What will the graduate students of 2100 be studying? Based
on the premise of the trajectory of biodiversity set forth by Jon Mooallem in Wild Ones they’ll be entranced by
bullfrogs, dandelions, cockroaches, and mosquitoes. The species we consider as weedy
pests will rise in the ranks of revered life forms that have been able to
withstand the test of time and our transformative impacts on the landscape.
Maybe they’ll finally assign names to all those diverse forms of fungi,
bacteria, and viruses, unearthing a diversity of life only seen through a
microscope or by the signature of DNA.
They may likely be as concerned (but not more so) than we are about the
state of the environment and the influence of humanity, pointing to ever mounting
stories of species and ecosystems pushed to extinction like polar bears, Atelopus frogs, and coral reefs. They
will likely parrot the same things that we are saying now and have been saying
since the 1800s in an effort to help other people understand their impact on
the environment.
This image is the one that comes to mind for me as I think
about what the future might hold after reading the first half of Wild Ones. Although people have an
undeniable need to interact with wildlife in some way, seemingly we cannot
balance our desire to protect wildlife with our capitalist needs for the bigger
and the better. What I take away from this reading is a dismaying story of our
inability to balance our desires and moderate our habitats to protect the
things that we care about outside of our immediate concerns. The efforts that
people who are trying to preserve our wildlife are outweighed by the choices
that others make.
No other story illustrates this point as does the polar
bear, our primary example of the enormous effects of climate change on a
species. The carbon we release as a byproduct of most things that we do
(driving, heating/air conditioning, buying products, growing food, farting,
etc.) is directly linked to deterioration of the habitat the polar bears need
to survive. Are we worried about their existence? Overwhelming, scientists and
non-scientists alike agree that the answer is “yes!”. We rush to photograph and
film these creatures, evidence of our interest and admiration of this species
and effort to spread the word of their peril. Yet, frustratingly the collective
efforts sum to far less than 0 because we are not able to pass the legislation
that would ultimately limit carbon emissions, warming of the planet, and the
destruction of their habitat.
All we can do is manage the extinction of species. Like the
polar bear, some species of butterflies like the Lange’s metalmark are
endangered past the point of return to stable population sizes. Many of these
tremendous declines are caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation. In
these cases, underfunded, understaffed efforts towards conservation only slow
the evitable process of the loss of another species. What changes must we make
in order to even begin to undo our impact? I think Naomi Klein was right.
Nothing but the complete reorganization of society will save us now.
