The End of Life on Planet Earth? A Biocentric Solution by Captain Paul Watson - Sea Shepherd

[Annces]

The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?

There is a Biocentric Solution.
Commentary by Paul Watson
Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society





Does humanity have a future?

We are presently living in what conservation biologists refer to as the Holocene extinction event. This is the sixth global mass extinction event in last 439 million years. The previous five extinction events wiped out between 50 to 95 percent of species each ttime. The most recent event was 65 million years ago at the end of the Jurassic period, a cataclysmic occurrence that exterminated the dinosaurs, the dominant group of species at of that period. Evolution addresses the diminishment of biological diversity through speciation, but it takes at least ten million years to build up diversity of species to the level prior to a mass extinction event.

The world ten million years after the Jurassic crash was radically different than the world of the dinosaurs. The world after the Holocene extinction event, the one we are in now, will be as radically altered and most likely one of the species that will not survive the event will be the present dominant species – the human species.

In a way, the Holocenic extinction event could also be called the “Holocenic hominid collective suicide event.” After all, we Homo sapiens are the last survivors of the hominid line, a group that has been on its way out for some time. The beetle family, for example, has some 700,000 species by comparison. Odds are many of the beetle species will survive the event, whereas we will not. But the reality is that what is happening now is the result of the collective actions of us hominids. We are the ruthlessly territorial primates whose numbers have soared far beyond the level of global carrying capacity for the deadly behavioural characteristics that we display.

This did not happen yesterday because we suddenly became aware of the dangers of global warming. It began 50,000 years ago when a relatively hairless primate stumbled out of equatorial Africa and began wiping out the megafauna of the time. Wherever this creature (our ancestor) went, their arrival was followed by large die-outs of megafauna. Primitive hominids were well-organized, efficient, slaughter crews. As they advanced, the mammoth, sabre-toothed cats, cave bears, giant sloths, camels, horses, and wholly rhinos fell to their stone weapons and deliberately set fires. The extinction of all of these great mega-species is directly attributable to “primitive” human hunters. The hunting down of the mega-fauna was followed by the advent of agriculture and the domestication of selected animals. Domesticated cows, goats, sheep, and pigs grew in numbers and denuded large areas of grasslands. Irrigation systems began to toxify land. Then agriculture was followed by industrial activities, and finally, by the burning off of vast amounts of fossil fuels.


Full article
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html

Also see website on the Cave Bear

http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/leavesandtrees/hunted/bear/cave.html

[nam78_two]

1. Interesting

Thanks for posting. Captain Watson is a slightly controversial figure so I expect there will be posts berating him etc., but interesting article anyway.

[Annces]

2. I find his approach encouraging and he has my full support n/t

[Trillo]

3. He makes some really interesting observations.

I have to wonder why, when so many natural indicators point to such deep truths as he points out, are our economic, social, and political systems in such denial.

[Annces]

5. I have been hearing this story

in one form or another since I was old enough to read scientific literature. My college level biology teachers all had the same basic viewpoint as Watson does.

[Trillo]

7. As long as only the "college" people are exposed,

it will continue to be highly controlled (by hierarchy) and marginalized, which is part of the problem.

I found even his criticisms of the educational system refreshing. I'll have to read his mini-essay again, later.

It is undoubtedly true that one of the biggest issues (which Watson may not have framed quite that way) is the overpopulation of humans on this planet. And then we have Bush, supposedly a college graduate with an MBA, favoring abstinence over birth control. I could have sworn Bush had a college degree from somewhere.

[Annces]

8. He addressed this on his Earth Day essay

How overpopulation is more of a danger than global warming. I have not been reading his site that long, but I think he is starting to write with a more global outlook than just his Sea Shepherd mission.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070420_1.html

[BlooInBloo]

4. End days! END DAYS!!!!

[submerged99]

6. Sounds like it's too late.

Oh well, we might as well just resign ourselves to fate..as do those who believe in revelations and all other doomsday prophecies.

[unblock]

9. seems like this guy does not know much about homo sapiens

while it is possible for us to evolve into a different species, one that it not as warlike and destructive as we are, his idyllic solution is, well, quaint by any reasonable understanding of modern humanity.

as long as we are wired as we are -- hell, as many species are -- we will always seek to greater our numbers at the expense of others. our population is likely to be kept in check only by a predator (none currently exists, discounting the odd plague or two) or by shortage of resources to survive (and consequent eco-destruction).

this whole thought and free will thing is vastly overrated, and a biologist should know that. just because he can "think" of a solution doesn't mean it would work in practice, if he could even sell it.


more fundamentally, evolution is an ongoing process, and homo sapiens are not immune to it. as the world around us evolves, through our own doing or not, it changes what is needed for survival, and thus we, too, will evolve. perhaps we will evolve into something that can fulfill watson's vision; perhaps we will evolve into something less dominant; perhaps we will split into several new species. who knows.

[Annces]

10. I think homo sapiens can change their behavior

I don't think we are so hard wired, we cannot become enlightened about how to live on the earth. And I think evolutionarily he is talking about animals and their diversity . We are not going to diversify in that way. We can only evolve socially.

[file83]

11. You need to read between his lines, so to speak. He does know humans.

And he wants to use that violent nature against ourselves.

Check out these quotes from his article (bold is highlighted by me):

There is only one cure, only one way of stopping this rising epidemic of extinctions. The solution requires an extraordinarily immense effort by all of human society but it is achievable.

We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.

This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human realities.

(...snip...)

No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.

(...snip...)

In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.

(...snip...)

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings.

(...snip...)

Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans.

(...snip...)

There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our past ecological folly.

Now you know, I know, and he knows that none if this stuff he suggests would ever happen voluntarily. It will only happen by force.

I think this guy's point is, if I've read between his lines correctly, is that since human civilization as it exists today would NEVER go for these kinds of changes "naturally", that we are going to have to do it forcibly.

A New World Order, if you will. Destroy 5 billion humans, take the remainder and put them in "parks" (i.e. prison camps), control which ones can reproduce, and we'll live happily ever after.

I believe that's what he was meaning by "a complexity of problems in adusting" to this new idea.

He's gonna get more "complexity" than he has ever imagined.

[unblock]

12. if his ideal is to have a gestapo aligned with nature

then i repeat, he doesn't understand human nature. sure you can have a society based initially, theoretically on the ideal of living in harmony with nature in his vision. but eventually, the selfish and violent among us will find a way to corrupt, distort, abuse, and cheat the system. this applies even if his vision includes the idea of a government that controls breeding and parenting and so on.

his vision may last a few years or a few centuries, but still not more than a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. eventually, it will be destroyed by our own destructive elements.

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Amen!

I read these lines:

"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings.

(...snip...)

Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans."


This is where things get a bit sticky. Phase II of these plans always involves guys like the author being one of the "chosen" if not the "decider".

The only really valid point, in my mind, is that our species is not immune to evolution or the forces of nature.

[Annces]

16. This is a person who is against the killing of whales

and slaughter of the seals and got his start as a child in the Kindness Club. You are not reading him right at all if you think he has the idea to enforce population control in a violent repressive way. He is talking about a cooperative effort. You are the one who thinks humans can only be selfish, not him. Your framing is ridiculous.

[blues90]

13. mankind evolve ?

I doubt , it we invent new ways to use up resources at an alarming rate and have always invented ways of reaching across land and sea to of take what we need even if it means the destruction of native people .

Ever since man made their first tool the killing began .

All other creatures on the earth lived within their environment . man however alters the environment to suit his needs which is exactly why man will eventually destroy themselves , one way of the other they will .

[flvegan]

14. K&R.