture approach, more along the lines of natural ecosystems, enhance our prospects of sustaining the human species?  If our children's lives are paramount, then so to is our approach to agriculture at a minimum. 

Today, the human mind must be working overtime to avoid insufferable contradictions between two of the most obvious aspects of our unsustainable socioeconomic system.  On one hand, our industrial agriculture, in producing ever more food for an ever increasing population, is dependent on fossil fuels, especially for the agrochemicals it uses.  On the other hand we're now thrashing about over the "Peak Oil" aspect of our exploitation of finite natural resources.  Surely the connection and consequences aren't that difficult to see, as this is clearly a modern example of Nero's alleged fiddling while Rome burned, with Nero being an allegory of our cultural biases.

 "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land... In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such."  ~ Aldo Leopold 

On a broader scope, environmental manipulation in most all aspects of our modern socioeconomic model represents a major discontinuity in the gradient of human interaction with the natural world.  An example is our economic model of the flow of goods, which is dependent on the paradigm of continuing growth, and on a linear approach—i.e. diametrically opposed to the natural world's finite resources and closed loop nature.  For a more detailed look at this aspect, see "The Story of Stuff."  

This flow of goods linear approach involves:

1. Extraction of natural resources—natural world exploitation and disruption of environmental aspects of natural ecosystems.  
2. Production—industry using mostly non-renewable energy and toxic chemicals to produce products, and in the process creating pollution with its wastes. 
3. Distribution—more non-renewable energy used, and externalized costs of extensive infrastructure involved (especially relevant in our global economy) which further disrupts environmental aspects of natural ecosystems. 
4. Consumption—the heart beat of the system with planned and perceived obsolescence built in to promote turnover, and significant costs externalized to promote the illusion of lower prices in the interest of growth. 
5. Disposal—the ever accumulating trash pile of our artificial products which don't break down organically and substantially increase pollution. 

Without casting any doubt on the economic paradigm of producing ever more goods to sustain growth, recycling has been widely promoted as a way to protect the environment.  Of course cognitive misconstructions commonly involve an element of truth, and recycling does reduce environmental damage, but not to the point we imagine.  While recycling reduces the extent of natural resources extraction (see step 1 above) in the short term, it involves reverse distribution (see step 3 above), and additional production processes (see step 2 above).  Actually, recycling plays into the economic paradigm of continuing growth by providing additional means, and extends the time over which natural resources extraction may continue until it hits the wall of exhausted finite resources.  The only way this flow of goods economic model can be deemed truly sustainable, is if it is a non-disruptive closed loop system like the natural world (i.e. self-contained and self-sustaining).  Thus, recycling as much as possible is important in the short term, but conservation, not economic growth, is the more important path to sustaining the human species. 

Consider our prevailing economic paradigm of growth—which seemingly relies on a contradictory vision of the human economy as a system that is closed, yet independent of its own physical basis—as a subsystem of the natural world which hinges upon increasing resource use which, in a finite world and in direct contrast to the definition of sustainability, ensures that the stock of overall capital assets decreases over time.  In essence, continuing economic growth is ecologically unsustainable because it depletes natural resources and disrupts ecosystems upon which humans depend.  Thus, this economic growth paradigm, in an analogical sense, is a condoned pyramid scheme that mistakes assets for income, inherently generates excessive returns for a small minority of its participants, and must systematically implode of its own excesses and divisiveness (as the increasing global financial turmoil indicates).

Another brief example of our modern socioeconomic model discontinuity with the natural world, is the extensive infrastructure, and increasingly diminished natural habitat, within and between the hubs of our population concentrations.  Between this aspect, that of our widespread industrial agriculture, ever increasing extraction of natural resources for goods to extend growth, and the ever increasing pollution of all three, we can't help but diminish biodiversity and actively facilitate devastating state shifts in the natural ecosystems that support our existence.

 Concluding Thoughts

Still, this modern model, despite its incongruity with the natural world, and socioeconomic shortcomings, reinforces our desires of prosperity and security, because for the most part it's all we normally experience (i.e. all we're accustomed to).  Thus, given the element of uncertainty, along with our ingrained socioeconomic biases and cultural influences, for the most part we're averse to major change.  In other words, too many find comfort in denial, and/or hope major consequences can be forestalled in their lifetime.  However, given the ecological forces at work major changes are unavoidable, so doing what each of us can to reduce the severity and extent of such is necessary to our individual, and humanity's, interests. 

"Nothing can save us but changing the minds of the people around us. Lots of readers don't like to hear this, because they want action, and this doesn't seem like action to them. ... The present existing reality is that people in general fail to see that systematically attacking the diversity of the living community is going to be fatal to us. Until that changes, no amount of fighting is going to save us." ~ Daniel Quinn 

Keep in mind here that the emphasis is on personal responsibility. Actions targeted at our existing institutions aren't going to work, because our institutions are a product of our culture—that is they reflect our current thinking.  If a critical mass of our thinking changes, then our institutions will follow. 

Beyond examining the objectiveness of one's own thinking, and trying to help others see through the fog of our socioeconomic biases and cultural influences, a sampling of more immediate potentially beneficial things we can do as individuals follows.

• Participate in and promote "locavore" initiatives—especially those involving more naturally grown foods. 
• Individually grow more of our own foods, mimicking natural ecosystems.  [For guidance see the two volume book "Edible Forest Gardens" by Dave Jacke with Eric Toensmeier.]  
• Raise backyard chickens if one has the space to allow them relative freedom for natural foraging, and supplement with organic chicken feed. 
• Of the "grocery" foods one buys, try to buy organic foods and more naturally raised livestock.  They are better for one's health, and shouldn't involve agrochemicals contaminating habitats and entering the food chain.  
• Avoid highly processed packaged foods, and especially fast foods.  They may seem inexpensive, but many of the costs are externalized, including one's medical expenses. 
• Consider food packaging.  Avoid non-biodegradable packaging like plastic containers, and health hazards like BPA lined containers.
• Compost organic food scraps, leaves, and plant clippings.  Organic food scraps may also be fed to chickens.  Leave grass clippings on the yard to decompose and return nutrients to the soil.
• Create a small frog pond (if appropriate to the local environment) on one's property to increase biodiversity.  Additionally, appropriate to the local environment, plant trees, and as many other plants as possible, on one's property and in one's community to increase biodiversity.  A permaculture approach is the goal, but if one includes any plants that need occasional watering, use drip irrigation systems, instead of sprinkle systems. 
• Don't use insecticides, herbicides, and other poisons on your property, nor industrial cleaning chemicals in your house. 
• Consume less, share more, live simply.  Assess what one really needs, and what can be done without—i.e. avoid buying the unnecessary products that clutter our lives.  Infrequently used items can usually be rented instead of purchased.  When buying something one really needs, shop for durable, long lasting products (not disposables) that are the least toxic to the environment, and get as much use out of them as possible, then recycle.  Check reports for products that are easily repaired and have low breakdown rates.  If someone nearby needs the same durable product, inquire about buying it together and sharing.  Buying longer-lasting items one really needs, instead of cheaper, less sturdy versions several times over, saves money and helps save the environment. 
• Reduce dependence on fossil fuels through more determined conservation, and, as one can afford to, converting to alternative energy (non-polluting renewable sources that don't promote industrial agriculture like biofuels do).  A positive shift in our economy would be to alternative energy enterprises. 
• Forward/recommend this article, or one of your own composition on the subject, to everyone you possibly can. 

Awareness, of what we as individuals might do to help sustain the human species on Earth, grows with our understanding of, and appreciation for, the natural world ecosystems.   We can't change the past, but we can strive to objectively understand, and better learn from, our mistakes, if we're determined to improve the prospect of our future. 

"The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worthy, and after all our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to foster its renewal is our only hope."  ~ Wendell Berry

To a better world for our children, and for all the other life forms we are adversely affecting. 

Comments

[Susan K]

All in all a pretty forceful presentation of the ecological realities we should all be aware of. I say forceful in the sense of maybe too strong, but would qualify such with "whatever works." There's a lot of different thinking "out there" and what might be too much for some might be just enough to nudge others. Of course the author may not have intended to come on so strong, but included so much detail because many don't study ecology in detail.

I was interested in the part about our thinking process, but doubt many are willing to critically examine their thinking :-)

There are those taking a less in-your-face approach in trying to get the ideas across. Take for instance Michael Pawlyn's TED talk "Using nature's genius in architecture" at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pawlyn_using_nature_s_genius_in_architecture.html

For just more corroborating information one could watch Jeremy Jackson's TED talk "How we wrecked the ocean" at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html
or Bill Moyers' interview of E.O. Wilson at:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07062007/watch.html

If you can only view one, then I would recommend the Bill Moyers' interview of E.O. Wilson as the most informative and complete.

Yes I have children, and I truly care about their future.

God bless the children.

[AChinook]

Dirt! The Movie

"Dirt! The Movie" is an astonishing, humorous and substantial look at the glorious and unappreciated ground beneath our feet. Dirt! reveals how repairing our relationship with dirt can create new possibilities for all life on earth. See a preview at Independent Lens ( http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/dirt-the-movie/ ).

If you have any doubts about the gist of this article "Natural World Consciousness" then you should watch the documentary "Dirt! The Movie" as another way of grasping the key ecological issues involved. As a more visual experience, it should instill more insight into how we are accelerating our journey to extinction, and show a core of support in changing society's thinking.

Will there be a critical mass of understanding before we've gone too far down this path? Only if we each do our part to help bring about a critical mass of understanding.

To a better world,
Lee C

PS: The documentary "Dirt! The Movie" is available through numerous outlets. I watched it on 03/05/11 online at the site Festival of Films ( http://festival-of-films.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=667:dirt-the-movie&Itemid=178&qh=YToxOntpOjA7czo0OiJkaXJ0Ijt9 free viewing but contains commercials).

[Matoskah]

I disagree with Susan K. The article isn't too strong, it's just more of the same that's been expressed again and again, and obviously falls on mostly deaf ears. Our culture cares more about designer jeans and electronic gadgets than about the world our children will face.

Given the obstacle of our self-perpetrating culture, it's very unlikely that any real change of thinking will occur until we realize we have no choice. What we refuse to see is that we already no longer have any choice.

If one wants a more visual experience, then see the documentary "Dance with Destiny" (synopsis at http://dancewithdestinydocumentary.com/synopsis.html ).

[Science Teacher]

Come on, do you really think this broad brush bit of writing is going to play to a large enough audience? Just look at what people in general gravitate to. I was just reading a CNN article about the mobile game Angry Birds, which has been downloaded 100 million times in just the last year. I doubt that even a thousand people will wade through this article in a year's time, and far fewer will take it seriously enough.

What might get peoples attention is something simpler and more immediate, and that they can recognize as affecting their own life. They're not going to be swayed by species they're not familiar with going extinct. And the subject of necessary biodiversity, especially of soil micro organisms they're not even aware of, isn't within the purview of the population at large.

Stick to a simpler component issue like bottled water (see the documentary "Tapped") until enough people see the problem. Then move on to another component issue, step by step. Maybe in time it will all come together in their minds.

What's really at stake here are societal values, and that involves the values propagated generation to generation.

[EcoPope]

There're a surprising number of video presentations, from the more comprehensive like "HOME" [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU ] to the narrower focus like "Tapped" [noted by Science Teacher], and of course the more existentialism/metaphysical approach like "Dance with Destiny" [noted by Matoskah].

Most are well meaning (though some are ulterior agenda based), but more importantly most end with fanciful promise. What I saw in this article (and believe myself) is that it's very possible that we've already gone to far to avoid serious consequences. Thus, the thrust (I believe) is to mitigate the consequences for the sake of the human species. The natural world ultimately deals with species as a whole, not individuals.

I think what's important for the individual is state of mind in contributing to physical health, and in trying to live more in harmony with the natural world. Both are aspects of adaptation, and adaptation is the key to survival in the natural world.

Thanks for trying to convey the basic ecological aspects of our predicament. I also think the short story "Nature's Magic Mirror" on your site is a great introduction for our children.

[AChinook]

Bon Appétit

Toxin from GM crops found in human blood: Study
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670