The Environmental Paradox of Being Born
From NPR this morning, a report on the downturn in family vacations in the national parks. Researchers are at a loss to explain the trend. The leading theory: Video games have stolen kids' interest in the outdoors and kept them from lobbying the folks to take them out to Jellystone.
Upon hearing the story, my first thought was, Hey, that's a good thing. After all, the last thing the parks need (at least when it comes to the most popular parks) is more people. Then I remembered something I read in James Lovelock's new book, The Revenge of Gaia. The visionary Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia hypothesis has doubtless written the most pessimistic of all the current crop of global warming titles. One critic called it, rightly, "powerful" and "disablingly depressing." What a blurb that would make! The feel-bad book of the year! Anyway, to get back to my point, Lovelock writes:
And Lovelock's not the only to have ventured out on this logical limb. Another story that has been making the rounds is about how bicycling, while it may be good for you, is actually bad for the planet. How so? Well, you see, bicyclists tend to be fit and thus live longer and therefore use up more of Earth's precious resources. See: The Environmental Paradox of Bicycling (pdf).
By this way of thinking, then, kids playing their video games are doubly good for the planet: They not only fritter away time on sedentary, largely harmless, low-energy pursuits, but presumably they'll also grow fatter and less healthy because of it, eventually dying young and taking a load off the planet as they go.
Hmmm. I think it's time to pack up the family and head to Yosemite.
Upon hearing the story, my first thought was, Hey, that's a good thing. After all, the last thing the parks need (at least when it comes to the most popular parks) is more people. Then I remembered something I read in James Lovelock's new book, The Revenge of Gaia. The visionary Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia hypothesis has doubtless written the most pessimistic of all the current crop of global warming titles. One critic called it, rightly, "powerful" and "disablingly depressing." What a blurb that would make! The feel-bad book of the year! Anyway, to get back to my point, Lovelock writes:
We are, unconsciously, evolving to a state where much of our time is spent using low-energy devices. What a stunningly good invention was the mobile telephone: it exploits the universal tendency of humans to chatter and obliges us to consume hours of the day at minimal cost--it is one of the greatest inventions ever. Small computers of great efficiency are now stealing into our lives to make us spend our time at minimal energy cost, playing games or surfing the net.These idle amusements are good, in Lovelock's Gaia-uber-alles worldview, because they keep us out of our cars and away from the parks and basically parked on our well-larded butts.
And Lovelock's not the only to have ventured out on this logical limb. Another story that has been making the rounds is about how bicycling, while it may be good for you, is actually bad for the planet. How so? Well, you see, bicyclists tend to be fit and thus live longer and therefore use up more of Earth's precious resources. See: The Environmental Paradox of Bicycling (pdf).
By this way of thinking, then, kids playing their video games are doubly good for the planet: They not only fritter away time on sedentary, largely harmless, low-energy pursuits, but presumably they'll also grow fatter and less healthy because of it, eventually dying young and taking a load off the planet as they go.
Hmmm. I think it's time to pack up the family and head to Yosemite.
15 Comments:
Nice essay. I like seeing connections made like this.
Of course, fewer people going to the parks could also mean less appreciation of unadulterated wilderness, translating to less political will to preserve them.
What happened to the rest of my comment? Oh, well. Here:
I don't quite follow what Lovelock's advocating for. Not shorter lifespans, is he? He hasn't much credibility on that, being born in 1919.
But the long-life idea: does it lead to the idea of back-end population control? (Rather than front-end, i.e., family planning.) Would it be better if we could, as Scrooge says, "decrease the surplus population"? It reminds me of the argument that environmentalism ends at the US border, so an important step to save our environment is to limit immigration. It makes sense, in a way, if you set the boundaries of your closed system just so. But are those the right boundaries?
So the long-life issue begs the question of what an acceptable metric is. It also sheds light on possible limits.
As Prof. Ulrich writes at the end of his paper on the environmental paradox of bicycling: "My hope is to open a dialogue about the interplay among population, individual energy consumption, and environmental impact." Fair enough. I think a lot of people are having that conversation already (just as people are having conversations about long life; see: Baby Boomers, Social Security), but he's brought an interesting concept to the table. When I think of my experience in science, it seems unethical not to investigate questions like these just because we think we might not like the answers--that's when lazy advocacy trumps intellectual honesty. But we should also be conscious of how we phrased those questions, just as we should be aware of how we design an experiment or frame an issue.
It's interesting to note that Ulrich is a self-described "alternative-transportation nut," and helped start a carbon offset company that funds renewable energy projects.
Hi Tim. No, Lovelock's not advocating for shorter lifespans, per se. Elsewhere in his book, however, he does dismiss the common human preoccupation with living longer. (We sholdn't obsess over cancer risks, he says. Oxygen is the greatest carcinogen. Get over it.)
In the passage I cite, I think Lovelock's just enthused about the idea of people spending time using low-energy devices to amuse themselves (and thus doing very little harm to Gaia) rather than wasting a lot of energy to do it (and causing considerable harm).
I'm glad you point out that Ulrich's not an anti-environmentalist by any means. He's just posing a challenging, honest question. And you're right that just because the answers may be uncomfortable, doesn't mean shouldn't look at the question. Fair enough.
In this case, though, I don't know how you avoid a nihilistic dead end; that is, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the best thing a person can do for the planet is to commit suicide.
Anonymous, your point about people not advocating for wilderness if they haven't experienced it is absolutely well taken. It's fair to say that the most stalwart conservationists have been outdoorsmen and -women. But then we're also at risk of loving the outdoors to death in many cases, with our most overcrowded parks a case in point. The question just keeps coming back to sheer numbers, really. 6.5 billion of us and the number increasing all the time. What's the right balance? Or are we so far out of balance that its a vain question?
Longer lifespans & love of the environment, can work just fine if we keep perspective. My perspective is from a Creationist point of view - If the Creator made it, it was ment to work together. Humans at the top are in charge of protecting, providing, and culitvating. So it is not long life that is a threat, Its lazy, self absorbed interests. I believe the parks can support any and all who choose to walk softly.
So, does anyone else wonder whether Ulrich's paper is just an elaborate, self-serving pitch for carbon offsets?
So, does anyone else wonder whether Ulrich's paper is just an elaborate, self-serving pitch for carbon offsets?
No, it's just you. And for the record, Ulrich has no financial stake in any company that sell offsets.
Over at Gristmill, Jason Scorce calls Ulrich's paper "an example of the absolute worst scholarship."
He goes on to say:
"Humans are part of the environment -- not separate from it -- so anything that benefits human welfare is by definition an environmental improvement!"
No arguing with the first part of that statement, (humans are part of the environment) but the second part doesn't hold up, does it? I mean, mosquitoes are part of the environment, too. Does that mean that anything that benefits their welfare is also 'by definition' an environmental improvement?
...for the record, Ulrich has no financial stake in any company that sell offsets.
How do you know? Do you manage his portfolio?
Pat, don't be so glum. This is not some earnest Jonathan Swift with a modest proposal. This is just an idea--not a prescription. That means that you don't have to reach some existentially dreadful conclusion. When you write "it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the best thing a person can do for the planet is to commit suicide," to me that sounds like saying there was no point in going on with life during the Cold War because of the principle of mutual assured destruction. Not every concept should shake the foundations of your world view. For goodness' sake: Sartre, in his essay on freedom and responsibility, said that you are the ultimate master of your fate (he was railing against the despair people felt at being drafted by the state). And why is it that you have final say on how your life works out? Because you can always kill yourself (and by doing so, destroy the world--very existential, indeed). But should you take that to mean the answer is always suicide?
I mean, Ulrich bikes to work every day, and he seems to like the environment. Yet he writes that there seems to be no net environmental benefit to it? He's simply highlighting connections that may exist, and I'm glad we all seem to think that's fair enough.
More on Scorce in a minute.
Interesting you bring up Sarte, Tim. In fact, I momentarily considered calling this post, No Exit.
As for J Scorce: I think we need to go back to first principles. (And I'll post my comments here rather than giving them to Scorce.) Pat, you're right to point out that his line of reasoning calls for some examination.
Does not the Sierra Club have a population program that notes that overpopulation can strain the resources of the planet? Maybe Scorce would like to get into a debate over where we draw the line between what's good for people and what's good for the environment (but according to Scorce, there is no line).
Seems to me that his post is mostly an alarming headline without much substance to back it up, and an excuse to get back on his hobbyhorse about how we define environment. It's not a bad definition, it just may not always work. If he wants to legitimately call this the "worst scholarship," he should go after Ulrich's methodology, not simply his conclusion. Need an example? Bill Frist, "more as a physician than as a United State senator, contradicted Terry Schiavo's doctors, saying she did not appear to be in a persistent vegetative state. He did that by watching a video her family provided (not exactly objective bystanders). Bad methodology, all around, leading to a flawed conclusion.
Good point about the mosquitos, Pat. Global warming is expected to boost mosquito populations, and many have written about how warming is helping spread the bark beetles that kill forests, etc. That sounds like global warming is good for them. It seems a case could be made that what's good for any given species, or group of them, may not necessarily be good for the environment.
"Man is a bad animal."
-- Brion Gysin
This is what I wrote Karl Ulrich:
Hi Mr. Ulrich,
I just wanted to make a comment about your paper that some say is ridiculous. Firstly, it isn't ridiculous. But I just wanted to pose a possible alternative theory to yours.
Your argument supposes that increased biking for commuting purposes would mean that fat people would hop on bikes, live longer, and therefore the environmental utility of their non-polluting would be offset by the environmental disutility of their living longer. BUT very few sedentary people would ever conceive of taking up bicycle commuting. It’s just too extreme. I rarely ever see fat people on bicycles going anywhere. A bicycle seat is the last thing a fat person would ever want to sit on.
My theory is that an increase in bicycle commuting would mean (mostly), that people who are active anyway would start riding bikes instead of engaging in other useless exercise--like crunches or pushups--exercises that have no benefit other than the immediate health benefits.
So, my theory is that increased bicycle commuting would mean that people who would be generally inclined to engage in physical activity anyway would commute by bike. A bicycle commuting revolution would only mean that people who otherwise spend $50 bucks a month to go to a gym to exercise on stationary aerobic contraptions, would instead, expend that energy for the environmentally useful purpose of going to work.
If this is true, it would mean that fat people would continue to die--good for the environment and fewer people would be polluting--also good for the environment. Everyone wins!
This is what Karl Ulrich wrote back:
Yes, your logic is correct.
Unfortunatly there aren't very many fit people in the US. I think the
population you refer to is less than 10 percent. So, it would be great
to have those folks on bikes, but it would be a small win relative
to the revolution envisioned by most cycling advocates.
My response:
Hello, Me again,
I was looking around on the internet for numbers and figures and such and came across an article that appears to have run in 2002 in the Washington Post (http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/24/exercise.htm). The article says something to the effect that 30% of Americans engage in regular physical activity and that 40% of all Americans are certifiably sedentary. I think your figure of 10%--which you suppose represents the percentage I refer to in my theory, is pessimistic. I think its probably closer to 20 or 25%. But I think even 10% would benefit the environment significantly without the spectre of our longevity offsetting said benefits. Either way, you should probably address this theory in your work to avoid being intellectually disingenuous.
-stan
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main