These slides were used in a guided discussion on our causes for optimism and pessimism in conservation. It was based on Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist, and Stephen K. Meyer's The End of the Wild, and was delivered as part of an undergraduate study abroad course considering wildlife conservation in Madagascar.
2. A Quick Survey
Do you think we can successfully protect most species
on the planet from extinction?
What about protecting ecosystems from destruction?
Do you think the planet will support even human life
in 500 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?
3. Overview
1. State of the Planet
2. The Pessimistic View
3. The Optimistic View
4. What are you?
4. 1. State of the Planet
The Living Planet Index is a calculation of population trends for
3,038 vertebrate species showing a 52% decline.
5. 1. State of the Planet (cont.)
Of sub-component LPIs for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial
populations, freshwater is doing far worse with a 76% decline.
11. 2. The Pessimistic View
(cont.)
Stephen K. Meyer. 2006. The End of the Wild.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
“The broad path for biological evolution is now set for
the next several million years. And in this sense the
extinction crisis-- the race to save the composition,
structure, and organization of biodiversity as it exists
today--is over, and we have lost.”
"We have lost the wild for now. Perhaps in 5-10
million years it will return."
13. 2. The Pessimistic View
(cont.)
Mechanisms
Local Disturbances
Encroachment of built environment into natural
environment
Over-exploitation of natural resources
Global forces make damage “irreversible”
Climate change
Globalization
Increased consumption
16. 2. The Pessimistic View
(cont.)
Counter-Arguments
The assumptions are wrong
Consumption falls with change in consciousness?
Global population eventually radically decreases?
Technology reduces impacts?
18. 2. The Pessimistic View
(cont.)
Counter-Arguments
No one will care
Higher standard of living
Shifting baselines
“Manicured” green spaces
will still exist
Diversity of (artificial)
intelligence will vastly
multiply
20. 3. The Optimistic View (cont.)
Matt Ridley. 2011. The Rational Optimist: How
Prosperity Evolves). Harper Perennial.
“Somewhere in Africa more than 100,000 years ago…A
Species began to add to its habits, generation by
generation, without (much) changing its genes. What
made this possible was exchange, the swapping of
things and services between individuals…”
“The future of the Species was bright, though it did
not know it.”
22. 3. The Optimistic View (cont.)
Mechanisms
Spread of progressive ideas (democracy,
enlightenment values, scientific inquiry)
Continued innovation through exchange of ideas
Pessimism is genetically/culturally favored
25. 3. The Optimistic View (cont.)
Counter-Arguments
There is no technological fix to our immediate
pollution problems
26. 3. The Optimistic View (cont.)
Counter-Arguments
People will not care about saving “the wild”
27. 3. The Optimistic View (cont.)
Counter-Arguments
Pessimism is the reason our fears are never realized
28. 4. Which are you?
Are you a rational optimist (like Ridley) or a pessimist
(like Meyer)?
Are you somewhere in between?
Is it possible to be both?
29. Closing Thought
“[W]ith or without either our help or hindrances the
earth’s reefs will go and then come again, as long as the
sun delivers its rays and the waters flow. Whatever role
we might play in the next great extinction will surely
have less effect on the tenacious reemergence of reef-
builders than it will on us. Reefs, we know, can survive
without us. The opposite may not be true.”
- Julia Whitty, The Fragile Edge
Notes de l'éditeur
The LPI is calculated using trends in 10,380 populations of over 3,038 vertebrate species (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). These species groups have been comprehensively
researched and monitored by scientists and the general public for many years, meaning that a lot of data is available to assess the state of specific populations and their trends over time.
Data from WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report. Available here: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/
Marine and terrestrial LPIs show a decline of 39% each. We also see regional variation. Central and S. American region shows decline of 83%, followed by Indo-Pacific with 67%.
Data from WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report. Available here: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/
Information on threats has been identified for 3,430 populations in the LPI assigned to seven categories. Other populations are either not threatened or lack threat information
Data from WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report. Available here: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/
This is based on trends in 1,956 populations of 773 mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species
Humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to provide the ecological goods and services we use each year. This “overshoot” is possible because – for now – we can cut
trees faster than they mature, harvest more fish than the oceans can replenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forests and oceans can absorb.
The “ecological footprint” measures the area (in hectares) required to supply the ecological goods and services we use.
It appears he only stops at predicting humanity’s extinction
Madagascar’s Indri lemur
On population: The rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.
According to a 2008 IIASA report, if the world stabilizes at a total fertility rate of 1.5—where Europe is today—then by 2200 the global population will fall to half of what it is today. By 2300, it’ll barely scratch 1 billion.
Of course, maybe we all end up living to 160yrs old…
About the future of society and the human race people are naturally gloomy. It goes with the fact that they are risk-averse: a large literature confirms that people much more viscerally dislike losing a sum of money than they like winning the same sum. And it seems that pessimism genes might quite literally be commoner than optimism genes: only about 20 per cent of people are homozygous for the long version of the serotonin transporter gene, which possibly endows them with a genetic tendency to look on the bright side.Ridley, Matt (2010-06-10). The Rational Optimist (P.S.) (p. 294). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Pessimism is a cultural artifact. Perhaps suggesting a Marxist analysis is in order?