MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
QUESTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS 1) Are Homo sapiens part of nature, and, if they are, should impartial naturalists focused on objective natural history be interfering with their behaviour? In the words of Alastair Fothergill: “The first rule wildlife filmmakers have is to be true to nature. You don’t interfere, you don’t get involved and the reality is that nature is red in tooth and claw.” I realise that many learned naturalists don’t think we count, citing such unexceptional differences as the ability to make decisions (reason), but are we really so unnatural? I would suggest this self-importance is just an extension of humanity’s enduring need to feel like the Universe loves them in some special way, but I would be interested to hear what you think: are the differences between humans and chimpanzees really greater than the differences between humpback whales and amoeba? 2) Do you think humans can really “kill the planet” (i.e. stronger than the rest of the biosphere put together), and, if you don’t, do you think conservationists should be using such apocalyptic predictions in their marketing propaganda? 3) Given the unpredictability of the future, is it wrong for species to bloom when conditions are right (i.e. to make hay while the sun shines), and, if it isn’t, why are you advocating artificial restrictions of the current human population bloom? Indeed, what is life if not a dynamic battle between competitive replicators all trying to grow at rates that will quickly overwhelm local carrying capacity? As Charles Darwin noted in The Origin of Species: “In looking at Nature, it is most necessary...never to forget that every single organic being may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers”. That some temporarily side-step the resulting battle is plain for all to see, but does that really make “striving to the utmost to increase in numbers” the wrong strategy? It will lead to some pretty unpleasant results, granted, but natural history is an observational science, not a philanthropic tea party. It is about observing nature, not managing it, and if nature favours the most competitive replicators how can any naturalist possibly disagree? How can those who understand the competitive reality of life on Earth possibly recommend the elimination of reproductive ambition? In the words of Mr Darwin again: “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle... Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means.” 4) Given that conservation undeniably involves the veneration of failure and the vilification of success in the battle for life, is it just another, to borrow Friedrich Nietzsche’s phrase, “religion of pity”? It may be a secular version of such, but pity is definitely fundamental (including self-pity) and pity does, to borrow another of Mr Nietzsche’s phrases, thwart “the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect...it is a depressant.” To support conservation, as I once did, is certainly depressing, but how could it possibly be otherwise? We live in a competitive environment on a dynamic planet and that is only ever going to depress those who see everything through a thick veil of christian ethics. The system works specifically because it is ruthless and totally unfair and that must be fully accepted to be fully appreciated, surely? 5) According to Thomas Huxley, “organisms are like grapeshot of which one hits something and the rest fall wide.” As people who, presumably, accepts natural selection (i.e. the elimination of unfavoured races), why have you since decided that everything should hit something with nothing ever falling wide? I fully accept that a reduction in biodiversity may well be a problem for the future of the human species (as well as plenty of others), but selfpity based on extreme self-importance does not alter the fact that evolution works by firing wildly into the darkness of change, wasting plenty of ammo in the process (99.99% thus far, at the very least), and the question therefore remains 1