Prosperity is the friend of wildlife
I am on holiday in the Idaho Rockies, in a house on the edge of what is in winter a fancy ski resort, the streets of which are clogged with sports cars, massive SUVs and even the odd Hummer. The shops offer all the extravagances a pampered plutocrat needs: from pet grooming to art galleries. Sent to buy bagels, I was faced with a bewildering ten different kinds.
Sounds like I am complaining? Read on.
From the patio of our house can be seen a constant procession of wonderful (and remarkably tame) birds, attracted by the effect of the the suburb's sprinklers in the usually dry landscape. Squirrels come to the trees; garter snakes to the wall; butterflies to the flowers. In the crystal stream at the bottom of the hill, wild rainbow trout rise to caddis flies and dippers, martins and sandpipers snack on huge stoneflies. In the woods along the valley are moose droppings and signs of the occasional black bear.
My point? Well, the book I have just finished reading here is “Nothing to Envy” by Barbara Demick, about the lives of six North Koreans in the city of Chongjin before they defected to the south. They lived free from the evils of consumerism, indeed in the late 1990s they were so free of consumerism that their children or parents starved to death before their eyes. They never faced the paralysing agony of choosing between bagel brands, indeed for a lot of the time they ate meals based on stewing grasses and the husks of corn cobs. They had few possessions at all, let alone SUVs. Their pets needed no grooming, because they had been eaten. And they lived as locavores off the land, in all its organic purity, recycling their waste so that the local farmland stank of ‘night soil’. All around Chongjin by the 1990s the wildlife had been trapped, the wild plants picked, the grasses cut for food and even the bark of trees stripped to make flour.
How’s this for local-sourcing?
They devised traps out of buckets and string to catch small animals in the field, draped nets over their balconies to snare sparrows. They educated themselves in the nutritive properties of plants. They reached back into their collective memory of famines past and recalled the survival tricks of their forefathers. They stripped the sweet inner bark of pine trees to grind into a fine powder that could be used in place of flour. They pounded acorns into a gelatinous paste that could be molded into cubes that practically melted in your mouth. North Koreans learned to swallow their pride and hold their noses. They picked kernels of undigested corn out of the excrement of farm animals...on the beaches, people dug out shellfish from the sand and filled buckets with seaweed.
Sounds like the ideal way of life as preached by much of the western environmental priesthood, does it not? Yet between 600,000 and 2 million died of hunger. The wildlife was devastated. Pollution was terrible.
When the subjects of Demick’s book reach China they are amazed not just by the human prosperity --one finds a bowl of white rice, a luxury she has not seen for ages, and then realises it had been left out for a dog -- but by the biodiversity, too. They marvel at the lush forests:
On the other side of the river, there was a place where the trees still had bark and the cornfields weren’t guarded by guns. The place was called China.
There is something terribly wrong with the standard litany we recite about the environment. It just is not true that extravagant western lifestyles come at the expense of nature. The more I see of the world, the more persuaded I am that human prosperity is actually good for wildlife, because it leads to investment in things that boost biodiversity. Things like productive farms and sewage treatment and well stocked stores and fossil fuels and lawn sprinklers and bird feeders and sport fishing lobbies and national parks. Things that make it unnecessary to use the local forest as a source of fuel, the local valley as a source of food and the local stream as a dump for waste. Things that value a moose as something other than a meal.
The oft repeated recommendation of the environmental movement that we live more locally, live off the land, live with fewer choices, fewer inputs, fewer resources and fewer possessions would in fact result in devastation not just for human life but for wildlife too. Going back to nature would be a disaster for nature.
One day, in the mountains of North Korea, birds will be abundant and tame again, streams will be clean again, deer will refill the woods – but only if the people get rich enough to get their food through trade from choice-crammed bagel stores rather than from the land.
Comments (25)
The point that those who espouse local sourcing neglect is that it is sustainable only if the population density is low enough. The required population density is much lower than the population density of most countries, and of that experienced by the vast majority of the world's population. The whole argument is based on magically making billions of people disappear in some palatable way. It's pure middle-class, rich country fantasy, and should be ruthlessly exposed as such.
Is this article a joke? If nothing else, it is a ridiculous example of an author trying to make an obvious and unoriginal point sound like it is something new and provocative.
Are you really invoking the most extreme of examples to make your facile point? Most non-idiots will readily concede that human progress has made our environment better in many respects. Most non-idiots will also agree that many of the of the advances we've made in consumption, technology, and population have had a negative impact on the environment.
Don't you think we have enough "collective intelligence" to better our lives while simultaneously striving to minimize or eliminate the harm done to the environment?
Your argument, sir, is the argument of an idiot. Invoking a ludicrously extreme example does not make an eloquent or compelling argument. In your rush to paint the argument in black and white, you've exposed an inability to think through the issue rationally or with an acceptable level of sophistication.
I would have expected far better from you sir.
Is this article a joke? If nothing else, it is a ridiculous example of an author trying to make an obvious and unoriginal point sound like it is something new and provocative.
Are you really invoking the most extreme of examples to make your facile point? Most non-idiots will readily concede that human progress has made our environment better in many respects. Most non-idiots will also agree that many of the of the advances we've made in consumption, technology, and population have had a negative impact on the environment.
Don't you think we have enough "collective intelligence" to better our lives while simultaneously striving to minimize or eliminate the harm done to the environment?
Your argument, sir, is the argument of an idiot. Invoking a ludicrously extreme example does not make an eloquent or compelling argument. In your rush to paint the argument in black and white, you've exposed an inability to think through the issue rationally or with an acceptable level of sophistication.
I would have expected far better from you sir.
A lot of truth here. But getting the world's riches can also be roblem. Like strip mining, rivers burning, smog, Love Canal, expanding into animals habitates, gulf oil spill etc.
Actually, the espousers of local sourcing do not ignore the problem of high population densities. For many of them, reduced human population is the point of local sourcing. Modern environmentalists view humans as a cancer on the planet. The wealthier we are, the stronger the cancer is. The world can only be saved by weakening the cancer that is the human species. They may not be up-front about this, but they are certainly aware of it. The problem for environmentalism is how to market this idea and make it palatable for the average person.
It's quite interesting that people with an agenda, holding and advocating a paradigm of societal "consensus" must attack the thoughts and viewpoints of others in a ad hominem manner. Usually such an attack is designed to reject the others' views and/or conclusions while attempting to deconstruct it as lacking any validity (generally falsely and in an incompetent manner). And most often the attacker is in such a egotistical panic, combined with a pseudo-self righteous indignation, they repeat themselves multiple times out of fear that their supposed defense not allowed to be heard.
In shorter and simpler words, the attacker's intellectual quiver is empty of coherence and defensible logic, and he must resort to viciously throwing stones at coherent observations by the person reflecting the opposing paradigm.
A prime example of this deficient intellectual acuity can be found above in Bill's repetitive -- though identical -- postings attacking the orginal author.
Why is "Bill" so offended by the idea of the locavore movement being criticized? This was a thought-provoking post by Matt Ridley and it is childish to respond to it with naked hostility.
I believe there are some truth in this article, but in fact, the viewpoint it not that easy to agree with.
I many countries, the econimic development brought a big damage to the environment, more and more wildlives desappeared.
We already lost a lot of good wildlife friends, Human, please don't be evil.<a href=http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/ >Duki</a>
If in fact the espousers of local sourcing have reduced human population as the point of local sourcing, I'm personally hoping that many of them will volunteer!
No Bill, it is not an artificial example. It is actually a very real one.
Anyone who has traveled extensively quickly observes that there is a connection between free economies, wealth, and environmental health. It wasn't West Germany that was devastated environmentally but East Germany. It isn't South Korea that is destroying its environment but North Korea. Those of us who lived in China decades ago have seen a major improvement in environmenal conditions that was caused by an increase in overall wealth. My kids were shocked that they could see the stars in Xi'an last year. They couldn't do that five years before and I hadn't seen the mountains in the better part of two years even though they were all around us. But China is still quite poor and has a long way to go. Why do you think the squirrel populations in Toronto and Boston are so much higher than in Beijing? Why is it that we live in or near large cities and still see hundreds of raccoons, deer, foxes, coyotes, etc., all around us every year while the Chinese and North Koreans don't?
I think Bill has a point here, even if he goes a little over the top. This is pretty sloppy thinking and expect so much better from Matt. The either/or argument is just misleading and who says we cannot have relatively prosperous lives whilst using less resources. I still don't understand why that would not be a good thing. Also behavioural economists will tell you that people make poorer purchasing decisions when faced with masses of choice - there is considerable middle ground between North Korea and US megastore mass consumption.
Completely and utterly daft to leave out that western lifestyles have an impact that reaches far beyond immediate surroundings (see Palm oil and rainforest as one small example). Biodiversity is, with a few exceptions, declining the world over. Whilst it might look ok outside of your nice place in the Rockies - even a slight pause to think about what you are suggesting here would reveal holes you could drive a hummer through.
Expanding the capacity of unique human individuals to create specialized, mutually enhancing relationships that support life in an evolving, ever changing environment could be likened to the growth of specialized cells in a developing human body. However, there are cases where living cells evolve a capacity to dominate the body in a state of ignorance about the whole body's need for mutually enhancing relationships - cancer cells. Metaphorically speaking, they ignorantly see the body as an inexhuastable supply of everything they need to thrive. The body has been given to them - created - for their purpose. All other cells are there to be exploited or eliminated in the cancer cell's claim to more and more of the energy that sustains life. I Think that's the perspective that many environmentalists hold about humanity at this point. It shouldn't be difficult to see how that idea has developed. Cancer cells can't change their nature. Human beings can and do. It will likely be the personal reward's attainable through the inovative exchange and unrestricted expansion of knowledge and ideas that will make that possible. I do think that will have to happen to bring the needed change away from an exploitive, dominant relationship with the planet. That seems to be Matt's position... correct me if I am wrong.
I believe there are some truth in this article, but in fact, the viewpoint it not that easy to agree with.
I many countries, the econimic development brought a big damage to the environment, more and more wildlives desappeared.
We already lost a lot of good wildlife friends, Human, please don't be evil.
<a href=http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/ >http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/</a>
They devised traps out of buckets and string to catch small animals in the field, draped nets over their balconies to snare sparrows. They educated themselves in the nutritive properties of plants. They reached back into their collective memory of famines past and recalled the survival tricks of their forefathers. They stripped the sweet inner bark of pine trees to grind into a fine powder that could be used in place of flour. They pounded acorns into a gelatinous paste that could be molded into cubes that practically melted in your mouth. North Koreans learned to swallow their pride and hold their noses. They picked kernels of undigested corn out of the excrement of farm animals...on the beaches, people dug out shellfish from the sand and filled buckets with seaweed.
This is pretty sloppy thinking and expect so much better from Matt. The either/or argument is just misleading and who says we cannot have relatively prosperous lives whilst using less resources. I still don't understand why that would not be a good thing. Also behavioural economists will tell you that people make poorer purchasing decisions when faced with masses of choice - there is considerable middle ground between North Korea and US megastore mass consumption.
<a href=http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/ >http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/</a>
I fully agree with Bill's reply. The author of this article states the obvious (prosperous people want to live in a clean and pleasant environment), but fails to mention anything about the difficulty of achieving prosperity while protecting the environment.
@bill: there is a delay between submitting a reply and seeing it on the screen, which presumably explains why your comment appears several times.
I think the point that Hugh and Bill missed is that he author is making a relative claim, not an absolute one. He is not claiming that humans have no impact on their environment. He is claiming that modern industrialized economies, man for man, have LESS impact than primitive economies.
What this article completely forgets, is the fact that local prosperity often comes with the costs of environmental destruction elsewhere. I see the fact that environmental responsibility seems to be a luxury, only affordable in highly developed societies, as THE problem. Combining a sustainable lifestyle (this will be forced upon us at the latest, when some crucial resources run out, or pollution effect start to severely hit us) with comfortable, wealthy and enjoyable livelihoods for all humans. About human genius' ability to achieve this, I am rationally optimistic, but apparently the status quo is more profitable, be a genius all you want.
Oh my goodness!How come the ideology and philosophy of environmentalism are still there? This is ONE, big question some people fail to answer correctly, I say. So, please, know your ideological viewpoints before making the case for advocating the "economics of primitivity".
The day has come for ordinary people like me to keep a close eye and take action on the ideas of environmentalism and the "economics of primitivity". I really suspect the true ideological motives behind these - and I obviously say that the "difficulty of achieving prosperity while protecting the environment" does exist, even though this is very, very questionable and must be subjected to vigorous public scrutiny.
Too much politics can hurt the common sense (and health) among us ordinary people around the world, so we have to take care of ourselves and avoid falling into a trap of intrigue, philosopical & ideological deception, strident growth skepticism, ad-hominem attacks, etc.
For those who dread the social and economic growth with hatred, racism and warts, better understand the consequences of such cynicism before harrassing people violently "in the name of environmentalism". That means the philosopical & idelogical curse of "primitivity economics" with the associated idea of environmentalism is one single roadblock to prosperity among the world's developed & developing nations. Is it better for somebody to commit suicide rather than continue promoting such ideas, supposedly in the name of protecting the environment and society?
A balanced debate is really neccessary to discuss issues that have broad implications on social & economic development and stability, environmental conservation & protection, improvements & progress in scientific and technological capabilities, public governance & safety, energy, communications and transpotation improvements, and others. All we have to do is to know the shortcomings, so the experts will know how to reveal, and cooperate with each other in both tackling and meeting the challenges ahead. PLEASE do not forget what I personally aware of.
Thank you.
O, really?
But seems like the animals are in danger now, and there are a lot of wildlife rescure center in the world which are trying to save these kinds of in danger animals:
http://www.americafinancenetwork.com/WildLifeResearch/wildliferescuecent...
You say, "It just is not true that extravagant western lifestyles come at the expense of nature."
I agree that "noble savage" living is extremely destructive. I have witnessed stone age agricultural practices in Zimbabwe reduce pristine wilderness to near desert. However, your claim that industrialisation does not produce environmental devastation does not stand up to inspection.
Europe was totally deforested and obliterated of wildlife on its journey to prosperity. Where once forests covered its entire surface, today there are isolated patches of trees totally absent of everything other than generic birds. Indeed, I have met few Europeans who have seen wild life. Claims that wild life is improving in Europe are easy to make because the base line to which they compare improvements to is zero.
By your rationale, wild life in Zimbabwe should have become well preserved following colonial conquest and the onset of modern living standards. It did nothing of the sort: the modern agriculture that you champion resulted in enormous tracts of bush being cleared and purged of animals. Today animals exist in 5% of their former countryside. And yet when the Brits visit me they are astounded by the vast quantity of nature before them (in truth it is a pillaged shadow of its former glory) and vast only in comparison to what they are used to, which is no wilderness at all.
You are right that industrialisation reduces the unit impact of humans on the environment, but this is outweighed by the sheer number of them in industrialised countries. Perhaps, therefore, there is a case for your point of view in countries like Sweden, where populations have stabilised at a low level, but not somewhere like Britain, where the land exceeds its carrying capacity 3 fold and where demand for resources drives unsustainable deforestation in other regions of the world.
My "rational optimism" will begin when I hear people talking about industrialising the third world while simultaneously reducing populations. Reducing populations must happen. Fish stocks are collapsing, water is becoming increasingly scarce (South Africa has reached peak water already) and soils are becoming increasingly eroded. Without tackling these problems there is no basis for rational optimism.
The North Koreans are struggling to survive, not promote energy efficiency, which is the stated aim of locovores. A good critique of locovorism may be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20budiansky.html?_r=1
Protecting animals in danger or otherwise as well as saving water resources, plant trees, etc.? That will be fine to protect the environment. But please do not ever waste time on fighting over a philosopical and ideological sort of phenomenon, OK? Thank you.
And, oh, please understand this well before making a discussion. Better make an decision not only on environmental conservation & protection, but also social & economic development, public governance and safety, improvements & progress in scientific and technological capabilities, energy, communications and transportation improvements, and a lot more.
And do not forget: Please be honest about saving the earth. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to turn back - to the stone age! So roll up your sleeves please, heaven forbid. IT IS TIME TO GET GOING! Thank you.
Erratum: The message here should be understandable that it is better to make a sound decision not only on environmental conservation & protection, but also social & economic development and stability, public governance & safety, improvements & progress in scientific and technological capabilities, energy, communications and transportation improvements, and a lot more.
(This is far from what I incorrectly wrote "Better make an decision".)
Remember: please be honest about saving the earth. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to turn back - to the stone age! So roll up your sleeves please, heaven forbid. IT IS TIME TO GET GOING ONCE AGAIN! Thank you so much.
[...] Two billion rich people disrupt the climate more than two billion poor people.” Which is why North Korea makes a shining example and Eden-esque [...]
We all depend on our natural resources for survival. We get the raw materials from nature to make our lives easier and more productive like that of paper, water and power. Without these, maybe we would still be living primitive lives. It is not only us who depend on the environment for existence - our wildlife thrives in it and if we keep on abusing them, future generations will just see various animal species in photos. In our own little ways, by maximizing the use of our paper supplies (http://www.texas-shredding.com) and supporting 'green products', we can show that we really care about the condition of our wildlife and natural resources as a whole. Living a prosperous life does have to be wasteful or extravagant - what it takes is our contentment of having healthy and meaningful lives without harming what is left of our wildlife. So many species have already been wiped out to extinction and it is up to us to show that we do care.