Conservation, Saving Species, Fighting Climate Change, and Rebelling Against Extinction

Gazebo in Jonesboro, Illinois

There is something to be said about conservation and the drive for saving species, saving the planet, fighting climate change, and fighting or rebelling against extinction. Save our cities, save the forests, save this and save that. Actually, it reminds me of a performance from George Carlin. At the end of the day, it's all illusory. Oh, people want to conserve species and set aside land for conservation. The desire and the idea is real behind each of these. However, the way most everyone is going about it is incorrect and will not solve any of those issues.

First of all, we are a part of nature, not nature itself. This means that we lack agency to control nature. Part of Western/European culture is influenced heavily by wetiko thinking. This concept of control comes from our separation from nature caused by technology use and civilization. As long as inherently unsustainable civilization continues, the infrastructure that forms the human-built world insulates us to a certain degree from nature but the consequences of our unsustainability continue to affect other species. Sure, we can temporarily provide habitat for other species through our use of technology as long as the energy to power said technology is widely available. But this is rather limited to the next 25 years or so. Once industrial civilization collapses, many of the abilities we have today will be terminated because they are powered by energy and material throughput that is widely available today but not long into the future (see collapse). 

Secondly, how is it possible to set aside land for conservation when the human enterprise is still growing? Population growth is still occurring and those people will need habitat, meaning that lands set aside today may be needed tomorrow for the humans who inhabit areas near those lands. Setting aside land today is only possible while we have sufficient energy and resources to be able to do so. At some point in the near future, lands which have valuable resources will be scoured for whatever they have available once fossil hydrocarbon energy and the resources it makes possible disappear. 

Thirdly, due to the qualities listed in the second paragraph above, we lack agency to be able to save species. As for the planet, it will be just fine. Life on this planet may be seriously compromised for thousands if not millions of years due to the predicaments we have promulgated, but life has a way of evolving and life will eventually adapt to the new conditions. After all, there is about another 500 million years of the age of plants and animals on this planet left. Ecological overshoot, caused by our behavior of technology use, is the root predicament behind all the symptom predicaments such as the mass extinction we are in, climate change, energy and resource decline, pollution loading, and countless others. NONE of those symptom predicaments can be reduced separately - overshoot must be reduced first before any of them can likewise be reduced. This is precisely why focusing on carbon emissions (a symptom predicament itself) gets us nowhere - they cannot be reduced until we reduce technology use. This means that all the efforts to produce more technology and/or more complex technology does nothing but increase overshoot (and therefore emissions). 

Last, but not least, one of the biggest lies perpetuated today is the claim that we "just need more energy" - as evidenced by all kind of talk about wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, modular nuclear reactors, fusion energy, etc. More energy can only increase overshoot. This is precisely why so far, none of our efforts to reduce emissions, climate change, pollution loading, or any of the other symptom predicaments of overshoot have had any positive effect. For all the happy talk about how we successfully eliminated the ozone hole over the planet, it remains evident that said happy talk was overly optimistic. All our infrastructural systems, especially the electrical grid, are unsustainable. So, one can put aside all the hype about electrification. That will go nowhere and once industrial civilization collapses, the electrical grid will also collapse (in fact, the collapse of the electrical grid could easily cause the collapse of industrial civilization, as is pointed out in that last article). Small subsections of the grid will continue as long as the energy to power them is available, but these will eventually succumb as well.

Conservation efforts, attempts to save species, work towards reducing climate change, and seeking to reduce extinction are all noble goals. Unfortunately, they cannot and will not be accomplished as long as overshoot continues to increase. Unless and until overshoot is reduced, no symptom predicaments can be reduced (reductions are the best that be accomplished - these are predicaments with outcomes, not problems with solutions). The only way to reduce overshoot that will actually be successful is to reduce technology use. This will naturally happen when civilization collapses and even before then as a result of energy and resource decline, so voluntary efforts are nice but not necessarily required as they will be forced upon us one way or another. Chris Hedges has this to say about the mass delusions that have overtaken the United States and accompany collapse. One of the most important quotes in that video is this:

"Optimism must be based in reality. If hope becomes something that you express through illusion, then it isn't hope; it's fantasy."

This study is just one more piece of evidence proving what this article is about. Sadly, there are actually countless articles just like this one pointing to the same attributes of overshoot that are causing mass die-offs of birds, insects, wild mammals, fish, coral, mangroves, seagrasses, trees, and much more that I brought up here last week. I could continue pointing out more examples and list more studies and media proving my point, but I've discovered that doing so has been largely ineffective. Society suffers from mass delusion in thinking that we actually have agency when in reality we don't. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow; one I have struggled with not much differently than others who have blazed similar trails.

Another reason that pointing out examples of overshoot and providing more studies for people to see or otherwise dispersing the facts is largely ineffective is because all the systems we use for living today are unsustainable. Most people are expecting some sort of "easier" way to make things better - such as by buying some new product or eating less meat or switching out one way of doing things for another (such as using "green" or "clean" or "renewable" energy devices). Art Berman points out how this is just more fantasy, quote:

"Focusing on climate change alone is a narrow view. Carbon dioxide is just one of the pollutants contaminating the environment. The growth of the human enterprise enabled by excess energy use threatens everything. Substituting renewable for fossil energy will make that problem even worse.
 
We are well beyond a soft landing for the planet. There are no moderate pathways forward. Pretending that there are is counter-productive. A radical reduction in all energy consumption is the only solution.

The problem is that it’s not the solution that we like but it’s time to start telling the truth about our future."

Very few people want to even consider reducing technology use, let along actually attempting it. Nothing but reducing technology use actually helps improve the situation because all the other ideas simply perpetuate the unsustainable systems already in use. Eating less meat can still be a good idea, but not necessarily for the reasons often given for doing so. Reducing technology use means changing human behavior, and this is unfortunately very difficult for most people to do for any length of time. Some people have argued that reducing technology use would be a death sentence for millions of people, but this ignores the simple fact that we are in extreme overshoot; billions of people ALREADY face a death sentence. Just like collapse is unavoidable, there is no way to prevent billions of people from dying in mass die-offs once the energy and resources are no longer available to support their existence. When people get hungry and/or desperate, they will ignore whether they are hunting or gathering food or needed materials from areas that are part of a conservation area, national forest, national park, or any other "protected" area.

Last year I visited Cairo on the southern-most point in Illinois. If one wants to see how energy and resource decline is going to affect most areas, this place is precisely what it will look like. I wrote this article about the experience and even though the reasons for Cairo's decline are different, the results are the same. That article will also take you to other sacrifice zones such as the ones highlighted in this article. 

So, if you want to do something worthwhile that will actually accomplish something real and tangible, begin working to reduce your use of technology. Remember, change comes from within. Until next time, Live Now!