A Lesson in Sustainability
Scientists are currently conducting a study on loblolly pines.
The study utilizes a ring of carbon dioxide generators that
surrounds patches of these trees. The purpose of the study is to
determine the effect of an increase of CO2 in the air on these
pine trees.
So far, they have noticed that the trees seem to be growing and
reproducing much faster than before. They are also developing
more needles - an average of 17% more needles than typical
loblolly pines. At first blush, this looks like a good thing.
Trees hold carbon dioxide inside them, keeping it out of the
atmosphere. It appears that the CO2 problem will be
self-remedying: more CO2 produces more trees which absorb the
additional CO2. The system appears to be self-stabilizing.
There is a dark-side of course. For one, other species of trees
probably won't enjoy the additional growth spurt. This means
that the loblolly pine could spread quickly, pushing out other
species of trees, such as oak or maple. This can change the
entire landscape of an ecosystem -- for example, squirrels and
black bear rely on acorns from hardwood trees. If the loblolly
pushes out these trees, the populations of squirrel and black
bear will have to move on or die.
Another issue, and the one we can learn a lesson from, is
sustainability. The rapid growth of these trees is using up soil
minerals much faster than they would normally. According to
scientists, the trees will eventually run out of nutrients and
fixed nitrogen, and then growth will come to a crashing halt,
and may even reverse itself. So, by using up their "fuel" in
order to create "rapid growth", they will eventually run out of
"fuel" and growth will stop or reverse itself. Does anyone else
see a parallel to our own civilization here?
Nature is self-regulating. This is where my fellow liberals and
progressives often get things wrong. Nature does not need man to
protect it. Nature does not care if man abuses it. As our
conservative bretheren are fond of pointing out, the Earth has
survived much worse natural disasters than anything Man has been
able to throw at it, and life has always found a way to survive
and to thrive. Sure, it can take millions of years, but it does
survive. . . and what is a few million years to a planet that is
4 billion years old?
Conservation is not an end unto itself. Conservation is not
necessary to protect the Earth. No, conservation is necessary to
protect and aid Mankind, not nature. Destroying rainforests,
burning fossil fuels, overdeveloping the land. . . all the
result of our species spreading and growing and consuming
resources. Nature will correct this. We will run out of
rainforests, we will run out of fossil fuels, and we will run
out of developable land. Our sources of food and clean water
will be depleted; our sources of medicine and other critical
products will be depleted. The growth of our species will come
to a crashing halt, and will reverse itself. It will reverse
itself back to sustainable levels -- however, the 'sustainable
level' will be much lower then than it is now since we will have
used up almost all of what we need to keep going as a species
and as a society.
Malthus was the first to predict this. He showed that, unless
something else checks the growth of a species, the species will
eventually "crash." Catastrophic disaster will inevitably reduce
a species' numbers well below the sustainability level. In other
words, if humans don't regulate themselves willingly, nature
will regulate us, and nature is far less selective or merciful
about how it accomplishes this.
When we speak of growth now, we are not just talking about
growth in numbers, although that is part of the equation. We are
talking mostly about growth in consumption of resources. Even if
our population was stable, our consumption will continue to
increase as the develping world becomes more and more developed.
This growth in consumption, like the growth in numbers, is
subject to the same law of Malthus -- if we don't regulate it
ourselves, it will be regulated for us, and it will be regulated
by catastrophe rather than planning.