The Future of Life
I'm finally getting around to putting together some thoughts about �The Future of Life� by Edward O. Wilson. This was the first book read by the Museum of Science's Book Club for the Curious. One of the main points that the author makes throughout the book is the concept of humans being the steward of nature. The following are some excerpts from the book that touch on this thought:
We will have them both, you and I and all those now and forever to come who accept the stewardship of nature. [xxiv]
We must know the role each one plays in the whole in order to manage Earth wisely. [12]
And our tragedy, because a large part of it is being lost forever before we learn what it is and the best means by which it can be savored and used. [21]
Still another intensely felt value is stewardship, which appears to arise from emotions programmed in the very genes of human social behavior. ... If the rest of life is the body, we are the mind. Thus, our place in nature, viewed from an ethical perspective, is to think about the creation and to protect the living planet. [132]
I'm sorry but humans are not the stewards of nature. Humans are the destroyer of nature. Humans are the only organism that does not reach equilibrium with it's environment. Humans long ago stopped be constrained by lack of food, lack of protection, and lack of predators. Some might argue that because humans have overcome these obstacles we are the pinnacle of evolution.
I don't buy it. Get rid of our books. Get rid of our technology. Place a human in the wild it will most likely die. Humans depend on the life support systems of this planet and we don't reach equilibrium with it. The thought that a human should die to benefit the greater good of all isn't something to be considered, since every life is precious, if it's human.
Another catastrophe will befall the Earth. Be it an asteroid, a mega volcano eruption, or whatever your favorite doomsday scenario will be. For life to really survive and thrive on Earth again, the key will be biodiversity. If humans continue as they have been, the number of species still alive that could potentially survive such a disaster will continue to decline. If instead humans were restrained by our environment, the risk to biodiversity would be minimal.
It is because of this inability to live in equilibrium that I would consider humans a branch on the evolutionary tree that was a mistake. Nature is just having a damned hard time trying to get rid of its blunder. What will replace humans? I have no idea, but I'm sure nature will be able to cook up something, it got us everything we have now.