Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Paul Grobstein's picture

The End of the Wild?

Interesting, provocative readings, conversation. What I came away with is a sense that we really don't know as much as we might (ought to) about the changes the biosphere is currently undergoing, and haven't given us much thought as we ought to what we want to do about it and why.
Yes, certainly, there are dramatic losses of megafaunal species, and yes, certainly humans are contributing to that. What is less clear to me is whether biodiversity on a more comprehensive scale is actually being reduced and, if so, for whom that is a bad thing. My guess as a biologist is that "life" will do fine, regardless of what humans do to themselves or the biosphere. Major extinctions have been a significant part of the history of life, and have contributed to its ongoing exploration of forms of living organisms (including the mammalian radiation from which we ourselves derive).
And yes, I personally will regret the loss of "the wild", defined as locations on the earth/bioassemblies that have not been perturbed by humans, and will certainly work to prevent that. But why exactly? For my own enjoyment/survival? Certainly, I prefer the kind of diversity that human impact seems to reduce. Out of some larger commitment to life? I'm not sure. Life's assemblies have been dramatically impacted by other organisms in the past (the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, for example) and it would be hard to argue that was a bad thing.
Is there really a good argument, beyond human preferences, against "weedy" generalists and for more diverse specialists? Do we as humans really have the observations/understandings that we would need to decide what living assemblages should be preserved? Is there an inconsistency between wanting "wildness" in the sense defined and humans acting to protect/preserve certain assemblages, to say nothing of "ecosystem services"? Could that be seen as arrogant and, in a certain way, self-demeaning (human impact is bad?).
Those are some of the questions on my mind at the moment, questions that I think bear interesting connections to related questions about economic and cultural diversity as well. Looking forward to seeing what evolves in our continued thinking about them.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
11 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.