Humans’ Place In Nature | February 6, 2012 Issue - Vol. 90 Issue 6 | Chemical & Engineering News
Volume 90 Issue 6 | p. 3 | Editor's Page
Issue Date: February 6, 2012

Humans’ Place In Nature

Department: Editor's Page | Collection: Climate Change, Sustainability
Keywords: environmentalism, anthropocene, climate change, biodiversity

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post carried an article about a local battle between developers and environmentalists. The article was entitled “Battle for Mattawoman Creek,” and it examined successful efforts by environmentalists to block construction of a highway through the Mattawoman Creek watershed in Charles County, Md., southeast of Washington, D.C.

What caught my eye was a quote from Jim Whitehead, a board member on the county chamber of commerce, who told the Post, “The decision to abandon [the connector] because of extremely well-organized and opinionated environmentalists is a crime against Charles County.” Whitehead also said: “This is an astronomically important road. I don’t think [Matta­woman Creek] would have been harmed in any measurable way after the road was built. Nature is so powerful compared to humanity. It recovers remarkably well by itself.”

Really? Blocking a highway through what is still a relatively pristine environment is a “crime against Charles County”? Is any road “astronomically important”?

Beyond the hyperbole, however, is a sentiment that is all too common: Humans are puny. Earth is vast. “Nature is so powerful compared to humanity” that there is nothing humans can do that nature can’t fix. It is a comforting notion. It’s also wrong.

Scientists have quantified humanity’s impact on Earth. In a 1997 paper titled “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Peter M. Vitousek and Harold A. Mooney, in the department of biology at Stanford University; Jane Lubchenco, in the department of zoology at Oregon State University; and Jerry M. Melillo, of the U.S. Office of Science & Technology Policy, examined the effects humans have had on land, oceans, biogeochemical cycles, and biological resources (Science 1997, 277, 494). The paper was the lead paper in a special issue of Science on the topic. Lubchenco, by the way, is now the administrator of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

The scientists conclude: “The rates, scales, kinds, and combinations of changes occurring now are fundamentally different from those at any other time in history; we are changing Earth more rapidly than we are understanding it. We live on a human-dominated planet—and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase.”

More recently, a large, multidisciplinary, international team of researchers published a paper in Nature titled “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity” in which they identified planetary boundaries that should not be transgressed (2009, 461, 472). They write: “We have tried to identify the Earth-system processes and associated thresholds which, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental change. We have found nine such processes for which we believe it is necessary to define planetary boundaries: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading.”

The researchers determined that for three of the nine Earth-system processes—climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and interference with the nitrogen cycle—human activities “have already transgressed their boundaries.”

Human civilization has come into existence during a period of unusual environmental stability, the past 10,000 years known to geologists as the Holocene. As the authors of the Nature paper observe: “Since the Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene, in which human actions become the main driver of environmental change. This could see human activities push the Earth system outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, with consequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world.”

Acting as if nature will always take care of itself is no longer an option for humans. There are too many of us and we’re far too clever. It’s time to apply a variant of the Pottery Barn rule to planet Earth: We broke it, we now own it, and it’s time to start fixing it.

Thanks for reading.

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © American Chemical Society
Douglas Klein (February 7, 2012 12:51 PM)
This discussion is just a response to the grossly mistaken view concerning anthropogenic effects on nature presented by a board-member of some local chamber of commerce. It is too bad that there is so much belief in demonstrably false ideas. The false argument from the board-member detracts from a good decision on the particular case of Mattawoman Creek. That such false views are brought forward in the name of the Chamber of Commerce in effect hurts their position (even though it does not directly bear on the particular case).
Dan C (February 12, 2012 4:55 PM)
Agreed. It is sad that we have become such a polarized society and cannot accept that someone else might be right about something we want to be different. I've lived in that area and know how nice it would be to have a road through there, but I don't think that convenience is enough to justify the intrusion for the sake of "time is money". I'm sure the board had quite a time of evaluating that choice, and chose to serve the future (the land) rather than the past (the automobile). Everyone on the board should be commended for participating, and should be available for consultation by other places with similar choices to make. Either way the decision came out, they should be commended for coming out with one under stress, unlike our insane federal system, which simply avoids responsibility to their grandchildren.
Laura Villa (February 8, 2012 4:25 PM)
It's unbelievably sad how common I hear "nature fixes itself." Views such as these are not made by pretentious tree huggers there is truth through evidence,then again many would rather just cover their ears and shut their eyes before being told overconsumption and overpopulation is a bad thing. I enjoyed reading this.
Dan C (February 12, 2012 5:00 PM)
As a general comment, I think it is appropriate to note the writings of Wendell Berry, and his collection of essays, "What Are People For?"
We are often misdirected to the overpopulation concept when humans cause damage to natural systems, but this is a trick to avoid thinking about humans AS part of nature. "The opposite of consumption is not frugality; it is generosity." -Raj Patel
When humans are tasked with being generous to nature, rather than consuming it, then overpopulation is unlikely to happen, and decisions such as putting a road where it isn't vital to humans supporting nature (our future) would be fairly straightforward.
Cheryl (April 24, 2012 9:58 AM)
If I'm not mistaken is this the same Jim Whitehead who was involved with the National Prayer Garden, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization that proposed a 340 acre "resort" complex in an agriculturally zoned area of Charles County MD a couple of years ago? The area has no public water/sewage facilities and the road leading to the property would have required numerous upgrades at taxpayers expense. In addition, the MGS/USGS has issued numerous reports that Charles County may experience severe water supply shortages by 2030, and this "resort" would have consumed thousands upon thousands of gallons of GROUNDWATER per day for its Lazy River, 3,000 person capacity hotel & amphitheater, and grounds upkeep. The organization does NOT OWN THE LAND and never presented its "plans" for its "resort" to the local Planning Commission. However, the organization remains a 501(c)3).

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment