The word ‘environment’ means different things to different people, but there is a general tendency to assume that there is a separation between the natural world (‘the environment’) and things which are manmade. The consequence of this is that our species’ impact on nature is often looked at in a negative light; any changes we make are considered to be damaging. This attitude presupposes that there is a line which separates humans from the rest of the world. On one side lies the environment, or natural world, on the other is humanity and all that is unnatural.
This is actually a misleading distinction. All living organisms have some impact on their surroundings and other species. When this creates relatively stable, inter-connected webs of species and food chains, we tend to talk approvingly of the balance of nature. And when certain populations fluctuate sharply because of weather conditions or knock-on effects from spikes or troughs in the populations of other species, we see this same balance in play.
All too often, however, we hear talk of Mankind’s impact on the environment only in terms of damage; as a reader pointed out to me, I was guilty of unconsciously taking this line in last week’s newsletter. All animals influence their surroundings to some degree or other whether directly – building nests or tunnelling, for example – or indirectly by eating other animals. Homo sapiens is no different in principle; just with a far wider range of abilities.
We are not the only species to use tools. Some great apes use wood or stone implements to reach food, some crows have been seen to use sticks to extract insects in a similar way, and even thrushes breaking snail shells on stones can be seen to do something similar. Over the ages, humans have developed tools to a much greater extent, but only because our brains are capable of doing so, not because we are doing something totally unnatural.
Similarly with building. Birds make nests which in some cases (weaver birds and house martins, for example) can be quite complex structures. Bees, wasps and termites also build large, complex nests. Primitive human shelters were little different from what many other species were already doing when scaled to our size. The big difference is that the nests of birds and insects conform to set patterns, with no real variation within species. With our bigger brains, we have developed from building mud huts to cities of sophisticated wood or stone buildings and, with the introduction of steel frames, skyscrapers.
The list of comparisons could go on. The point is that as (currently) the most capable species on the planet we are in a position to make much greater changes to our environment, but this is natural for us to do. ‘Damage’ is then in the eye of the beholder. For sure, the vast majority of people would agree that polluted air and water are bad (although some might not worry unless it affects them directly). But most things are a matter either of aesthetics or moral judgement.
Across the industrialised world, most of our landscapes (other than mountainous areas or very arid regions) are to some extent or other manmade. Farming has transformed much of northern Europe from dense woodland to open fields, often separated by (manmade) hedges. Even most of the hedges post-date the period of enclosure, where previously open fields cultivated in strips were converted into the kind of landscape common today.
Farming itself has created a new balance of nature. Woodlands support different species from mixed landscapes of open fields and shrubs. Today’s countryside actually provides habitat for a much wider variety of species. Some that we are keen to conserve (skylarks and grey partridges, for example) are certainly not woodland species and would not have been part of the northern European scene 10,000 years ago. Felling forests, which we would nowadays tend to think of as ‘damaging the environment’ has actually created the countryside we cherish today.
Similarly with wildlife more generally. It is human management of the countryside which provides many of the ecological niches occupied by a diverse range of flora and fauna. The modern trend is to protect as many species as possible, but quite a number of them are only flourishing because we provided the right conditions for them in the first place. We should be well aware of our pivotal role in this web of nature, but it is simply not possible to freeze this at a point in time and define this as the most desirable outcome.
The modern environmentalist movement has within it a deep streak of anti-humanism, holding our species uniquely responsible for what happens to our environment. In this context change – almost any change – is seen as bad. This is an idealised and unrealistic outlook on life. Perhaps it is a necessary counterbalance to the drive to innovate, making us aware of the impacts changes might have. But it certainly should not be allowed to place unnecessary restrictions on progress.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS