Chris Jepson: Why is more humanity humane for the planet?

I believe the conversation has shifted. More and more Americans are considering the idea that mankind (our industrialization) contributes to global climate change. I actually understand, to a degree, resistance to the idea that human activity could “really” have a significant impact on our planet. We are, after all, a relatively small, hairless creature that not too many thousands of years ago was little more than tiger food. And, Earth, is — GOLLY-GEE! —An entire planet. That our air conditioning, coal-fired power plants, toaster ovens, SUVs and agriculture could possibly be our ruination, well, that is so improbable as to be impossible.

Except, of course, it isn’t. I never embraced the idea of describing the problem of climate change as “global warming.” Years ago, I’d write about the planet’s ecology and I’d sardonically suggest, “Thank gawd for videotape cuz the day is coming when that is all we will have of recently extinct species. Birds, insects, animals, fish, entire eco-systems such as coral, oh, we’ll be so glad to have videotape (digital today) of the beauty that once was.” Years (decades) ago, amphibians started a worldwide decline. You’d read reports wondering where’d the frogs go in the upper Midwest or in Peru? I know “canaries in the coal mine” is a hackneyed expression, but if the shoe fits . . .

For how we have arrived today – a very sick Mother Earth – we can attribute to agriculture, to the domestication and cultivation of plants. We, as a species, prior to the Agriculture Revolution, were hunter-gatherers and our population numbers were manageably small. Once plants fell under human control, the rest of the planet followed and we’ve arrived today with billions upon billions of human beings at the trough with another two billion to arrive this century. And they all want what we have: toaster ovens, cheap designer clothing, monstrous-sized homes (by world standards) with two air-conditioned cars to get to the mall for more stuff. No one can fault them.

I’ve been a Malthusian (see: Thomas Malthus) ever since I was introduced to his ideas in the 1960s. We’re in a race to get human birth rates into some semblance of balance with Mother Earth’s ability to sustainably shoulder her human load. I’ve asked before, if the U.S. population is at 314 million today, what sort of definition of “progress” describes it as good that our population balloons to half-a-billion citizens? Why is more humanity humane for the planet? It isn’t from my value system.

Author Malcolm Gladwell spoke of a “Tipping Point”; when an idea courses through a population and is “abruptly” embraced by a majority. Something different is happening (my anecdotal assessment). I talk about environmental issues all the time with friends, acquaintances and strangers. Consider Florida’s treasured springs and what human development has spawned; diminished water flow and shameful pollution. We see the degradation of the planet literally in our own backyard.

What has changed is that pessimism and its kindred cousin, fatalism, have crept into the conversation about our ability to correct course, to change environmental direction in any real and meaningful way. We’ve quickly moved from climate denial to, “Well, that ship has sailed.”

Today, many apocalyptic TV shows and movies tap into a growing awareness that “end times” will be of our own creation. To the degree that hope remains that most quintessential of human of characteristics, well, that just may be the most endangered quality our descendants confront.