In Olympic NP about to bond with a Doug Fir |
Well hello! You are
here, and I’m so glad. I love reading
blogs for two reasons. First, I might
literally be the nosiest person alive and I love to hear people’s stories. I feel we can learn so much by looking at the
experiences of others. Second, I love
the freedom of information that comes with blogs, but, as a lover of critical
thinking (who isn’t really?) I also love reading an entry and thinking “that’s
crazy talk.” For this second reason, I’ve
always been a little hesitant to start my own blog. I do a whole lot of crazy talking. But I think I have finally settled on a topic
about which I can mad gab with some authority.
The idea of viewing
myself in an ecosystem context was born a few years ago when I was
attempting to read Jim Merkel’s book Radical Simplicity. He talks about equitable living and how much
land space would be available to support each human life if the productive land
on Earth was shared equally (spoiler alert, it isn’t). That was about 4.5 acres*. These 4.5 acres would have to produce
everything to meet an individual’s needs:
food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc. At this point, I wasn’t too freaked out by
the idea. I like to share and I live a
pretty simple life, so 4 acres should be more than enough for me! Then Merkel points out the obvious flaw in
this plan… that’s for 4 acres for each human. Just people.
My mind was literally blown. What
about the orangutans (my faves), walruses, clown fish, fruit flies, and guava
trees! How many resources should we be
leaving for them? I literally couldn’t believe
I had never thought about this. Certainly,
my personal choices have been influenced by social justice and environmental issues,
but seeing the two paired in such an explicit way was shocking. What was a little hippie-ecologist to do?!
Sea kayaking and viewing some human/wildlife interactions |
What I did was put down Merkel’s book and stressed about it
for around 3 months. Then, I decided I
needed to make some serious changes in my life.
I want to figure out how we can have enough World to support human
populations and all the beautiful biodiversity that makes the Earth so truly
special. In my mind, the only way to do
this is to view ourselves in the
context of the ecosystem in which we live.
Humans have to stop trying to act outside of the constraints of the
natural world and start acting with it to solve our increasingly extreme global
challenges. Dang Rachel, that’s heavy,
right? Yeah, it can be sometimes, but challenges
can also be fun. I love coming up with a
new idea and thinking, “Why haven’t I always been doing it this way?” We should never be afraid to challenge our
preconceived notions about the world, because, in the process, we usually find
some notions we long held about ourselves become outdated as well.
Catching birds in the marsh |
At this point you are thinking: Who is this crazy person? Here are my vitals. I’m a graduate student attempting to earn a
PhD in ecology. I study salt marshes
ecosystems generally, but I like to focus on food webs and their impacts on
ecology and conservation. That’s a
really snazzy way of saying I watch thing eat and look at a ton of bugs under
a microscope. I’m a vegetarian
(sometimes vegan), and I’ve probably blocked your way down the grocery isle
because I was engrossed in reading the ingredients to Raisin Bran (did you know
that the second ingredient is sugar?
Seriously! Raisin Bran.). For years now I have been an obsessive traveler, and I can never see enough! I love my cat and two turtle babies. And I’m not perfect. I’m just learning, like everybody else. But I’m enthusiastic, which is always half
the battle.
Garcia (aka: the best kitty eva') |
So, what is this blog about exactly? The answer is nothing and everything. This will be a lifestyle blog detailing how
and why I live my life the way I do. The
twist being, I will attempt to explain the ecological impacts (or my perception
of said impacts) of these actions. I’ll
tell you what I’m struggling with, and I’ll let you know when I come up with
solutions. And I’ll probably post lots
of pictures of my cat. Let’s start that
now.
*Merkel’s book was published in 2003 when the global
population was significantly lower. This
number has likely changed.
Disclaimer--I haven't read Merkel's book.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the 4.5 acres per person have to include some other life, even if it's not the stately walruses? At the very least, there'd be the pollinators and scavengers, and then you have all the plant life that would serve as a food/shelter/transportation/clothing source. And I don't think the clown fish would need to claim too much productive land. ;)
P.S. Garcia has a challenger in the form of Woodstock!
You are totally right on several counts. Haha, and clown fish was maybe not the best example! The idea, from my understanding, is land used for the calculation is all the productive land on the globe surface. So, that means that only animals that live in the same available land as humans (so not alpine, desert, or ocean spp. etc.) are actually considered. It's not super realistic idea in that way; takes out cross ecotone energy flow. Otherwise, I'm thinking the things living on the land, other than the person, would really depend on how the land was tended. So, the soil ecosystem and the pollinators directly interacting with whatever chosen food crops would be fine. Decomposes, probably also doing well to a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteI think I portrayed it as an absolutely realistic metaphor, which it is not. It have a lot of utility for explanation and thought, but the logic can only be extended so far.
Also, Woodstock is adorbs and if I had pictures of him, they would totally be posted.