Half Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life by Edward O. Wilson

duane hennon wrote:
here are some possible zone 5 sites we can leave to Nature

without our input to improve them, what good are they?

wouldn't it make more sense to fix them before giving them back?

"What good are they?" I really don't understand finding such an anthropocentric perspective on a permaculture web site.

Are you actually suggesting that these places only have "value", even to the point of existence, in the context of what humans can get out of them?

Here?

Mickey Kleinhenz wrote:How has everyone overlooked the appropriation of half the earth???

Like literally how did you all get so distracted that you didn't stop to ask. "Who will be making sure that half of the earth is not used by people?"..."Who will be enforcing this plan?"

Because to me this seems more like a half-baked "Half Earth" idea.

Considering humans expropriated these places from the indigenous species in the first place, I fail to see the issue.

Many countries already have national park systems where entry/activity is carefully restricted.

It's a job for more rangers/wardens.

I'm done with the book, and I rate it 4 out 10 stars.

First, the good.

The best thing in the book is his insistence that science does not know it all yet. The world is complex beyond our imagining. We don't even have all the facts yet, let alone a theory.

The book was filled with an enthusiasm derived from a lifetime of study. He communicates that awe and fascination of the natural world which is too rare nowadays.

His lists of extinctions were alarming. He rightly focused on the invertebrates that are going extinct; they have far more importance then is generally supposed.

There were many interesting factoids and stories, such as the slave making ants.

Now, the bad.

I think he spent too much time on invasive species, without clarifying that we are the ultimate invasive; though I guess that is what the half earth proposal is all about.

He was not clear on HOW the half earth proposal would come about. Even if footprints shrink, WHO will administer this half the world? WHAT will happen to all the unwanted infrastructure/ people in these areas? (The removal of native African tribes to make "parks" comes to mind.) WHERE exactly would the reserves be?

He was dismissive of the "planetary gardener" theories. Yet among his twenty best places for biodiversity, one was the gardens of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In a related point, I think he underestimates how much biodiversity can be saved in gardens, even ones full of (gasp) non-native plants. A study of English invertebrates showed that many endangered species persisted in private gardens, green roofs, brownfield sites, and botanic gardens even as they disappeared from the wild.

Ultimately, he supports the vision of the future that I fear, hate, despise, and work against. (To do him justice, his Anthropocene opponents support this too, in even worse forms.) A future in which most of humanity is crowded into dense, high rise, high tech cities, bemused by screens and virtual reality, grading off into weird cyborgs and autonomous robots, communing with holographic entities. A future in which the cropland is a sacrificial dead zone, full of drone guided robot tractors harvesting vast fields of engineered crops. A future in which the wild flourishes happily away from the destructive influence of humans, who have been fenced out of it. A future that will not come naturally, but will have to be imposed on us by somebody, who, knowing human nature to be what it is, will probably exploit this power. A future that I will fight to the day I die, even if I am the last free man on Earth. But he, unlike his Anthropocene opponents, supports this out of concern for the thing he loves, not out of hubris. And if he prevails, I may have half the Earth to hide in!

Now, it may be urged that he is out of his area of expertise, and that the last chapters of the book can be ignored. But his half earth solution will only work in this context; that is why he brings it in. Those chapters are not there to no purpose. It is not accidental that he dismisses the idea that cultivated and inhabited land can solve part of the problem; in his future, there will be precious little biodiversity in the farms or cities; there is no room for it in high rise farms, or high rise apartments.

In the end, an interesting book by a passionate author, who may not realize that he gives credibility to those who would enslave us. A great and alarming statement of the problem, with no convincing solution given. A wake-up call for us to find a human scale solution, if we do not want the solution the experts are sure is good for us.

It should be pointed out that I DON'T think we should intentionally MESS UP currently wild land, by the way. I think there may be no solution to the biodiversity problem, given the realities of the world; not all problems have a solution, which is hard for we Anthropocene men to fathom. The chicxulub astroid didn't have a solution, after all.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:
He was not clear on HOW the half earth proposal would come about. Even if footprints shrink, WHO will administer this half the world? WHAT will happen to all the unwanted infrastructure/ people in these areas? (The removal of native African tribes to make "parks" comes to mind.) WHERE exactly would the reserves be?

He discusses this, in some detail.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:
He was dismissive of the "planetary gardener" theories. Yet among his twenty best places for biodiversity, one was the gardens of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In a related point, I think he underestimates how much biodiversity can be saved in gardens, even ones full of (gasp) non-native plants. A study of English invertebrates showed that many endangered species persisted in private gardens, green roofs, brownfield sites, and botanic gardens even as they disappeared from the wild.

You might be able to save invertebrate species like that, but many species need very large areas of habitat, not fragmented ones.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:
Ultimately, he supports the vision of the future that I fear, hate, despise, and work against. (To do him justice, his Anthropocene opponents support this too, in even worse forms.) A future in which most of humanity is crowded into dense, high rise, high tech cities, bemused by screens and virtual reality, grading off into weird cyborgs and autonomous robots, communing with holographic entities. A future in which the cropland is a sacrificial dead zone, full of drone guided robot tractors harvesting vast fields of engineered crops. A future in which the wild flourishes happily away from the destructive influence of humans, who have been fenced out of it. A future that will not come naturally, but will have to be imposed on us by somebody, who, knowing human nature to be what it is, will probably exploit this power. A future that I will fight to the day I die, even if I am the last free man on Earth. But he, unlike his Anthropocene opponents, supports this out of concern for the thing he loves, not out of hubris. And if he prevails, I may have half the Earth to hide in!

I will accept that this is a problem with his argument (although you have misrepresented it, at least to a point), and that parts of it haven't been thought through. What's your alternative? Mass extinction?

I know there are people who'd be happy with that, but I will oppose that until my dying day.

Now, I'll agree we need a better model than an almost technocratic one, but most humans seem quite happy with their screens and their boring monocultures. I'd advocate something more complex, and probably recognising that we're going to end up with a smaller population whether we like it or not, but I can't bring myself to accept the continuation of a system of humans doing as they damn well please to the rest of the planet, and driving its biota into one of its six worst ever extinction crises.

If you have an alternative, what is it? What is your human-scale solution that will prevent that mass extinction?

My thought involves buffer zones - polycultures to produce food and wild areas beyond it (actually not dissimilar to Mollison), but we do need those wild areas - big ones. Two thirds of the world's agricultural land is given over the the inefficient raising of meat. That's low-hanging fruit.

I guess I don't think his solution would even have the desired effect. Once all the guardians had been herded off the land and packed into the cities, the "controllers" (because there has to be someone to pay the rangers, ect.) will find that they effectively have half the earth to exploit, unseen and unchallenged.

I don't have a solution, as such; as I pointed out, sometimes there isn't a solution.

But I think his solution would make things worse.

He focused on the invertebrates; that is why I mentioned saving them in gardens. MOST endangered species could be saved without half the earth. I'm expecting either a monolithic techno-state like he proposes, or a collapse into peak oil anarchy. Peak oil anarchy will make it a moot point; the earth will be destroyed as people try to survive. At least, the large mammals will be hunted down again. But that is not quite the same thing.

The techno-state will probably only delay the anarchy for another few decades.

But, after the anarchy, we, and probably a good many other species, will still be around. And it may take 10 million years to recover, as he points out. But that is simply the realistic view. In one sense, he is also an Anthropocene proponent; he thinks we can save the situation, and our way of life. It can't be done.

So you and he and I agree; there is a huge problem. You and he think there is a solution; I do not.

Neil Layton wrote:
Considering humans expropriated these places from the indigenous species in the first place, I fail to see the issue.

Many countries already have national park systems where entry/activity is carefully restricted.

It's a job for more rangers/wardens.

The way I see it, in a permaculture world, we would agree that these things are necessary and then take steps to create them. By our efforts as permaculturists we would reduce our collective footprint on the planet, and then be able to return most of it to functioning ecosystems. We don't need to use most of the Earth for human purposes, thanks to the productivity of permaculture systems. I know I'm quoting Mollison a lot, but this discussion is taking place on a permaculture messageboard so I'm leaping to the assumption that we're looking at this issue from a permacultural perspective. Mollison mentions the importance of the "Rule of Necessitous use - that we leave any natural system alone until we are, of strict necessity, forced to use it." With permaculture, there is simply no need for us to use most of the planet, and why would we choose to do so when doing so is likely to cause our own extinction?

Since most permaculture designs contain non-edible or marginally edible plants, wouldn't our use of permaculture INCREASE our footprint according to the Wilson definition? It seems that what he wants is to stop the mixing/ sprawl of human use and the wild. By concentrating humans, with high rise farms, etc, and consolidating the wild, the result will be vastly more beneficial wild, at least from Wilson's standpoint. A highrise Wilsonian farm will produce much more food per square foot then any permaculture garden. Not to mention a permaculture ranch or savanna; I believe Wilson supports vegetarianism, and I know his ilk tend to. And ranch style operations are the only currently viable large scale permaculture operations I'm aware of.

Now the Wilsonian high rise farm is a thermodynamic impossibility, but let's just pretend it isn't.

By the way, I hope I'm not irritating anyone; some of the stuff I wrote above is at least partially tongue in cheek. But I do think there are serious flaws with the book in question.

I don't think Wilson is aware of permaculture. I like to think we are. I personally think highrise farms are idiotic. There's no proof that they will "produce much more food per square foot then any permaculture garden."

Gilbert Fritz wrote:Not to mention a permaculture ranch or savanna

In my opinion, these should be considered a transition to prairie or forest, as they are an incredibly inefficient way to produce food for humans.

Well, since some ecosystems need grazing animals, we might as well eat them! I think Mark Shepard's nut savanna is really impressive. The point is, Wilson probably wouldn't. And yes, Wilson does not understand permaculture. That is what I'm pointing out; that there are flaws in his book from a permaculture perspective.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:Well, since some ecosystems need grazing animals, we might as well eat them!

You seem to be referring to cattle grazing systems, not ecosystems. The models you reference are not ecosystems, they are artificial constructs attempting to mimic ecosystems without actually including all of the elements inherent in those ecosystems.

I'd also like to throw this out there. Beavers go about their beaver life, and everyone benefits. Bison go about their bison life, and everyone benefits. Wolves go about their wolf life, and everyone benefits. Humans go about their human life and . . . no, yes, could it be?

I think in some cases human use can actually, really, improve an ecosystem. To quote Mollison; "I think we could design systems that work as well as these (the Tasmanian ecosystem.)

If every other species can yield a system wide benefit just by living, why can't we? Of course, when we behave as humans ought not to, there is destruction. But what about when we behave as we ought?

You seem to be referring to cattle grazing systems, not ecosystems. The models you reference are not ecosystems, they are artificial constructs attempting to mimic ecosystems without actually including all of the elements inherent in those ecosystems.

I think in an area of grassland/ savanna, a permaculture design would be some type of grazing system; that is what is appropriate for the area. That is what permaculture is all about, mimicking natural systems. And the system in which large herbivores eat grass is one such natural system. Of course, the more elements we add, the better it gets; there are plenty of ways to get it wrong.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:I'd also like to throw this out there. Beavers go about their beaver life, and everyone benefits. Bison go about their bison life, and everyone benefits. Wolves go about their wolf life, and everyone benefits. Humans go about their human life and . . . no, yes, could it be?

I would be more likely to accept this argument if you had not referenced systems which do not allow Bison and wolves to go about their lives.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:
I think in an area of grassland/ savanna, a permaculture design would be some type of grazing system; that is what is appropriate for the area. That is what permaculture is all about, mimicking natural systems. And the system in which large herbivores eat grass is one such natural system. Of course, the more elements we add, the better it gets; there are plenty of ways to get it wrong.

I would feel better about grazing systems if they included top non-humans predators. I know of none which do.

Our invented systems are not likely to match wild systems in total yield/benefit.

"We may never again equal the product yield of the 60 million bison on the American prairies, with their unnumbered associated hordes of pronghorn and mule deer, and a host of minor species. The 80 or so large mammals of Africa, and the associated species of antelope can never be equalled in total biomass, yield, or value to the earth by a propped-up, energy-consuming and essentially retrograde pastoral system of a few species of domestic cattle and goats." Mollison

Of course, if one is raising cattle one is unlikely to let wolves in. (I'm sure all permies use rabbit wire to keep rabbits away from young trees!)

Now, should wolves be in Yellowstone and similar wilds? Of course!

When I said human behavior could aid an ecosystem, I'm not sure why that means that I have to let wolves share my zones 1-4. I don't think it would do me or the wolves much good. These are two different arguments.

I think we all agree that certain animals just don't work well with us in zones 1-4. Other animals also chase out invaders on their "home turf." Talk to ants driving a ladybug away from their "aphid cows." This is not unnatural.

I'm not sure where the disagreement is about wolves.

MOST endangered species could be saved without half the earth.

Not really, because most of them are dependent on complex interdependent relationships that we don't properly understand, so you still need those continental-scale wild areas.

I think your Wilsonian farm is also a bit of a misrepresentation, although I do know of people working on urban farm designs like this, and don't necessarily see it as a bad idea. The notion that cities are dependent on the exploitation of the surrounding countryside, even other nations, is hardly a new one.

Well, since some ecosystems need grazing animals, we might as well eat them!

Why? Is it because they are objects with no purpose except to service human desires? Reintroduce bison and wolves. Problem solved: habitat restored.

Existing grazing systems, even the mob-stocking ranching schemes, switch out the native grasses for quick-growing ones, which has implications for the rest of the ecosystem, uses domestic cattle which are not ecological analogues for bison, and typically involve importing supplementary feed (and then we get told this is the same as prairie: I'm not fooled, but I know others are).

Here's a wedge. The following are FAO figures and I have no reason to doubt them:

38% of the world's land surface is used for agriculture.

Of that, 68.4% (or 26.3% of the world's total land area) is permanent pasture used for the raising of livestock at around 10% photosynthetic energy efficiency.
Arable row crops make up 28.4% of all agricultural land (10.9% of global land area). I'm not sure how much of this is grains, but around two thirds of the world's grains go to feed livestock.

Now, much of that pasture probably isn't suitable for growing much else, but let's say 10% of it is ... oh, wait, raising livestock is about 10% efficient in terms of energy conversion anyway.

A switch to a herbivorous diet would free up a great deal of wild habitat (in round figures about a quarter of the world's land surface), while also having positive implications for the climate and perhaps even encouraging a switch in mentality so that sentient beings are not seen as objects and commodities. Win-win-win.

By the way, if anyone thinks I'm misrepresenting anything in Wilson's book, please point it out. I read it fast. But I think I got most of the points right. He definitely thought a lot of great stuff was coming down the scientific pike, including vertical farms. My problem with vertical farms are that they are too energy intensive; most use florescent lighting, because otherwise the levels above will shade the levels below. Heating and cooling costs go up, as with any kind of skyscraper. I've read somebody else talking about hazmat suits and airlocks in vertical farms.

About eating herbivores; well, just about every culture has done it, including all the primitive and "sustainable" ones. Again, I really doubt anyone will ever get the world to stop eating meat. And if they are going to eat meat, grass fed is far better then grain fed both health wise and ecology wise.

I can imagine a scene where there were wolves, native grasses, buffalo, and hunters. Wait, its called Yellowstone, or maybe pre-contact USA.

OK, thanks everyone for not running me out of town on a rail. I think I'm beginning to get a hang on what exactly I disagree with.

I don't disagree with the problem, to any significant extent.

I disagree with the solution for a few reasons.

1. An ethic of separation between nature and humans, with high tech humans creating new life forms and artificial intelligence on one side, and "pristine" nature on the other side. This ethic is what got us into the whole trouble to start with.

2. The control issue. Somebody or something has to control half the world. And given the way the world works, it will be the same politicians we've got now, just scaled up even further out of our punishing reach.

3. The "expert" issue. I.e., a small group of experts trying to guide the world.

4. The unacknowledged force issue. There are going to be a lot of people who DON'T want to participate. What happens to them? Let's say there is a dolt who owns a ranch in "THEIR" way, and he won't give in, even when offered millions. What happens now? I care for that dolt; he could be me. What about the "rouge" states where the citizens vote not to participate?

5. The impracticality issue. This solution needs global cooperation and a world sloshing full of energy. The near term future is a slow moving collapse of western civilization. In a disorganized, localized, low tech, and hungry world, much that is beautiful and useful will be lost, including big hunks of the biosphere. Think of the Roman villas crumbing away into the moss, or the Vikings and Huns firing the ancient towns.

6. The collective consciousness issue. There is no collective will. One must either convince or force others to do one's will. But the end of the book seemed to indicate that now, finally, humanity can make the right choice. But humanity does not make a choice. Human do. (Thought I wouldn't be surprised if Wilson thought that eventually A.I. and the internet would produce a collective mind; I got that impression.)

7. Progress: this narrative is set firmly in the notion of the progressive improvement of the human race. I don't believe in progress. All our "advance" is built on burning stored sunlight, and once the sunlight is gone we will go into the long retreat. We are no more or less moral, intelligent, etc. then our ancestors. We just have more toys.

So, I agree with the problem, don't agree with the solution.

What is my solution?

That we each look at our own little corner of the world. What can we do to make our long retreat as painless as we can? How much can we save of the biosphere, our cultural heritage, our knowledge, our infrastructure? Can we build village size high density communities? Can we build semi-wild farming systems to heal our farms and support at least some wildlife? Can we protect the wild lands near our own community? Instead of waiting for the day when our ranching neighbors are forced off their ranch into a highrise, we can instead build connections with them and convince them to promote biodiversity on their ranch. Is this a perfect solution? There are no perfect solutions. "The span of Man's life is three score and ten years, and the greater part of them trouble and sorrow." We have here no lasting resting place. As a species, we need to put down the illusions of grandeur, the global village, etc. Such abstractions are dangerous. Permaculturists should acquire humility, not embrace hubris and trans-humanism. And the people on this forum are a good example of that humility, that tolerance of the imperfect. Gilbert Fritz is not a perfect permie, and he does not toe all the ideological lines. But he's still part of the forum, just like the dolt rancher above is still part of your town.

Meanwhile, we can continue to debate and discuss our options, solutions, and plans, always getting a little wiser, while we have the time and leisure to do so.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:By the way, if anyone thinks I'm misrepresenting anything in Wilson's book, please point it out. I read it fast. But I think I got most of the points right. He definitely thought a lot of great stuff was coming down the scientific pike, including vertical farms. My problem with vertical farms are that they are too energy intensive; most use florescent lighting, because otherwise the levels above will shade the levels below. Heating and cooling costs go up, as with any kind of skyscraper. I've read somebody else talking about hazmat suits and airlocks in vertical farms. .

His vision is very technocratic, and that's where I differ from him, but I think you're exaggerating his position.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:About eating herbivores; well, just about every culture has done it, including all the primitive and "sustainable" ones.

With much, much lower population densities, yes. That doesn't apply in a world of 7.4 going on 10 billion humans. Here's a red herring back:

Gilbert Fritz wrote:Again, I really doubt anyone will ever get the world to stop eating meat. And if they are going to eat meat, grass fed is far better then grain fed both health wise and ecology wise.

Someone got the world to start eating meat, or at least more meat. In most cultures it's a status symbol, not a dietary requirement. Actually, it's much more complicated than that. A cow trapped in a crate doesn't move around. One that grazes uses more energy, and on soils that are already high in carbon the rates of carbon release are much higher than on more degraded land. Either is bad, although one is less shit from a welfare perspective: which one is less shit environmentally is a much more complex question.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:I can imagine a scene where there were wolves, native grasses, buffalo, and hunters. Wait, its called Yellowstone, or maybe pre-contact USA.

Again, indigenous populations in North America, while they dropped considerably in the centuries that followed the European invasion, were much lower than they are now. The situations are not comparable. I've already pointed out that bison-grazed habitat in Yellowstone is light years from "improved" (ha ha) grassland being grazed by domestic cattle, mob stocked or otherwise. Another fish for you:


There are genuine complications when one examines the question of a number of poor indigenous cultures, but there are other solutions to that question, discussed by other authors. That's a whole other question, and one not relevant to permaculture.

I also don't like his solution, and I made that clear in my review. I don't reject his analysis of the problem (he's strongest within his field of expertise) just because I don't like the solution. There are all kinds of aspects of the modern world that I wish were not a problem, but they are.

Humans have changed diets and behaviours in the past. Antoine-Augustin Parmentier set armed guards around his potato fields and then told the guards to accept bribes to allow people to "steal" the crop. Now potatoes are a major staple. In many parts of the world people want to eat more meat because it's a status thing and it makes them look more like Americans (which I find utterly bizarre, but I suppose a lot of people have bought into the propaganda).

I think there are other solutions, perhaps equally radical ones, but that does not mean that we do not need those radical solutions.

Rest assured I'm working on it. I encourage others to do the same, but getting all the sums to add up is not a trivial process. I can't even come close while having much meat in human diets at all; nor can I do so at present levels of North American or European consumption, and the latter is also part of Wilson's problem, but I think I made that clear at the top of the thread.

Hi Neil,

One question; some areas are much less densely occupied then others. In many of them, large edible critters are actually a problem. Don't you think that in those areas people should eat meat?

Just because people in India can't eat meat with the resources available to them, doesn't mean that somebody in Vermont where deer are killing off the trees, shouldn't do so. I.e., dividing the global land by global population overlooks wide variations. Certainly, meat eating is the only option in the far north. Tyler seems to be having a lot of problems with deer.

I know all the environmental problems with livestock, but just about any grazing system is easier on the environment then row crops.

Also, I think it was David Holmgren who said that in permaculture, we should have "default animals" animals who eat non-edible wastes and turn them into food. For instance, termites eating paper or wood chips and chickens eating termites.

And, I don't see a problem in our taking herbivores right along with the top carnivores. So long as we don't hunt the carnivores out of a job.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:Hi Neil,

One question; some areas are much less densely occupied then others. In many of them, large edible critters are actually a problem. Don't you think that in those areas people should eat meat?

Just because people in India can't eat meat with the resources available to them, doesn't mean that somebody in Vermont where deer are killing off the trees, shouldn't do so. I.e., dividing the global land by global population overlooks wide variations. Certainly, meat eating is the only option in the far north. Tyler seems to be having a lot of problems with deer.

I know all the environmental problems with livestock, but just about any grazing system is easier on the environment then row crops.

Also, I think it was David Holmgren who said that in permaculture, we should have "default animals" animals who eat non-edible wastes and turn them into food. For instance, termites eating paper or wood chips and chickens eating termites.

And, I don't see a problem in our taking herbivores right along with the top carnivores. So long as we don't hunt the carnivores out of a job.

The main reason the "critters" are "a problem" is because humans have wiped out the carnivores. We have a problem here with forest regeneration because there are so many deer as a direct result of "management" that means there are no predators and that the deer are kept at high population densities because some humans enjoy killing. At that point eating bushmeat (in the US you call it "hunting" but in much of the rest of the world it's called eating bushmeat) is precisely hunting the carnivores out of a job. That's precisely why we need to leave the wild spaces to the wildlife, not treat them as hunting preserves for people with guns (who, where I come from, would be looked at suspiciously and definitely not trusted around children).

That grazing system, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, involves converting photosynthate into food at less than 10% efficiency, because of the basic heat losses involved. This is basic biology. You'd get the same energy from a tenth of the land and can then turn the rest over to nature. The only reason I've heard for doing otherwise is that "people want to eat meat", which strikes me as no more than the kind of sense of entitlement I came to permaculture to escape.

The problem with Holmgren's argument is that those "wastes" are either compost, mushroom substrate or mulch (paper and wood chip being cases in point) and, in most cases, are unlikely to make up much more than half the animal's diet: the rest has to come from somewhere. The answer is not to keep livestock, but to use those "wastes" for other more efficient purposes that do not involve objectifying other sentients.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:
And, I don't see a problem in our taking herbivores right along with the top carnivores. So long as we don't hunt the carnivores out of a job.

I will consider that a plausible permaculture system when I see permaculturists advocating it and practicing it. No one that I have ever seen here on permies is managing their land for top non-human predators. Please direct me to a thread about it if there is one. That would be Zone 4, not Zone 5. Zone 5 is not for hunting, it is for observing.

Gilbert Fritz wrote:Tyler seems to be having a lot of problems with deer.

Caused by lack of top non-human predators, which people kill to protect their livestock.

This thread has gotten too far away from discussing the book. It touches on several issues that belong in the cider press, not on the main forums.