Scientists say that ‘nature,’ untouched by humans, is now almost entirely gone.
‘Implicit in much, if not all, modern environmental sentiment is the idea that the natural world has been despoiled by humans — and if we could just leave it alone, things would get better.
But new research suggests that in reality, humans have been altering the natural world for millennia, long before the 15th century dawn of the Age of Discovery, when European societies mastered long-distance ocean navigation and began to spread their cultures, animals and diseases to new continents.’
So begins a Washington Post article that caught the attention of the Natural Change team. The article brought up some curious feelings. On one level it seemed to make sense but on another something was very wrong.
It turned out to be about a cultural assumption that once spoken feels embarrassingly obvious. Especially among folks like us that like to think they might know better! The fact that it took us a while to work out what was going on supports the idea that this assumption is part of a powerful and seductive cultural story. A story that is very difficult to avoid for anyone living in our consumer society.
This assumption is probably the most destructive in modern history: that humans are separate from nature.
‘“People have been modifying their environments for tens of thousands of years,” added Jon Erlandson, an archeologist, professor and director of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History […].
“Humans have literally impacted everything from mammoths to microbes. Most people have no idea how heavily we’ve altered things — and for how long.”’
If we include humans as part of nature, then the Post’s article doesn’t make sense. The problem is not that there is ‘no nature left’ but that we as a species have exceeded the limits of our own ecosystem - with massive impacts on that ecosystem which, of course, includes ourselves. This situation is a problem exactly because we are part of nature, not because there is none left.
‘To show just how extensive the modern impact has become, consider that now, even the one continent where nobody lives except for occasional teams of scientists — Antarctica — also shows a clear human impact. Lead pollution, carried by the air, reached the seventh continent before its first explorer, Roald Amundsen, did in 1911, recent research suggests.’
That there was lead in the Antarctic before Amundsen is irrelevant if it can be absorbed, in a biological timeframe, within the limits of the ecosystem. Same is true for any substance on Earth. It’s the transformation of matter into forms that cannot be processed within the limits of ecosystems that is the problem - not that those materials exist in the first place, or that they exist in unexpected places.
Ultimately everything is recycled - even nuclear waste. The important question is: is it recycled in a timeframe that is conducive to species that are currently alive? Which for humans - and the animals and plants they depend on - is a biological, rather than a geological one.
Unfortunately this article makes the same mistake as nearly all environmental policy and the campaigns of most environmental NGOs. These policies and campaigns are about genuine concern for the environment… but for a separate, objectified environment: one divided off from human beings.
‘“These findings suggest that we need to move away from a conservation paradigm of protecting the earth from change to a design paradigm of positively and proactively shaping the types of changes that are taking place,” said Oxford’s Nicole Boivin, the study’s lead author. “This sounds scary, and it sounds very self-serving. But the reality is that there are 7 billion people living on an already heavily altered planet. It is a pipe dream to think that we can go back to some sort of pristine past.”’
But what is ‘pristine’? How and who decides the datum? The only possible definition of ‘pristine’ in an ecological context is one where no species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. This can be achieved in the future, as well as in some undefinable past. We cannot go back to a ‘pristine’ ecosphere, but we can go forward to one - by learning to live sustainably. So again, the shift from conservation to design feels like a good idea - but only if we are designing our own behaviours as part of a system that we are an intrinsic part of… and that we recognise is far beyond human control. The fact that we have a massive unintentional impact on the global ecosystem does not mean we can intentionally control it.
Despite its fatalistic undertones, the article does end on a positive note:
‘“There’s a story of ingenuity built into this deeper time perspective,” [Erlandson] said. “Humans have over and over again met challenges in different parts of the world, and they’ve found ways to meet those challenges. Every generation has its challenges. But we have found ways to solve them.”
“No matter how bad we screw things up,” he added, “if we can find the collective will, we can overcome them.”’
Hopefully this optimism will prevail. But the dominant model of sustainability thinking is one where humans manage nature like the operators of some kind of vast machine. Current thinking asks the wrong questions: “How much is nature worth?” “How can we use nature for our benefit?” and so on. This is like asking, “how much is my liver worth?” or “How can I use my liver for my own benefit?” All these questions are a massive category error, because without my liver - as without my ecosystem - I would be dead.
Ultimately, when considering any solution to the ecological problems we face, the first question must be this: does this solution acknowledge that humans are part of nature? If it doesn’t then it just won’t work. Period.
Natural Change helps organisations working for a sustainable and fair world to develop solutions that draw creativity, strength and insight from recognising that we are part of nature. You can learn more about our approach through our free online course and our residential programmes.
Finally, an immediate and surprisingly powerful action we can all easily take to help break the power of the assumption of separation, is to avoid referring to “humans and nature” and instead try “humans and the rest of nature”.
(All quotes are from the same article referenced in paragraph 1)