I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about environmental issues. I also have a scientific-based education. Over the years, I have somewhat changed my views on the earth and humans' interaction with it. This is the first in, hopefully, a series of thoughts and essays on the issue. I know there's been entire books written on this subject so if you know of one (Other than Seven Mysteries and Strangeloop, thanks Strangeloop), please let me know. This little snippet of philosophical rambling was inspired by a post I found on Grist. I thought it would make a decent first step into a subject that I wonder if I don't maybe obsess over sometimes....
The earth is a living organism in which we are simply an interacting component of - much like the bacteria in our own digestive tracts, or the flu viruses we pick up in the winter. As a living organism, the earth has an immune system that kicks in when something goes amok. In relation to wildlife species, we refer to the interaction between that 'immune system' and the wildlife population as 'carrying capacity' - a sort of balancing act that keeps things in a perpetual reverberating state of homeostasis. Humans, in all their technological advances, have done everything they can to trump their own carrying capacity. Thus, we see (just as we would with any wildlife species), and overuse and subsequent depletion of life-sustaining natural resources (food shortages, peak oil?, competition for various land uses). When any population, human or otherwise, goes blowing past carrying capacity, the earth's immune system eventually has to counteract with a 'shock-and-awe' campaign to get the system rebalanced as quickly as possible (such as hemorragic fever and CWD in whitetailed deer).
That being the case, would it then not make sense that AIDS, cancer, autism, heart disease, etc...as well as hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and maybe even civil unrest and war are simply population control mechanisms imposed upon us by the organism from which we were all conceived? In a single generation the human population on this earth more than doubled and that growth rate remains unchecked still. If that growth rate was witnessed among cells within our own bodies, wouldn't we call that a cancer?
I know that only brings us back to the question of "so what do we do about it?" but I wanted to throw that out there to see what kind of responses I get. I suppose we can look at it two ways, if climate change is simply an immuno-response by the earth then maybe there's nothing we can do about it. But on the other hand, maybe if we start living more symbiotically with this earth-organism, its immune system won't be triggered. I'm hoping it's the latter.
4 comments:
First of all, we will never learn to have a symbiotic relationship with this earth. Period. Thomas Robert Malthus was criticized and berated for his work because he realized this, but I think he was absolutely right in Principle of Population. If we exceed our capacity limitations we get smacked in the face with some checks and BALANCES. All the vaccines and antibiotics in the world wont do a thing when it's time for a check from old Gaia.
That inspires two pressing questions: Where is the human species' carrying capacity? And if we can never live symbiotically, how is it we've managed to exist this long?
And if we cannot live symbiotically, is the lack of ability to live 'symbiotically' the basis for evolution? If a species is hit with these checks and balances, then morphs, as a species or sub-species, into one that, for a time, is immune to those particular balancing forces, is that not what we would dub an evolutionary process? One would postulate then that that new species would be living, at least for a while, 'symbiotically' because it is not being rebalanced by such Gaia-imposed forces. Until, at some point, that species reaches a critical population level and the process begins all over again. I suppose this lends more credence to the idea of a perpetual, and apparently very precarious, balance of 'nature' or life as a whole, regardless of species.
That begs yet another question: If Darwin had presented his philosophy in this way, what implications would that have on our current views of land and resource use on this earth? If, somewhere along the line (thank you, religion), we took the view of being as much a part of 'nature' and the 'natural order and progression of species' as any other life form on this earth, would we not be more cognizant of our impacts on this earth and potentially more fearful of those rebalancing forces upon our own species?
There's some questions for you to ponder around the campfire over a couple (or several) beers.
I guess my definition of symbiosis is the act of coexisting with another organism without the need for that check, so I guess I mean mutual symbiosis. There is a balance involved, but it is (for the most part) constantly maintained. One could argue that the act of taking from earth until it reaches its threshold is in fact not mutual but parasitic, which is a form of symbiosis.
Yes, it makes absolute sense that evolutions stems from the simple fact that we (or any other animal) cannot constantly maintain a mutual symbiotic relationship with Earth. She continually gives, sacrificing herself for the betterment of her "parasites" but always reaches a point when she rounds the bend in the loop when she must recharge herself by means of a check. She adapts to us, then we adapt to her. But there will never be a point when we learn to take AND give, and thrive off of one another.
Good point. I guess I should have specified the "mutual" part when I refered to symbiosis. I really need more time to write so I can put these musings into some sensible order and try to iron out exactly how I see it. Right now, it's all jumbled in my head. Blog it out I guess.
Post a Comment