We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children

There is a often used proverb, by David Brower "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children" (and no, it is not a native Indian proverb that many people think it is), which can be found in numerous conservation articles. Today, Dr. Jane Goodall gave a lecture here in Oxford, and this is what she said:

"Someone said that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from out children. Look at the world around us. The line is a lie! We aren't borrowing from our children. Borrowing means that we will pay it back, but we aren't paying back. We are STEALING from our children...."

This is the second time I've sat in on Dr. Goodall's lecture, and again she hits me with something new to think about. Give it a ponder in the Singapore context. Parents work hard, spend a lot on luxuries (for themselves and their children), driving consumption through the roof. These parents are thinking they are giving their children good lives, and ingraining in them values of materialism, so that their children will plunder whatever's left from their grandchildren. Dr. Goodall also went on to say:

"We shouldn't be stealing from our future generations. We haven't paid them back yet, but we should."

And so it must be. Think about it. Are you stealing your (whether born or not) children's future? Are you willing to pay it back? Are we willing to be the generation that will shoulder the responsibility of collectively paying back for the generations past that have now returned to the soil?

On a brighter note, Dr. Goodall mentioned to me in the little bit of time we spoke, that she will be in Singapore this June! Watch this space for details of the possibility of events and lectures that might be available!

Carrying Capacity and Singapore

I remember reading with great interest some forum with regards to population size, and carrying capacity with regards to Singapore.

For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)


The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.

Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.

The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.

Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.

How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.

At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.

So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.

References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.

Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521

Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380

Treating the Symptom but Not the Root?

The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".

The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".

However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?

Reaction to article

I read this article with some interest.

The part that made me scribble this little post is this:

"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."

Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.

Battle at Kruger National Park

Amazing, amazing video captured by tourists, and it won a National Geographic award. It's almost a whole ecology and evolutionary biology lesson in this video. Now watch it here!



(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)

Comments on Summary of Survey Results on Biological Conservation Attitudes

I just read the survey results here.

One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.

Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.



Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.

Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?




Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.

Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.




Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.

Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.





Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.

Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.




Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).

Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.

Pesticide DDT Shows Up in Antarctic Penguins

"By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.

Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.

First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.

In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.

"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.

DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.

DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.

FOOD CHAIN

Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.

There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.

Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.

A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.

Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."

Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."

Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.