I don’t know if it’s just me, but it seems like I spend a lot of time talking to AGW skeptics. Anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, is the concept that climate change is occurring as a result of human action. I’m not really sure why I know so many AGW skeptics – maybe there are just a lot of them out there? But it seems like our conversations always end the same way. They seem satisfied and I… am left baffled at how they can be satisfied with their own conclusion.
A Common Conclusion
This is how the (usually fairly intelligent) conversation ends: Well, even if we kill ourselves off, we’re not going to destroy the entire planet in the process. I mean, we won’t eradicate all life on Earth.
I actually agree with them on this. Barring a global nuclear winter, I don’t think we will destroy the planet enough to end all life.
But we could easily reduce it to a republic of insects and grass. (I borrowed that phrase from my Intro to Sustainable Engineering class. I love it. A republic of insects and grass. It says it all.)
You see, insects are pretty epic. They can survive almost anything. This is a good thing because, as we learned from Dan Barber, without them all life on Earth would perish within 50 years. And grass, well, there’s an awful lot of grass. It is hardy, adaptive, and incredibly varied. We’d be hard pressed to destroy all the grass. So the extinct species formerly known as Homo sapiens won’t be saddled with the guilt of destroying all organic life.
Systems Crimes of a Greater Nature
But… what about the complex species, the higher species, the bigger species, all the rest? The ones who are dropping like flies as their habitats change far more quickly than they can adapt, migrate or evolve. Or because we’re destroying their habitats completely. Or we’re eating them (or, worse, catching them as bycatch).
There are 3,200 tigers left in the world. I don’t have close (any) contact with tigers, but the thought of living in a world without them is pretty heartbreaking. Tigers are awesome, so it’s easy to see why we’d miss them. (They also have good PR reps.)
But more importantly, on an ecological level, species extinction is a crime. And not just the cute ones with good PR. The ugly, the weird are just as ecologically essential. Like this guy. This guy is weird looking, but he (she? it?) matters on an ecological level.
On a systems level, species extinction is a crime too. Species diversity is pretty miraculous. It took millions – yes, millions – of years from the last great extinction event for evolution to get to where we are now. And it will take millions of years for a republic of insects and grass to return to what it was.
Except that it will never again be what it was, because biodiversity is the result of random mutations and natural selection. So that last tiger really will be the last tiger. And the last little blobfish too. Ever. And, at our best, we cannot even begin to understand the full systemic implication of the loss of a single species, much less dozens, hundreds… thousands.
You’re Seriously Okay With That?
This is why I end up standing stupidly with my mouth hanging open when people say, “Well at least we won’t eradicate all life on Earth.”
Because, seriously, how is that an acceptable conclusion to anyone? Yes, it is likely that organic life will persist. But how is reducing this incredible wealth of species, each one a little miracle of random mutation and millions of years of evolution, how does reducing that to a republic of insects and grass leave you satisfied? How does that work?
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. Can anyone explain this one to me?
I wish I could explain it. I’m left with the same reaction you have. What I find so frustrating about AGW is how politicized it is. I have a feeling a lot of the politicization of AGW comes from the fact that if we want to at least curtail it, it’s going to take a cultural change of consuming less–which, face it, for plenty of people will be a hard change to make. So I think it’s easier to either state “The earth has gone through global warming before” or “Meh. The bugs and grass will survive” than to actually take steps that would reduce the effects of AGW. /soapbox
Haha amen, sister. This was completely a /soapbox moment for me. It does baffle me though, because most of the people I talk to about this are educated, intelligent, reasonable people. Who are sitting there saying that the demise of the planet as we know it, as you say “meh, okay.” To me it’s one thing to disbelieve, but how do you believe and then opt out of caring. Maybe I’m envious – on the days I feel like I care too much, I wish I could get me some of that kool-aid.
This is quite true, actually…just never thought about it like this. Thanks for putting my frustrations into words!
I’m not at all ok with us killing ourselves off or any other creatures for that matter…while it may be a good thing in the end for our planet, I would much rather have a healthy planet for my children’s children to enjoy!