Two Paths for Humanity
Andy Revkin wrestles with Tim Flannery’s new book, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, in a NYT book review:
An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans have upended hosts of ecosystems and are exerting a growing and potentially calamitous influence on the climate. Some, perhaps in response to public indifference, have a tendency to push beyond the data in arguing for action. “Here on Earth” places Flannery in this group. I had a moment, about halfway in, when I was ready to give up in the face of overheated descriptions of environmental problems. But I stuck it out and was heartened to see Flannery abandon the rhetoric of shame and woe and turn to a more reasoned assessment of a young, intelligent species that finds itself in quite a predicament. After all, it’s not easy being the first life-form to become both a planet-scale force and “” ever so slowly and uncomfortably “” aware of that fact.
Despite Here on Earth’s evident imperfections, I plan to read it. Flannery, who is Australia’s E.O. Wilson, is similarly a gifted and brainy popularizer of science.
In his new book (according to reviews), Flannery seems to make a case for the “rewilding” concept (just for Australia?) that has recently come into vogue. This strikes me as an ecological fantasy. I reviewed the North American version of this idea a few years ago.
What interests me more are two biological worldviews Flannery puts in opposition, which Revkin describes nicely:
“Here on Earth” begins with the deepest biological context, as Flannery pits what he sees as the mechanistic, soulless conceptions of Charles Darwin against the more holistic, even hopeful, vision of Alfred Russel Wallace, the English naturalist who discovered evolution independently. Whereas Darwin “sought enlightenment by studying smaller and smaller pieces of life’s puzzle,” Flannery writes, Wallace “took on the whole,” envisioning a transcendent human future in which evolutionary fitness is determined by more than simply the ability to out-reproduce “” or, according to the Social Darwinists, out-earn “” one’s competitors. Flannery cites, too, Wallace’s denunciation of the “criminal apathy” behind the choking urban pollution of the late 19th century, which stunted and killed the poor in particular.
Tracking the rise and spread of the human species, Flannery contrasts two more contemporary visions of the processes in play. The “Medea hypothesis,” developed by the paleontologist Peter Ward, holds that natural selection drives species to exploit resources to the point of ecosystem collapse, and thus ultimately to destroy themselves. While Flannery agrees that this theory describes some extinctions of species and civilizations, he instead embraces the “Gaia hypothesis,” developed by the ecologist James Lovelock, which sees evolution as “a series of win-win outcomes that has created a productive, stable and cooperative Earth” “” at least until human selfishness got in the way.
Here’s a good primer on the Medea Hypothesis, if you need to get up to speed on it. I’ll have to read Flannery’s book, of course, but I’m not exactly enthralled with the two choices–the Medea or Gaia hypothesis–that he’s using to make his argument.
Flannery likes the idea of mammoths back on the steppe. He’s bought in to biochar in a big way, as well. What I see as most revealing in the book, in a way, is that someone so predisposed to see eco-apocalypse at the hand of man – after spewing a pile of hype – conclude that the dark argument doesn’t hold up and that our innovative zeal and potential for cultural evolution could be a good thing. So after a spasm of unscientific calamitism, he becomes a rational optimist. As I say in the related Dot Earth piece, I wish there’d been more self reflection in the book about that learning curve.
I listened to his recent talk at The Long Now, and I wasn’t following his case at all.
http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/may/03/here-earth/
And I expected to agree with him, as I enjoyed The Weather Makers.
1. “Flannery likes the idea of mammoths back on the steppe.”
As in “Pleistocene Rewilding”?
If you want him, you can have him. No charge.
We’ll even do a whip around and pay the airfare.
Wait–Darryl Hannah is already palling around with James Hansen–not sure she’s available for mammoth hunting this time around…
You guys need to check out fellow Australian Barry Brook’s Cronus hypothesis, as a bridge between the Medea/Gaia alternatives:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/14/life-and-death-on-earth-the-cronus-hypothesis/
“..he instead embraces the “Gaia hypothesis,” developed by the ecologist James Lovelock, which sees evolution as “a series of win-win outcomes that has created a productive, stable and cooperative Earth” “” at least until human selfishness got in the way…”
.
So…species went into extinction or into a predator’s stomach with a smile on their faces prior to humans coming on the scene as it was for the good of “Gaia”.
.
People actually believe this?
Ed, it’s worse than that. Flannery believes that we will become a “guiding intelligence” and “send a message to the planet”.
He was interviewed by the Gaurdian a couple of months ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2011/apr/04/tim-flannery-global-shared-beliefs-video
The man is a loony beset with religious fervour and rightousness. And of course he must be right, because so much of what he says is “axiomatic” and therefore correct.
A note for any “warmers” who are feeling the financial pinch. Come on “Down Under”. Flannery is the national spokesman for Sony, is involved with a geothermal crowd who have received $90 million so far in subsidies, has a University position and is pulling down $360K as “Climate Commissioner” which is a part time position.
And don’t let lack of ability stop you. Flannery predicted that Brisbane would run out of water (we flooded), Sydney would run out of water (they didn’t), Melbourne would run out of water (they flooded), the Murray River would not get rain again (it flooded) and Perth would be deserted due to lack of water (it isn’t).
The man has a long and unbroken record of totally failed predictions that rivals Paul Ehrlich. He’s an idiot.
PS. You’ll note that with all his obviously demanding (and financially very rewarding) commitments, he still has time to write and publicise a book. 🙂
Hmm, still trying to figure out when humankind stepped outside the bounds of nature……
Can someone please pinpoint an exact date/time?
“In his new book (according to reviews), Flannery seems to make a case for the “rewilding” concept (just for Australia?) that has recently come into vogue. This strikes me as an ecological fantasy.”
In the ensuing book review of Paul Martin’s “Twilight of the Mammoths” from 2006 you seem to give it a ringing endorsement. What led you to change your mind? Do you think it is a good idea, just not one that is likely to happen?
Menth,
I was waiting for someone to actually read the review and make that observation. I can easily see why you would think that, since I applaud the idea as “bold” near the end of my review. In hindsight, I should have also included “far-fetched.” In my defense, I think I was largely enthusiastic about the science discovery aspects of the Martin book.
Keith, thanks for taking the time to reply.
I find this concept fascinating and that it is taken seriously even more so.
Menth,
The concept is merely an expansion of the idea behind species reintroduction programs. As with any such endeavor, of course, cultural values play a role. So for example, when I was writing in the late 1990s about the Canada Lynx reintroduction program in Colorado, I remember there being a pretty robust debate about whether this program was driven by science or state biologists who just thought it was be a really neat thing if they could get these cats to take up residence again in Colorado.
As more of the world gravitates to urban living, more land will revert to a ‘natural’ (not pristine and not as it was before) state, and will be available for reserves and reintroduction.
Australia’s empty enough to serve as proof of concept for a lot of ideas along that line. Of course, we could always get an island off the South American coastline and use reconstituted DNA for extinct species…
Keith,
I understand species reintroduction and have seen successful implementation of such a program here in Northern Ontario with the return of the peregrine falcon. If the concept of Pleistocene Rewilding is “merely an expansion of the idea behind species reintroduction programs” then drinking a litre of bourbon and driving a car is merely an expansion of the idea of having a sip of schnapps at a party.
I echo the sentiment of Leo G @13. It’s like some of these people went to some bizarro world university where the works of Eric Von Daniken are taken as a given.