A fresh take on the biosphere

 kw: book reviews, nonfiction, science, life, biology, earth science, philosophy

For many people with a naturalist inclination, this fellow has a dream job. Others might rather be using snorkel or SCUBA in the sea, or perhaps winkling out the scarcer life to be found in deserts (my favorite).

If my memory serves me right, Dr. Peter Godfrey-Smith has taken on the role of naturalist in all three realms, and more. In his new book Living on Earth: Forests, Corals, Consciousness, and the Making of the World, the third of a series, his vivid writing brings his experiences and musings home to us.

This book is a survey of life on Earth, its history, ecology, and possible futures. How he squeezed so much into a 300-page book is a marvel to me (26 of the pages are end notes, well worth the reading. And he touts a second set of end notes available online).

Contrary to my usual practice, I didn't take notes, nor bookmark any pages. I just read, and read, and enjoyed. There are just nine long-ish chapters. The first is introductory, followed by the obligatory historical survey, which culminates in the debate that's been going on for a couple of generations: How far do we push the Gaia idea? Is it a metaphor, a reality, or a phantom? It introduces a theme of the book as a whole, that biology and geology interact, and they interact a whole lot more than scientists of all stripes usually imagine.

The strong point is made that humans are part of nature, so it's better to speak of our fellow-beings not just as "animals" but as "other animals", because we are animals also. The middle section of the book, "Who We Are", Chapters 5 and 6, reveal how dominant humans have become. The majority of larger animals living today are the cattle, swine, and fowls that we have domesticated, plus our pets. We may not yet have brought a majority of the fishes into "fish farms", but we are well on the way.

In a strong analysis of farming practices, the author points out that the lives of the great majority of domestic animals is, quite simply, a living hell. The only mercy is that such lives are kept short. Though he writes a lot of "humane farming", he isn't sure it is possible on a large scale. I think of Malabar Farm and similar experiments, and I wonder how widespread they could become, and would we be willing to pay substantially more for food produced that way?

Can we re-wild any substantial part of Earth. Should we? Could we do so without taking over the management of all the lives in the new wilds? (For my part, I think of the experiment carried out at Biosphere 2. Keeping the place livable was such a struggle that much of the original agenda had to be scrapped. The problem was concrete; it both absorbs and emits carbon dioxide and oxygen in a somewhat faster-than-geological manner. Nearly every surface that wasn't glass was concrete, or dirt lying on concrete. The land area of Biosphere 1, the Earth, to date is covered by less than 3% concrete. Also the Earth's surface is 3/4 ocean, but B2 had hardly any. A poor semblance of an experiment!)

We are faced with the dilemma that it looks rather hard to be human and ethical. Yet no other animals muse about ethics. Some carry on a tit-for-tat "fairness" stance; only humans have elaborated morality to a high level.

All of us who have children have produced hostages to the future. What kind of taskmaster will that future be? Dr. Godfrey-Smith remains guardedly hopeful.