The authentic invasive species

Several days ago I received some material from the Sierra Club reminding me to renew my membership, which I had let lapse for a couple of years. What caught my attention however was a short letter that was included in the membership material. The letter read as follows:

“Dear Human:

Imagine that, little by little, your home was taken away from you. The forests and mountains where you once roamed freely disappeared, replaced by roads and concrete buildings.

What if politicians in suits, someplace far away, decided your fate … decided that you, your family, your friends, and neighbors had become a nuisance—a menace—to those who had invaded your home?

And so now, you must die.

Imagine these politicians rallying for your slaughter … ignoring what science has told them, encouraging citizens to hunt you down and kill you.

Imagine your family under attack. Defenseless, with nowhere left to hide, you must dodge bullets from the ground and sky, just to find food for yourself and your young children.

Imagine that, in one of these public hunts, you watched your offspring die.

Then you will know the terror that wolves face every day … and why we so desperately need your help.

After all, you and your fellow humans are the only ones who can save us. Our fate is in your hands.

So I hope you will answer this cry for help. You are our only hope. And time is running out ….”

Murder for fun, profit and prestige

The late, great comedian George Carlin once remarked that we humans can't destroy the Earth. The planet will deal with us without difficulty. I remain optimistic that after humankind vanishes (at least the current variety of Homo sapiens), the remaining life on Earth, as science writer Michael Tennesen says, “ will survive, adapt, diversify, and proliferate.”

I don't want to think that the combination of our technology, slow evolutionary development and general ignorance could actually turn our planet into an uncompromising nightmare like that offered up by the novelist Cormac McCarthy in his novel The Road.

Yet, regardless of whether or not we humans do ourselves in sometime in the future, the mind numbing misery we're inflicting on other species right now is appalling. It is conceivable that up to 50 percent of plant and animal species could have gone extinct by the end of the century. Unlike other mass extinctions, the principal cause this time will most likely be humankind. There's a reason that most scientists refer to our current geologic age as Anthropocene.

Wide areas of Asia currently, because of official corruption, greed, ignorance and even what is casually called “cultural” cuisine, are destroying plant and animal life across the planet at an astonishing rate. We humans have become like the invasive plant kudzu on steroids.

While we collectively—with some notable exceptions—have been killing and destroying most everything around us for thousands of years, it was far less noticeable before the industrial age and a global population under two billion. But now, with a population of more than 7 billion humans and increasing, we are destroying life on Earth on an industrial scale, seemingly unaware of its consequences for us.

So what ought we to do? One possibility certainly is that we may not be able to do anything in time. Fields like neuroscience and behavioral genetics have provided considerable insight in how humans think and process information and why we often do what we do ... but, the “so what” question however can't be tossed aside.

How do we confront, educate and find the resources fast enough to turn the human death cult into a manageable problem at the very least. Cowboy yahoos in the American West, clueless Chinese bourgeoisie desperate for the “bling” of ivory and other human predators are not going away anytime soon.

Maybe it does begins with trying to understand what the wolf could be thinking as he stares at his dead cub bleeding to death from the gunshot wound. Maybe we have to find better ways to talk to narcissistic Homo sapiens. Anyway, I renewed my membership in the Sierra Club. Giving up can't be an option.

For an unvarnished assessment of wildlife destruction read The Politics of Extinction. Getting angry is good but then come up with a plan. We need one right away.

My Amygdala Made Me Do It

The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been.

(Erle C. Ellis, associate professor of geography and environmental systems, University of Maryland)

An Anthropocentric world

Professor Ellis, quoted above, appears to be an outspoken optimist regarding humanity's future. Earth's environment is going to be pretty much what Homo sapiens decide to do with it. Ellis' point is that from the very beginnings of human existence, we have “used,” various technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain ourselves well beyond what the “natural” world could have done.

According to Professor Ellis, Earth's carrying capacity, at best, is probably no more than a few billion people living at a subsistence level. Today of course we're on our way to reach some 9 billion by 2050. Stewart Brand, editor of the Whole Earth Catalog and founder of several environmental related organization, said some forty years ago that, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.” Hm-m. So is this what being a god is like? See Ellis' article in the NYT entitled Overpopulation Is Notthe Problem.

The limbic brain and Genopolitics

Professor Ellis at the end of his article in the New York Times states that only our imaginations and our social systems will prevent us from reaching that “proud” future. Imaginations and social systems, however, might be large caveats.

Possibly some of the most fascinating work in science today is being done in biology, specifically in neuroscience, epigenetics (how genes are both agents of nature and nurture) and synthetic biology, which utilizes engineering principles to life science. In simple terms it means breaking down nature into spare parts so we can rebuild it however we please. We will likely have to make some very serious choices in the not too distant future, choices that will impact our “imaginations and social systems.”

Neuroscience has come up with five classes of personality traits: (1) openness, (2) conscientiousness, (3) extroversion, (4) agreeableness and (5) neuroticism. About 50 percent of these traits are genetic and about fifty percent, on average, are environmental. Interestingly, when we're young, environment tends to have a greater impact on how we behave, but as we get older and more independent our genes play a larger role.

The response to threats is a structure in our limbic brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is what causes those all too familiar feelings of unease most of us get at one time or another. The amygdala is connected to the cingulate cortex, an area absolutely critical to self-awareness. While, for example, the amygdala may be perceiving something as a threat, the cingulate cortex analyzes the amygdala's response and decides if it's a real threat or not.

Needless to say it begins to get complicated when we start talking about neurotransmitters, serotonin and dopamine being two, and the connection to the cingulate cortex, but suffice it to say that the release of hormones like oxytocin, cortisol or testosterone—and their levels—affect behavior and how we react to a great many thing. This has led to a relatively new field called Genopolitics.

Neurobiologists have discovered that the amygdala acts in different ways in liberals and conservatives. Yes, it appears that political views have a genetic component. Research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have more conservative opinions. Brain scans have shown that when stressed the cortex and the amygdala light up differently and depending on a number of factors, the connection between these two areas may be strong or weak. For example, oxytocin, the “cuddle hormone,” which is released in sex and organism, is thought to be the hormone smothering the amygdala, thus increasing generosity, trust, etc. Conversely, when the amygdala response is lowered, a threat from real danger may not be perceived.

The brave new world

Yes, it is possible we may be able to imagine a totally new future along with the development of improved social systems. On the other hand we humans could discover we are as “godlike” as the rock at our feet.

Geo-engineering might be able to reverse the negative effects of climate change. The assumption here of course is that the majority of the inhabitants on the planet will have a basic understanding what climate change is. It's also possible that synthetic biology will eliminate human shortsightedness and predation. Possibly the growing middle class in China will come to realize that bringing the elephant to extinction because they must have the “bling” of ivory is not the action of a “higher” species.

Some demographers believe that the planet could maintain a population of 13 billion humans. Of course, significant changes would have to be made. Who's willing to never eat meat again? How high could we build our vertical structures?

A short while ago I saw a photograph of four hunters from somewhere in the southern United States. They were standing proudly beside a dead crocodile suspended in the air by chains, said to be one of the largest ever killed. The picture elicited in me revulsion and disgust … directed at the four humans. For what reason was this animal killed? For the briefest of moments I imagined myself standing beside four hunters suspended on meat hooks. I must raise my serotonin levels in order to meet the future with optimism.

Additional Reading:

Inside the conservative brain: What explains their wiring?

The Age of Anthropocene: Should We Worry?

Giving Up On Antarctica

Our black future