Great perspective! That said, I want to encourage you to not repeat the WWF's Living Planet Index claims of 70+% loss of wildlife. They use an unusual averaging technique that heavily biases the measure. Small pockets of catastrophic losses disproportionately affect the metric, completely overwhelming the large majority of stable populations. It's used within biodiversity like RCP8.5 in the climate change world.
Nice article. Just one thought to lob into the conversation: baseline shifting also works in both directions. Since the environmental movement began, many (most?) metrics of environmental health have moved toward improvement. Air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, chemical exposure, etc. have all amerliorated, at least on a global basis. How bad it was (the old baseline) has been forgotten. For me it is a point of optimism that while human presence has had massive impacts on nature, it has also been able to make changes and incorporate solutions that mitigate or even reverse problems.
I don't believe there is a looming catastrophe or apocalypse coming in the near future. But I have been comparing modern climate to paleoclimate records for several months now. I have also been looking at where science says we are headed if we continue on our present trajectories, e.g. SSP2-4.5 or the Medium Scenario basis for AR7. If we continue on as we are, we are destined for centuries and millennia at elevated temperatures with resulting serious implications such as sea level rise. No hysteria. Just science. https://justdean.substack.com/p/climate-sensitivity-the-most-contestable
Very well said. I live in Manhattan but enjoy near-daily contact with a curated sort of nature, ranging from walks in Central Park to watching my houseplants grow. When we travel, my wife and I enjoy visiting cities and towns, botanical gardens, and hiking in less developed places. One trend you’ve missed though: a continued expansion of the wildland-urban interface. A very small proportion of people have both the means and preference for having a first or second home close to nature. They seem driven by the motivation to regain their connection to nature or believe (mistakenly) that cities are inherently unhealthy places. Whatever the motivation, isn’t loving nature in that way doing more harm than good?
It will be interesting to see if humankind will retain it's affection and stewardship for nature as we become more technological and less connected to nature in our daily lives. I hope so - seems it's part of preserving our humanity and needed in some way to keep earth habitable, but the path ahead is not certain.
Great perspective! That said, I want to encourage you to not repeat the WWF's Living Planet Index claims of 70+% loss of wildlife. They use an unusual averaging technique that heavily biases the measure. Small pockets of catastrophic losses disproportionately affect the metric, completely overwhelming the large majority of stable populations. It's used within biodiversity like RCP8.5 in the climate change world.
Nice article. Just one thought to lob into the conversation: baseline shifting also works in both directions. Since the environmental movement began, many (most?) metrics of environmental health have moved toward improvement. Air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, chemical exposure, etc. have all amerliorated, at least on a global basis. How bad it was (the old baseline) has been forgotten. For me it is a point of optimism that while human presence has had massive impacts on nature, it has also been able to make changes and incorporate solutions that mitigate or even reverse problems.
I don't believe there is a looming catastrophe or apocalypse coming in the near future. But I have been comparing modern climate to paleoclimate records for several months now. I have also been looking at where science says we are headed if we continue on our present trajectories, e.g. SSP2-4.5 or the Medium Scenario basis for AR7. If we continue on as we are, we are destined for centuries and millennia at elevated temperatures with resulting serious implications such as sea level rise. No hysteria. Just science. https://justdean.substack.com/p/climate-sensitivity-the-most-contestable
https://justdean.substack.com/p/the-anthropocene-loop
Do any of those trajectories look like "A good Anthropocene?"
Very well said. I live in Manhattan but enjoy near-daily contact with a curated sort of nature, ranging from walks in Central Park to watching my houseplants grow. When we travel, my wife and I enjoy visiting cities and towns, botanical gardens, and hiking in less developed places. One trend you’ve missed though: a continued expansion of the wildland-urban interface. A very small proportion of people have both the means and preference for having a first or second home close to nature. They seem driven by the motivation to regain their connection to nature or believe (mistakenly) that cities are inherently unhealthy places. Whatever the motivation, isn’t loving nature in that way doing more harm than good?
It will be interesting to see if humankind will retain it's affection and stewardship for nature as we become more technological and less connected to nature in our daily lives. I hope so - seems it's part of preserving our humanity and needed in some way to keep earth habitable, but the path ahead is not certain.