Blog 1 - Humans and Resources

Readings and Summaries

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Jared Diamond describes a collapse as “a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political, economic, social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.”  The collapse of societies many have happened for numerous reasons leaving behind remnants of the society behind for generations to ponder such as the temples left behind for the Mayans and the statues in Easter Island.  There have been those large collapses such as the Mayans and Easter Island but there have also been minor collapses of societies where they have been re-structured to ensure livelihood for the occupants of that society.

 Diamond describes eight categories of environmental degradation that has led to the collapse of some older societies.  Those being overfishing, overhunting, soil problems, introduction of invasive species, habitat destruction, water management problems, human population growth, deforestation and an increase of people per-capita impact.  These problems may contribute to environment degradation individually or by a combination of two or more.  Food shortages could be considered to be a combination of all of these eight categories.  In present times, four more categories have been added to the collapse of societies through environmental degradation.  These include climate change, energy shortages, bioaccumulation of toxins in the environment and the full use of Earth’s photosynthetic capacity. 

 

(http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/15nov_maya/)

Photo copyright Tom Sever

 

Diamond developed a five-point framework for understanding possible factors that could contribute to the collapse of societies.  First off is environmental damage and understanding how the properties of the environment and the properties of the society interact to contribute to environmental degradation.  Next is climate change which is natural forces where human involvement does not attribute to environmental damage.  Those being fluctuations in temperature and precipitation.  Neighboring societies may either help build or destroy another society.  Hostile neighbours may help with the demise of a society or a friendly neighbour that does trade may build relations and the society itself.  If these trade partners were to disappear, the society may collapse.  Finally societies can collapse because of their social responsibility as a whole.  The society’s responsibility may depend on different factors including politics, economics, social institutions and values.

 The collapse of past societies may serve as history lessons to show how the mismanagement of Earth’s resources could directly impact our livelihood on this planet.  There are populations of people that refuse to acknowledge we are contributing environmental degradation and therefore the human populations.  Environmental problems are very complex and there is no direct answer to fixing these problems.  If there are no efforts to change our ways, we as a global society are directly affecting current and future generations.   It has been shown that if we change our habits and start to manage our resources in a sustainable way, we can ensure these resources are available for many centuries and many generations.

 Critical Thinking – Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse?  Is ours?

Yes, I do feel that societies that damage their environment will collapse, eventually.  If we use up all our resources and do not manage or take care of them, there will be no resources left.  Eventually the whole globe will run out of resources and societies will collapse.  Take for example the agriculture industry.  If we do not manage the lands so they can support growth of crops, then crop yields will diminish and a main source of food will collapse, therefore creating a domino effect.  If all other resources are used up with the same mismanagement, our society will collapse; it’s only a matter of when it will happen.   Our society today is so economically based that I feel a collapse will happen.  We are so depended on other countries for import and export that we do not know how to be sustainable with what we do have.  If we move more away from the export/import and look for ways to become sustainable as not only a country but as provinces, cities, towns and individuals we can diffuse the extent of the collapse.

 

 

Human Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is a dynamic concept that does not have one concrete answer.  The amount of people that Earth can sustain depends on a multitude of factors.  The Easter Islands has been used as a research format to attempt to understand the human carrying capacity limits of earth.  It has been thought that many factors contributed to the collapse of the Easter Island society.  The idea that large human populations could not be established and sustained due resource depletion has been a topic of interest for those scientists studying why the society of the Easter Island peoples collapsed.   A theory is the population of the Easter Island grew too large, the land and resources were not available to all the peoples and a collapse inevitably happened.

 

(http://www.airpano.com/360Degree-VirtualTour.php?3D=Easter-Island)

 

 

 There is no finite answer for the amount of humans the earth can support.  Many factors play into the equation such as will the human population expectation of life be too high to keep the populations from reaching the upper limits and/or with larger populations more resources are needed to support an increasing population and could those resources be managed properly to ensure the livelihood of the society.

 

Critical Thinking – What is carrying capacity?

 

Carrying capacity is referred to the amount of individuals an ecosystem can support.  Many factors play how many individuals may occupy space in an ecosystem.  Those factors being space, food, predators, and the resources needed by the individual. 

 I personally feel that the earth does have a carrying capacity for the human population.  I also feel that the large scale, fatal weather anomalies that we have been experiencing is a way to reduce the human population as well as diseases that are mutating to become more resilient to medications.

 

The Tragedy of the Commons

The report “The Tragedy of the Commons” was written by Garret Hardin describing the degradation of shared resources where the individual profits but resources are depleted until they diminish and disappear completely.  Hardin uses the example of the commonly shared pasture land, where individuals could keep their cattle in a common pasture where they graze.  The pasture is shared with other individuals who each keep their cattle in the pasture.  If the numbers are small, the cattle can easily be supported by the pasture.  The cost of using the common pasture is low, which is economically optimal for the cattle owners, therefore these individuals may increase the number of cattle in the pasture, lowering the cost for the individuals.  At the same time if everyone that shares the pasture increases the number of cattle that graze in the pasture, the pasture will no longer be able to support the increasing numbers and will eventually collapse.

 The Tragedy of the Commons not only refers to resources but can also be applied to pollution, but in a backwards way.  Instead of removing resources from a common place, an individual may put pollution back into the common place.  The example posed is releasing wastes into a common shared area which will diffuse the individuals cost of remediation on to the group.

 Another concept deals with the freedom to breed, and the impacts of overbreeding.  The notion is that the more offspring and individual has, the harder it would be to adequately care for the offspring.  Also the more offspring the more resources needed to raise the offspring.  The idea that ever person has an equal entitlement to the shared commons and there are increased numbers of offspring per person would mean resources would become sparsely allotted per person.

 The idea of the commons may work in a society of low population and high morals but unfortunately that is not how our society works these days.  People are more interested in their own personal gains than the gains of a society in whole.   According to Hardin there is no technical solution to overpopulation and eventually it will be our own demise.

 

(http://www.producer.com/2012/02/do-the-math-for-proper-pasture-populations/)

 

 Critical Thinking – Why should people not have as many children as possible?

In 1900’s that question would seem ridiculous.  Back in the day, when the populations were lower, more children were better because of their capability of helping their family with harvest, animals and the garden.  When food wasn’t processed and everybody grew/raise their own means of survival, a larger family would be more helpful.  With the change of time and technologies, larger families are not necessary or economically viable.  Having more than two children, to replace the parents, is not a good idea because it puts a strain on our already depleting resources.

 

 

 

 

 

Activity

Spend 1 hour in silence with nature. Walk in the park, along the river through the woods. Focus on observing the natural world around you then reflect on the experience.

I love walking in the woods (I did it all summer for my job) and I also love looking at the beauty of nature while I'm sitting in the boat trying to catch some supper. I'm very lucky in a sense, growing up and spending my summers in provincial parks, being able to admire the beauty. When I was a child I used to just look and take in what I saw. Now that I'm older I begin to question the dynamics of the system as a whole. While watching minnows in the lake, I saw a larger minnow attack and eat a smaller minnow, which was something I had never seen before. It made me begin to question the lakes food chain, the population numbers of each size of minnow and how the food chain or other lake systems reach a natural equilibrium. I find it quite amazing what this world has to offer in terms of natural beauty. Its sad that the previous generations and my own generation do not want to protect these resources that are available to us. That we take more than we need and don't give back. That we believe that our resources are here for us only and not for any other organisms. I believe that humans are apart of nature and should not be dominant over all other species. We may rely on other organisms but I'm sure the do not rely on us, most of these organisms have been around before human influence. I truly believe that we need to take care of our planet and to leave it in the condition we found it or better.

 

 

(Wellman Lake, Manitoba. Photo Courtesy of Kelly Hart) 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Reflections

1) What promotes human connection to nature?

                There could be many things that promote connections to nature.  One big reason I love nature is because of my family.  My grandparents had a cabin in the Duck Mountains that my parents eventually bought out from them.  I spent every summer at this cabin and it is where I learnt how to fish.  My family promoted fisheries management which I now feel very strongly about. Family hikes, fishing days and quadding trips were a regular part of my summer.   Also working with the government, I know they are trying different approaches to get Manitobans involved in nature.  Other ideas could be though educational programs, not only on television but outdoor activities.  Some schools promote nature connections with classes available.

 

2) What promotes human disconnection to nature?

                I truly believe that technology is our greatest barrier to connections with the environment.  Video games, consoles, television and the internet are creating huge disconnect due to their indoor nature.  Cell phones are also creating disconnect.  Why sit at the park and wonder at the beauty when you could be seeing who just posted another picture of their dog or kid or their full diary on Facebook or Twitter?  As my generation becomes more technologically advanced, I believe the disconnection with nature will also advance.

 

3) Is there a danger to a growing disconnect form nature?

                I believe there is a danger due to the growing disconnect from nature.  For example, if we woke up tomorrow and all of our technologies were gone, the only thing we had access to is the resources we have been depleting, how many of us would survive?  Who would know how to hunt and fish, skin that deer you killed or clean the fish you caught?  Who could gather edible plants and build adequate shelters?  Per say you were stranded in the bush, would you be able to get out alive?  Could you make tools? And clothing? And fire?  The more we disconnect from nature the less of a chance we have at survival if we needed to depend on just ourselves.

 

4) Where do your environmental ethics lie?

                I feel that I am an ecocentric point of view.  No matter what all organisms needs food, water and shelter to survive.   Humans depend on all other resources as much as any organism, so it is very selfish to believe that the resources are mainly for human consumption.  I do believe that all life does have ethical standing, but it is also believe that we need other lives to sustain our own.  Such that as trees for shelter and game for food.  Having a very biologically diverse ecosystem is our best bet for sustainability for all organisms.