Knektid.com

Analysis of Stephen Meyer's 'End of the Wild'

October 3, 2008

In his book, The End of the Wild, Stephen Meyer paints a bleak picture of man’s interaction with the world around him. He describes a burgeoning human population that radically alters the landscape, drives native species to extinction, and leaves behind only those organisms that are particularly suited to living amongst Homo sapiens. The author also contends that our current habitat and species conservation efforts are merely stopgap measures that, while commendable, will be pitifully inadequate in stemming the tide of biodiversity loss. Meyer offers a number of solutions for maintaining some semblance of the natural environment as we now know it, but he sees no hope in preventing the end of the wild.

Since the dawn of time, species have been created and then evolved or became extinct through a constant process of natural selection. According to Meyer, this process has been inextricably altered and replaced by a new paradigm in which organisms are “unnaturally selected for their compatibility with one fundamental force: us” (4). Human pressures on the environment including “development, agriculture, resource consumption, pollution, and alien species” are simultaneously thinning biological diversity while supporting the growth of “weedy species” (23).

Meyer describes weedy species as “plants, animals, and other organisms that thrive in continually disturbed, human-dominated environments” and “have their needs met more completely and efficiently by humans than by Mother Nature” (9). He uses the term not to attribute negative connotations to the species themselves, but to the means by which they’ve gained their evolutionary advantage. Meyer cites white-tailed deer, coyotes, and raccoons, which are found in five times greater densities in “suburban settings than in corresponding natural populations”, as three species who have flourished as a result of human expansion (10). The author predicts that, as a result of their remarkable ability to prosper within the built environment, weedy species “will enjoy expanding populations, spatial distribution, ecological dominance, and opportunities for further speciation far into the future” (10).

Opposite weedy species, Meyer describes organisms that fail to adapt to a human dominated landscape as “relics” and “ghosts”. Relics are species which have largely existed in “isolated populations” or “remote environments” where “humans traditionally did not bother to go” (11). Their habitats generally exist on the periphery of human development and are consequently shrinking as our ecological footprint continues its endless expansion. In light of their disintegrating ecosystems, relics are unable to survive outside of zoos and “will require our permanent and direct management, including captive breeding and restocking” (13). Meyer points to species that are incapable of sustaining themselves without human intervention and are now “genetic dead ends”, such as the African elephant and the giant panda (13).

Those relics which fail to garner “special conservation programs”, and never manage to be protected in “boutique populations”, will become what Meyer describes as ghost species (14). For ghosts, which are evolutionarily ill-suited to living alongside humans and incapable of adapting quickly enough, “extinction is certain” (14). Meyer cites the Asian giant soft-shell turtle and North American gray wolves as two species whose populations have already been decimated or are on a trajectory for this outcome. Through over overcrowding, overhunting, and overconsumption, ghost species, regardless of their current numbers, are destined to be wiped out. Meyer contends that the accumulation of these doomed organisms represents our enormous “extinction debt”, which will come due in the coming century through the eradication of up to a “quarter of the planet’s genetic stock” (4).

Zoologists, ecologists, botanists, and others have spent years trying to address the global extinction crisis, so to say that we have done nothing would be a gross misrepresentation. However, Meyer contends that our current efforts have been underfunded, ill conceived, and extremely inadequate. Action such as the passage of the Endangered Species Act and the current governmental push to “set aside biologically valuable landscapes” have attempted to spare particular species at the expense of others, and simply contributed to the unnatural human selection process (38). Meyer condemns our propensity towards small-scale conservation efforts as “far too little and far, far too late” (41).

“The refuges and bioreserves we set aside are no more than our paltry conception of an ecosystem, and a good number of the species within their boundaries are relics and ghosts – part of the extinction debt – all the while in decline”

Meyer laments that “bioreserves as currently designed will always be too small and too isolated from each other to accomplish their stated goal of preserving the wild as it is today” (49). These tracts are unprepared for changing environmental conditions and unable to provide the movement of populations that is critical for genetic evolution. Meyer suggests that a radical rethinking of our environmental strategies, and lifestyles, will be essential if to protect the natural world and preserve some semblance of genetic diversity.

Like an alcoholic admitting he has an addiction, recognizing that our current way of life is unsustainable will be the first step in achieving a solution to our problems.

“Demanding instant-on appliances, out-of-season vegetables, and ten mile-per-gallon armored transports to move vegetables home means drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”

If we are to truly prioritize a new paradigm, it’s going to start with our own actions. Globalization, urban sprawl, and our incomprehensible resource consumption are largely driven by consumer demand. A shift in preferences towards locally grown food, smaller housing, and efficient energy use will produce corresponding products in a market system. These profound changes will occur only when we “develop an ecological identity that underscores the connection between how we live and what happens around us” (77).

To fully appreciate the importance of the world around us, Meyer proposes we spend “$100 billion over the next decade to fully understand the dimensions of the accelerating biotic contractions on earth” (80). This research would be “geared toward discovering ways to diminish the human-selection effects of human activities” (80). Even outside of this ecocentric context, this work is essential and will undoubtedly yield scientific and medical advancements that will far outweigh the costs involved.

To truly slow species loss, Meyer advocates concentrating “on protecting and preserving still strong and vibrant ecosystems and natural communities and abandon the old approach of trying to save biodiversity piecemeal at its weakest points” (81). This stance is dichotomously opposed to much of our current conservation policy and is consistent with Meyer’s ardent belief in the futility of protecting ghost species. By creating large nature preserves that protect “huge swaths of landscape and seascape” and are chosen for ecological importance rather than the presence of particular species we can “insulate intact evolutionary processes” (81).

Meyer digresses from his laissez faire inclination and states that these regions would have to be intensely managed using constant measurements of population levels, species health, and ease of movement. To facilitate the health of the ecosystem, Meyer also proposes the limited introduction of alien species where their presence would be appropriate. All of these activities would be backed by “rigorous enforcement of NAT [natural-area trusts] boundaries” to prevent the typical encroachment of human development (86).

Rapid species extinction on the magnitude proposed by Meyer is only one symptom a much more insidious human-induced disease. We have grown accustomed to our role as the dominant parasite on the planet, extracting resources and sustenance from an environment that is straining to carry us. Unlike other parasites, however, we have only one possible host, and to kill it would mean the end of our own existence. In learning to define a new, commensal relationship, we may be able to revive some sense of the wild and ensure our own enduring survival.

Filed under: Perspectives on the Environment