Determining the End Goal of Civilization

On a positive note, animals and their natural habitats thankfully have the ability to bounce back relatively quickly as long as humans leave them alone, so that’s always an option. If we all just went back to living in pact with nature, hunter/gatherer style, no pollution, no exhaustion of animal populations, no habitat destruction, if we stopped all these right now, nature would eventually bounce back. Only problem is, we would have to immediately stop multiplying and probably also kill or at least let die several million people that we would be unable to feed, not to mention that people would have to stop eating shark fin soup and wearing fur (Which is the bigger evil? See the difference between use and abuse.). Now we’re starting to sound like Ozymandias or Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen or Poison Ivy in Batman & Robin or any other comic book super-villain with “good” intentions. With that said, I am not saying it wouldn’t solve our immediate environmental problems. But leaving genocide out of the equation what alternatives do we have to save both all of us AND the planet.

Somewhere down the line I believe that our race will reach a point where we no longer need to put such a massive strain on our natural environment in order to survive. Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev created a scale in the 1960s to describe such future civilizations based on their ability to harness the energy of the universe sustainably. A Type I civilization is capable of utilizing the full energy of its parent-star or planet in a sustainable and perpetual fashion. When and if we manage to transcend into a Kardashev’s Type I civilization, not only would this put pressure off the natural world, but it would also mean no more energy crises and the political chaos these create, since this sustainable energy could be harnessed indefinitely, benefiting all nations alike pushing us towards a more unified global mentality. 

But as Michio Kaku points out, we are unfortunately still a Type 0 civilization so I don’t necessarily believe this is right around the corner. Kaku does mention some recent tendencies such as the internet, the European Union and the spread of English as a lingua franca that could indicate a move towards a Type I mentality, but as recent events have shown, even institutions such as the European Union are not invulnerable and our evolution might take a few steps back before going further forward. After all, this has happened several times in history, many so called Golden Ages have been succeeded by their evil twin, Dark Ages. Which one we are headed towards at the moment is up in the balance. In order to save our natural world, one can only hope it is a Golden Age, heralding our ascension up to a Type I civilization. 

But until that day many of the species that we currently share our planet with are going to become extinct as a result of our actions to stay alive and evolve, but once again, this is not a new thing, it has been a natural part of evolution since a long time before we came along. So in that macro-perspective, I cannot really allow myself to mourn it that much. Needless to say, the Earth would be way better off without our species. But our species would not, and herein lies my point. What is the end goal with conservation? Are we doing it for the planet, or for our own sake? The planet would certainly be better off without a species as developed as humans who understand how to harvest its resources on a global scale. But going back to the ominous global extinction events which could potentially be right around the corner, tomorrow or millions of years from now, and further and even more grim; the eventual death of our planet which is a mathematical fact. How can we ensure the survival of humanity then? By focusing on conservation and regressing to a more primitive step in our evolution or to instead put our efforts somewhere else. Our planet may be doomed but our species does not have to be. In fact, the next level in Kardashev’s civilizations is a Type II civilization which masters inter-solar travel and can thus harvest energy between different stars and planets. But first things first. 

Keep Using, Stop Abusing: The Immediate Benefits of Conservation

With great powers, come great responsibilities. I used to preach this to all my unenlightened friends in Denmark who’ve only seen animals in zoos and don’t really know how quickly the natural world is disappearing. Because we are the most sophisticated species on the planet, we have the responsibility to protect all its lesser species who are now being threatened by our presence. But what’s the end goal? You can’t have your cake and eat it. The human population is growing and growing rapidly and the need for natural resources becomes higher and higher, so to protect these becomes increasingly more difficult. In the end it could lead us to a very hard choice, but it’s a choice that has always been around, even back to the earliest hunter/gatherers. Us…or them. The way things are going, we can’t have both. According to some doomsday prophets we can have neither and our continuing strain on the planet will inevitably lead to the destruction of all life, including ourselves. More on this later. But considering the immediate short-term choice between our own survival and that of our natural world, on a macro-scale, this makes the current benefits of conservation look slightly paradoxical because it will inadvertently mean the suffering and hunger of human populations. There are however other areas where conservation is urgently needed. 

Harvesting natural resources for consumption and energy is what I would constitute as more or less acceptable use of nature and one that we have always depended on to survive, the only problem being that our population has now become too large to keep relying on these resources sustainably. Beyond this use of nature there is another category, where I think conservation is more relevant, if still a losing battle. Beyond acceptable use of nature there is abuse of nature. Here I am referring to black market trade of endangered animals or parts of them, for medicinal, culinary or pet purposes, use of animal products to create clothing and other uses unnecessary to ensure our own basic modern living standard. The demand for these products cause destruction worldwide through poaching and illegal fishing, all to fuel this industry that is already banned in most of the western world yet still thrives in more ancient parts. 

One issue more important to me than anyone because it affects my own personal favorite animal, is the shark fin soup industry that I have witnessed up close in Asia. One thing is eating fish for their nutritional value, another is to kill it just for its fins which have no flavor or nutrition at all just so you can show off how wealthy you are to your friends and family. This is something I believe our current society should be beyond already. In fact, like religion, practices such as these mainly prevail in the less progressed parts of the world where people either still believe in the medicinal or nutritional properties of eating these rare animal parts, or they simply buy these products as a cultural status symbol such as shark fin soup or fur coats (which is not just occurring in the less progressed parts of the world), not caring the least that they needlessly caused the slaughter of a sometimes endangered animal. At times this indifference is culturally integrated, in many countries the natural world is nothing but a resource to be exploited in any way desired, no matter the cost or the consequence. Animals simply does not have any rights in cultures such as these. They are to some cultures what fields of crops are to others. Other times the indifference for the natural world comes from ignorance. I had several friends from Malaysia who did not know how much damage the shark fin industry was doing to the world’s shark populations, some even thought the shark’s fins grew back after they were cut off. 

Abuse of the natural world rather than use of the natural world is something that I believe is more within our reach to alter, in fact as mentioned, like religion, it mostly only flourishes in the less developed regions of the world, potentially as a result of lack of education. Many efforts around the world are genuinely making a difference to combat these industries and most of them are already banned, even if they are still being practiced due to low enforcement capabilities or general corruption. However, like the bigger issues of conservation it is still an issue that can only really be solved long term by looking inwards at our own species. Only by progressing further up the evolutionary ladder can we start fixing these problems on the macro-scale. But for certain key species like sharks, conservation is key to ensuring their immediate survival until such a time is reached. So by no means should we stop fighting for issues such as the banning of shark finning. Abuse of the natural world is something that we can easily prevent right now at our current level. The larger natural uses of nature is another matter altogether, with no perceivable easy fix currently available. To be continued.

Playing the Game of Evolution

Natural selection means survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest means that the stronger species survive and the weaker do not. This is evolution at its core, and one of the natural laws of the Universal Clockwork. It is what has made us into the species we are today. This is what I think most conservationists tend to overlook on a fundamental level. We are animals as well. Not only that, but we are by far the most intelligent, sophisticated and strongest species on this planet. In other words, we are calling the shots. Part of the reason why this is, is because we have developed the intelligence to create tools and habitats that enable us to survive in any type of environment. This has made it possible for our species to spread from its initial conception in Africa all across the globe, some places later than others. Modern civilization originated in Europe which is why that primary forest was the first to go. Because everywhere civilized people have gone since then, the pattern remain the same. We harvest any resource our new environment has to offer to make our own survival and reproduction easier. This is what makes us the dominant species. Here is the catch. Being dominant NECESSARILY means that other lesser species will have to move aside and give way to the stronger species. This, again, has been going on long before we ever walked the Earth and continued unabated after we did, regardless of our presence. How many species like the dinosaurs, mammoths, mastodonts, sabretooth tiger, and numerous unsung others have come and gone before and when we came along. Many of these played the game of evolution and lost without interference from humans but most likely as a result of geological and climate changes, others as a result of our increasing dominance as the Earth’s leading species. Unfortunately, to ensure the further evolution of a dominant species and get to that point other lesser species have to become extinct, there simply isn’t enough room for all of us. This even works within our own species. Whenever a dominant and stronger civilization made contact with a weaker and less developed civilization, over time - sometimes weeks, sometimes decades or centuries – the weaker civilization eventually died. It is simply natural selection at work. It is a law as old as time. Yet because today, right now, it is happening before our eyes and directly as a result of our own existence, it makes us sad. Humans are developing a guilty conscience, we feel sorry for our own dominance of this planet. 

But here is the flipside. Without these developments, without this evolution, hard bought as they may be, we wouldn’t even be thinking these thoughts. If we were still hunter/gatherers we would struggle to barely survive. Creating cities and agriculture and industrial harvesting of natural resources have enabled our species to rise higher than ever before and given us time to create a fuller picture of existence than any other living being on this planet and to our knowledge so far, in the entire universe. How many orangutans have gone to the moon? How many sunbears go to the doctor if they have a tummy ache? How many sharks can tell you how many planets our solar system has? Our species have been continuously moving forward in evolution since it developed, leading to exactly where we are right now. Transcender after transcender have helped carry our species higher up the evolutionary ladder to a point where we now have the freedom to influence and potentially destroy our entire planet. If our planet suddenly faces another global extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, (in total there has been 5 major ones with probably more to come) which advanced species stand the better chance of survival? Obviously us. But only because of our current technological level, not because of living in pact with nature. Some refer to our very presence as the sixth major extinction event which could very well be the case. But even if we cause one, would it also mean our own end? Would such an event simply be an inevitable price of progress or could it be avoided altogether, without relinquishing our current level of civilization? This would be the ultimate goal of conservation.