Walked
out the door last night and gasped. Stars! The flat gray cloud cover
had finally moved on, revealing a deep black bowl chock-a-block full
of twinkle and glitter. It did this soul good to see the source, and
brought to mind words in an email, with a link, I'd just received
from a friend:
Remember that the calcium in your bones and the iron in your
blood were originally created at the core of a red giant star that
died billions of years ago.
Yeah, in
case you hadn't noticed, or forgot, there's this connectivity thing
going on....
The
rainy weather allowed me to catch up on my reading, including
Elizabeth Kolbert's excellent two-part piece on extinction, published
in The New Yorker. She wrote of how Georges Cuvier caused a
sensation in 1796 when his work with ancient bones offered proof of
extinction:
Darwin's theory of extinction — that it was a routine side effect of evolution— contradicted Cuvier's, which held that species died out as a result of catastrophes, or, as he also put it, “revolutions on the surface of the earth.” Darwin's view prevailed, Cuvier's was discredited, and for more than a century Cuvier was ignored. More recent discoveries, however, have tended to support the theories of Cuvier's that were most thoroughly vilified. Very occasionally, it turns out, the earth has indeed been wracked by catastrophe and, much as Cuvier imagined, “living organisms without number” have been their victims. This vindication of Cuvier would be of interest mainly to paleontologists and intellectual historians were it not for the fact that many scientists believe we are in the midst of such an event right now.
It seems
that it began about 13,000 years ago, when modern humans started
spreading out and killing off big animals, in what is now called the
megafauna extinction. And as our numbers have grown, we've continued
to expand our reach to all corners of the earth, sowing the seeds for
cataclysmic change in our wake. As Kolbert writes:
Humans
are now so rapidly transforming the planet — changing the
atmosphere, altering the chemistry of the oceans, reshuffling the
biosphere — that many scientists argue that we've entered a whole
new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. In this sense, the crisis
that Cuvier discerned just beyond the edge of recorded history was
us.
Where it
will lead us, we do not know. Perhaps the rapid erasure of species
will allow aggressive, highly adaptable animals like rats to change
and evolve to fill the newly created “ecospace,” the “ecological
niches that....[they] helped to empty.” Quite possibly, it will bring about
the end of humans and our reign on earth.
It's
been more than 200 years since Cuvier stunned the world with the
concept of extinction. Now it's a part of our everyday experience.
Our children play with plastic dinosaurs, we maintain lists of
endangered species, we have people among us on this island who heard
the last, haunting call of the 'o'o bird in the Alakai swamp.
It is
real to us, our ability to extinguish life, but also strangely
unreal. We know we are having a hand in it and we fear the outcome,
largely because of what it might mean for the human race. Though some
of us also have moral qualms about our systematic destruction of the
vast, beautiful complex web of life that has been spun since the last "revolution upon the surface of the planet."
It seems we must "do something." So we
talk of changing our fuel sources, our carbon emissions, the genetic
structure of plants and animals, as if we can just continue on the
same general trajectory using slightly different technology. We talk
of sustainability, as if such a state is possible with our numbers in
the multi-billions, our appetites voracious and never-whetted.
But we
don't talk much about changing our ourselves, of radically shifting
our perception so that we no longer see ourselves as the oh-so-clever, big-brained masters of the universe, but merely the stuff of a giant red star that
burned out billions of years ago.
We are
creating the current “revolution upon the surface of the planet.”
The course we've set will only be altered if we simultaneously stage
a revolution within ourselves. How different might we be, the future be, if we aced a dramatic perceptual shift?
To
borrow the words of Gil Scott-Heron:
The
revolution will put you in the driver's seat. The revolution will not be televised, not be televised, not be televised.
The revolution will not be a re-run, brothers. The revolution will be live.
FYI: I think Dave Boynton was the last to hear the last Kauai o`o, calling and calling and getting no answer. He died in 2007.
ReplyDeleteJoan don't make me look. I like my bubble.
ReplyDeleteSaw the author on Jon Stewart and heard her on Democracy Now. Sounds like a really great book, but I'm afraid it might be too depressing. Seriously, I try my best to lessen my big giant footprint, but I think it's a lost cause.
ReplyDeleteRein is spelled reign but not rain. ;-) Interesting Joan. The history of the concept of extinction. The comment about the last 'o'o calls being heard then that person dying is poignant yet we can save that memory of those calls he had by recording the endangered species now which they must be doing. It's a hopeless cause as long as money being used as a tool of power disappears and a more equitable way to live is devised which I don't have much faith will ever happen. Mon12
ReplyDeleteSad. I fear for the future of my children. They will look upon us as environmental criminals.
ReplyDeletei remember dave fell off a cliff w/ his camera...a few days before he told he surfed 'hanalei by moonlight' early morning so he could make it to kokee on time....aloha again DB...Dean
ReplyDeleteThanks for catching my mispelling and my drift.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is that there is no cohesive "ourselves". It would take a global cataclysmic event to enable, without total nuclear annihilation, a consensus of thought and action to prevent what is slowly coming down the trail to meet us.
ReplyDeleteJoan,
ReplyDeleteI know it is hard to be sanguine when one lives in the extinction capital of the world but perhaps a wider lens can help put things into perspective. Think about all those organisms that perished following the invention (evolution) of photosynthesis. Talk about climate change! And, the invention of the flower led to the extinction of many non-flowering plants. In all seriousness, mass extinctions are not new. It's just that this time humans are the cause and we feel bad about it. Though not bad enough to seriously do something. Nature, however, does not care if we destroy the web that supports us. Life will go on with or without us.