Musings

What is meant by the phrase ‘Environmental Remediation? The simple answer is, of course, restoring the environment. But, this is subject to vast interpretation. It depends on who you talk to, and when.

In the beginning, many environmental protection organizations sprang into existence, primarily to protect some endangered species such as the whale. These proliferated and broadened their scope to many species, and some focused on buying up and setting aside vast tracts of land as a type of ‘protected habitat’. As it was recognized that some species required extremely large open range to facilitate seasonal migration, the idea of ‘interconnecting corridors’ took hold and land started to be set aside for this purpose.

As our knowledge grew of the interaction and dependence of some species upon others, we started talking about ‘ecosystems’ and ‘microenvironments’ or ‘niches’. The Gaia hypothesis gave us the first glimpse at how life itself modified the ‘natural state’ of the planet to be more suitable to life, and thereby made the idea of a globally interconnected ecosystem take hold.

But still, these views were species-centric to humans, and our focus was on other species that we admired or needed to feed the top predator on the planet (us). The fact is, it is all a game of numbers. There is a sort of ‘golden mean’ to the ratio of prey to predators regardless of their position in the ‘food chain’. It is roughly 240 to 1.

Now, to be entirely exact in our definition, we must include the lowliest virus, including those that prey on humans. Here, the ratio becomes skewed, because viruses have been around a lot longer than cellular life forms, and they are very good at what they do. The same is true for prions, the non-living entities that emulate conventional life forms so well.

So, when we speak of ‘environmental remediation’ all of this must be taken into account, and can only be referred to in terms of the moment, because of the on-going process of evolution. Any definition must be regarded as a snapshot, subject to constant revision.

Now, it has been demonstrated that the United States consumes ‘resources’ on such a vast scale, that it would take three planet earths to support a similar lifestyle for peoples all around the planet. The very idea of countries such as China or India achieving a similar consumption-based economy is absurd in the extreme (baring technical breakthroughs in hydroponics, fresh water generation, extreme mineral extraction, and so forth). Even the ‘westernized’ countries in Europe and Asia, while close, will never get there.

It is therefore obvious that in the near future, the standard of living in the United States will reduce and normalize at some level of poverty similar to that of countries elsewhere (baring a WWIII scenario where everything goes up in smoke).

In this process of global ‘normalization’, environmental remediation will become a distant dream as resources useful to humans are finally consumed (unless of course, we regain our sanity and cooperate and share the hard work as well as the resources). And, this is likely to be concomitant with a mass extinction event. Life on earth could reduce to simple life forms; the viruses, bacteria, simple plants and insects. Perhaps a few small animal species would survive, and over millions of years, evolve into unimaginable new ‘higher’ life forms.

We can however, change this chain of events if we act quickly.

First, we must dramatically reduce the human presence on the planet to a level approaching the ‘golden mean’ and maintain it at that level. I have previously estimated this to be a planet-wide population of less than 800 million. This can be humanely accomplished within 50 years—sooner, and less humane, if we let nature have her way in bringing things into balance.

Secondly, we much choose our territories for occupation very well, and not give in to the temptation to expand into areas set aside for other species. And, we must either resume our former pre-technical position in the food chain, or do operant conditioning on the species that formerly considered humans a tasty meal. The latter method will be very costly in time and resources, but would make our surviving cites and farms a little more secure.

Lastly, we must change our cultures with regard to last rites for the dead. It will be no longer proper to bury or cremate the dead. Alternatively, we must take the view that these remains are a vital protein source for the species that formerly fed on us (predators, scavengers, birds, etc., and not just the bugs in the ground). Some percentage could also be turned into fertilizer for our food crops.

As many countries are once again embracing the death penalty for incorrigible, murderous, criminals, it seems to me that they can be put to better use than simply strapping them to an electric chair, shooting them, or giving them an injection.

You see, top predators of humans such as lions are designed for speed, and are not normally scavengers. We run too damned fast for the lesser predators that usually scavenged our remains. Lions, Leopards, Crocs, Alligators and so forth need their exercise to remain healthy. So, I propose we turn these criminals loose in close proximity to these predators, and perhaps televise the event from blimps overhead; all proceeds to be donated to the remediation fund.

I used to joke with my backpacking friends that “When I die, I want to be rolled out of the bed of a pickup truck somewhere in the slickrock wilderness.” Well, now it’s an idea whose time has come.


Artwork courtesy of Travis Adams