Exploring a Question - How much do we need our natural environment/How much does it need us?

[Wynn Nielsen]

(a) How much do you think our Nature/Environment needs us? (b) How much do we need our environment?

Personally, I'm inclined to think we are generally a net liability on Mother Nature's ledger. But, do we need our environment more? I am thinking of air (natural forests, wetlands etc. are our surrogate "lungs" -- Yes or No?). What cleans up after us? Carbon is consumed by forests, wetlands, sphagnum mosses and marine environments. Should we be planting more trees and restoring more environments in order to help mitigate with climate change and our carbon footprint, in addition to lowering our carbon output? Irony in that, as we increase our population, at the same time we decrease our total environmental reservoir that would help offset our impact on the natural environment.

Perhaps restoration, instead of continued depletion, of our environment is one of the answers to the carbon question? There has to be an equal off-set of restoration to every depletion -- like the deposit/withdrawal of an account in a bank -- in order to retain a balance. I just read an article in the Sun paper today -- a forestry company, due to the effects of pine beetle, are now saying they should have access to " protected lands"such as parks and old-growth forests (mere remnants of our original forests)under various land-use protection policies as the replacement for the forest industry in crisis because of the pine beetle infestation. "In order to preserve jobs and mills, we need to look at logging protected forests....". NO, we don't. This does not make sense for now or future generations. When those "last remaining" forests are gone, the same issues will arise only then, there will be no "fall back" onto protected lands. They will be gone too (and the Mills will fail anyway, only taking with it the last of the "original forests". There will be no generational baseline left to teach to new generations what the original forest along this coast was - the knowledge of what "was" will be lost and the measure of loss will be forgotten for future generations (except in old sepia toned photographs). Is this what we want?

We need our natural environment much more than it needs us. It is vital to our species to recognize this interdependence. The natural environment is our "lungs", our janitor (it cleans up after us), our sanctuary from stressful lives, our reconnection to our origins and our land. In "ecologizing" my aquarium for example, I recognize intuitively that I need more water than fish in order to have a viable ecological system. We need more nature than people in order to have the same healthy environment in which to grow and thrive.This is my belief and what I belief to be true to our human communities. Am I right, wrong? What other thoughts are out there? I am open to other points of view.

What percentage of people to natural environment due you think is sustainable? 25% peple/75 nature, 50% people/nature, 65% nature/35% people?. I am curious as to what people think on this issue.

[Robert Ballantyne]

Wynn, you've opened a big box of issues here. I tend to approach these issues from other directions. Let me write about one issue. I'll try to come back about some of the others later.

You did say, "...a forestry company, due to the effects of pine beetle, are now saying they should have access to protected lands such as parks and old-growth forests..."." Nonsense! Well, of course the company wants that, it is a company looking for help to survive.

The problem here is that for centuries Canada has been dominated by the ambitions of people who came here for all the free natural resources: the free animals (pelts), free fish, free trees, free lands, and free minerals and free fossil fuels. Now to maintain our biodiversity some of us are working to preserve endangered species, the fish stocks are largely depleted, there are no free lands and hardly even any tall grass prairie, those who mine want the last of the riches in the ground that belong to our grandchildren (and in return pay us with a few years of jobs, some taxes and fees and an eternity of pollution), and just tour the Province in Google Earth to see the devastation to our forests. Like it or not, this practice of allowing the exploiters to take all they can is our history and the existing culture. Our 'economy' (whatever that means) has grown to depend on it. The owners of these resources (we, the people) live largely in urban areas, and most of our children are growing up not knowing what they own. And you cannot blame governments for letting the companies have these resources because some temporary funds will flow into the treasury, a few people are employed for a while, and the urban crowd who don't see the consequences won't have to pay for some of the government's services with higher taxes.

[Wynn Nielsen]

I see these things and issues as all tightly interconnected and related Robert, that's why I present them that way, I guess. :-)

Thanks for peeling one out at a time for closer scrutiny and I can't disagree with anything you said. The causes and effects of what we've created and the future consequences of not changing our approach are pretty clear.

The OCP process seems a good opportunity to stop and take a closer look at the bigger picture and longer views that many of us busy people on the daily hamster wheel of our times, don't often get to do.
Our island is really a mini microcosm of the bigger world and we will run out of --- space, resources, natural places --- long before the planet we don't get it right.

My approach will always be firstly, "ecology/habitat/resource" needs, secondly, people "needs" and, as a distant third, peoples "wants and desires". Not that I don't like people (I am one :-O) or don't want things, but if we don't preserve and protect a relatively large portion and contiguous green island, our needs and wants won't much matter.

If I were Queen, ......

[Robert Ballantyne]

In this (2nd) response, I want to address Wynn's question: "(b) How much do we need our environment?"

As a participant in environmental issues, this is one that I've thought about. My perspective is that, as a human, I am not separate from the environment, and therefore not merely a consumer of the environment. I am part of the environment. In that sense, I must even be a natural part of the environment.

We, humans, have the power to change the conditions on the Earth. This is not a new feature of life here. The pre-biological conditions that probably gave rise to the first life on the planet are long gone from the Earth. The transformation is partly the physics of an evolving planet, and to a large extent it is due to the life that was here before us. One significant change is that oxygen, which we require to live, is a horrible reducing agent that is very destructive. One might even say that we thrive in the pollution of earlier forms of life.

Thinking this way, environmentalism is not about saving the planet. Frankly I think that that discussion is a bit silly. If our actions (planned or willy nilly) result in impoverishing the conditions for the survival of our future generations, it is humans who will pay the price... not the Earth. From the point of view of the Earth, there may be a change here. That's all. Things will be different. The Earth, itself, will be fine.

For me, then, environmentalism is entirely about human self-interest.

Looking at the current indicators, the question is: do we citizens of the Earth have the means to understand what we are doing to the planet and the resolve to do what is necessary to be responsible stewards of this place for the generations who will follow?

BTW, I wrote about my sense of connection with the Earth in an essay that I published on the Internet in 1996. The whole article is at http://ballantyne.com/I_Committee.html. The part that is relevant in this discussion is this excerpt:

"Although we are creatures contained by our skin, I have come to think of myself as more than the physical manifestation of 'Robert.' Robert, by himself, cannot exist without a functioning ecosystem. I must have air, water (plus some elements), and food.

"The air must surround me, be fairly clean and circulating, be under pressure, provide a supply of oxygen, and be able to rid itself of the carbon dioxide, sweat, etc., that I release into it. Most of the air should be an inert gas. I require lots of air, or I will die.

"Reading of the death-zone for climbers (over 26,000'), makes it clear that the film of air around the Earth is finite and is surprisingly small in volume.

"Other than air, the only other substance that is provided directly by the Earth, that I can and must consume in large quantities, is water. In smaller amounts, I need some salt and a few minerals. Although I ingest these, I distinguish them from food because they are supplied directly from the Earth.

"With the exception of the above, everything that I consume is - or was - living tissue. Something must live, then die, so that I might survive. This tissue, or product of tissue (e.g., sugar) I call food.

"Take away my food, and I will die in a few weeks. Take away my water, and I will die in a few days. Take away my air, and I will die in a few moments.

"When humans decide to leave the Earth, they must take all of this with them in quantities sufficient for each traveler, and with systems to reproduce the limited range of climate conditions that we require.

"For these reasons, I picture the air, the minerals, my food and water - and the systems that sustain them, as part of me."

[Wynn Nielsen]

Robert, I truly enjoy your thoughts and you are right on about us being an integral, inseparable part of nature. However, have you noticed that we are the only ones exploring this relationship and concepts and finding it relevant to our lives now and in the future? Where are the others -- those with children, those with jobs that may well be affected by the nature and tone of their postings, those who don't really want to look beyond the next year, 2 or 5 years? The consequences are not immediate, the urgency is not being felt and daily life consumes the energy and capacity of people who might otherwise contemplate these things in deeper ways.

I find myself trying to find that special key, the right language, the defining picture, the engaging concept, the inspirationneeded to engage more of us in the conversation and I'm finding it hard. The silence speaks volumes.

I don't know what it will take, honestly. I think probably short of a Hong Kong or Toronto experience of "don't go out today if you are young, old or susceptible to air borne pollution" today because the air quality index is the pits; or, my favorite: "if you are young, old, pregnant or otherwise health-wise vulnerable, you should only eat canned tuna (ONCE A MONTH). Basically, what that says is: our food supply is so poisonous you shouldn't eat it; our air is so toxic we need to stay inside! We are way too adaptable a species by far. We adapt to everything in increments (the boiled frog syndrome we discussed at the OCP open community conversation) along with poisonous foot, toxic air, daily air advisories to avoid going outside, poverty, extinguishing species. Yikes. So sorry, I am experiencing an assault on my optimism which is usually pretty resilient. It always recovers but today is a frustrating conversation with myself and the world at large. Tomorrow is another day.

Wynn

[Robert Ballantyne]

Wynn said: "have you noticed that we are the only ones exploring this relationship and concepts and finding it relevant to our lives now and in the future? Where are the others" This site is growing and is up to 75 members (I just checked). It takes a while for people to become comfortable participating in a public forum. This whole site is still learning the quality of its voice. Since the site is fairly new, and growing, and has a limited potential membership (Internet savvy on Bowen), at this point I think it is satisfactory if two people are willing to take the time to write. I suspect that others are lurking and reading, even if they are not commenting (yet). This is not like a conversation in a meeting... it isn't over when we finish writing. These words will be here to be read and searched on Google for a very long time (especially if the thread ever attracts an incoming links). I'm keeping this comment brief because it is sort-of off topic, and in responding I am contributing to thread-drift {gasp}. In some forums the admins would simple split the thread and make the new idea a new topic. That cannot be done here.

[Jayne Pivik]

Wading in here Wynn and Robert.

The natural environment figured prominently as important to children and youth on the island in the Bowen Island Child and Youth Well-being Study (http://www.aprioriresearch.com/Pivik_files/community%20summary%20Bo...). The positive benefits of the natural environment were identified by all three age groups, although especially children in grades 3-5. Children reported that the physical environment was calming, serene and provided wonderful opportunities to play. They appreciated the quiet, and the lack of crowding, pollution and traffic. Consistently, the beaches were identified as favorite places or places that they spent time with friends. This high importance given to the natural environment supports thinking by Evans (2006), Polivka, Lovell, & Smith (1998), Shonkoff and Phillips (2000) and the large body of work conducted by the Kaplans (S. Kaplan (1983; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

For example, seminal work by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) found that natural settings are more restorative, reduce cognitive fatigue and enhance positive affect. In natural settings, children engage in more creative play (Faber Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Kirby, 1989), and develop better motor skills (Fjortoft, 2004). Natural settings have also been shown to enhance attention (Wells, 2000) and reduce symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Kuo & Faber Taylor, 2004).

I have often thought about islands and people who are attracted to them. Certainly, many of my mainland friends and colleagues would never consider living on an island. In our case, I believe that the natural environment is a strong draw for those who choose to live here and that aspect of our community should be protected.

Interestingly, we see our forests and green spaces and think our nature is pretty safe and healthy. However, that may be misleading. When my son was in grade 8, he did a science fair project looking at lichen and air pollution on Bowen. There is a certain type of lichen that is a type of canary for good air (old man's beard). Exploring many of the trails and measuring the distance from the Cove, he found you had to travel quite a distance away from the Cove to find this lichen. I can't remember all of the details but I was quite surprised at the time. Another IPS student explored water quality on the island and found it generally poor.

Recent research is looking at environmental features and linking them to levels of obesity, asthma and social involvement in its residents. So, I strongly applaud this direction of inquiry and hope it is considered and supported in our vision of Bowen.