Competition for Natural Resources

When we talk about endangered species, we need to draw a distinction between species that are recklessly endangered through over-hunting, for sport or commercial purposes, and species that are endangered because of interspecies competition for resources, whether the competition is with man or with other species. There’s a clear difference between (a) protecting a species from being hunted to extinction and (b) seeking out any species that’s facing extinction due to its lack of fitness or adaptation to the ever-changing environment, and attempting to protect it from it’s natural fate.

We have laws that prohibit “taking” of endangered species. I fully support those laws. The recovery of the bald eagle is an excellent example of how those laws serve their intended purpose. The bald eagle was not facing extinction because it couldn’t adapt to a changing environment, but because people were hunting it out of existence. When the hunting of bald eagles was banned, the species recovered on its own. I have no problem with prohibiting the taking of spotted owls, snail darters, and short nosed suckerfish. But that’s not the issue with them.

When the environment changes, whether that change was impacted by man or not, if a species can’t adapt without intervention, then intervention is futile. It can do no more than postpone the inevitable. Attempting to keep a species that is not adapted to the existing environment on permanent life support is not sustainable. When the environment changes, however that change comes about, the natural law is adapt or die. Man didn’t make that law, and man cannot change it.

Some admonish that man should not change the environment. Unfortunately, that isn’t an option. Man isn’t the only species that changes its environment. Nature is all about adaptation. Environments adapt to the impacts of their inhabitants, just as species adapt to their changing environments. But one of the reasons the human species is so successful is because, when man cannot adapt to his environment, he has learned to intentionally adapt the environment to man. Sometimes that necessarily happens at the expense of other species who compete for the same resources within the environment. But interspecies competition for limited resources is all part of nature.

I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t try to mitigate our impact. Responsible stewardship is in our own best interest. If we use up our resources with no thought to replenishment, and destroy the very resources on which we depend, we would end up sabotaging ourselves. There is no justification for gratuitous destruction, but all progress comes at some cost. The question is what is an acceptable cost? If we stopped all production and consumption, shut down all factories, stopped driving cars, flying in airplanes, transporting goods by boat or train, stopped heating our homes, and (above all) stopped breeding more human beings, all of these would lessen our impact on the environment. Does that mean it’s incumbent on us to do those things?

Every advance mankind has made throughout our rise to civilization has come at the expense of various natural environments. Every acre of land in this country that is productive or valuable today was once some natural wilderness of one sort or another, providing habitat for numerous species, some of which have successfully adapted, while others have not. The creatures who inhabited the land on which our cities and towns and suburbs and farms and industrial areas are laid out had to either adapt to the changes, migrate to new terrirories, or face extinction. And that will continue to happen for millennia to come.

Innumerable species have come and gone on this planet before man ever existed. Many more will come and go in the course of eternity. Our species’ impact on the environment will necessarily affect the evolution of other species, just as every species impacts every other species in its ecosystem. That’s the way of nature.

Rate this post: Digg it add to Stumble It!

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The current environmental panic mode is that we are in an epidemic of species extinction. (And, of course, that it’s all the fault of European man.)

    One wonders whether: that is true; if so, is it an un-natural event; to what extent is it the fault of humans; what could practically be done by way of mitigation; and at what reasonable cost?

  2. I would argue that it is just that “competition with man” for space and survival (hunting for food or sport, etc.) that is what has caused so many “unnatural” extinctions on our planet so far. I think that accurately finding the differences between your (a) and (b) would be very difficult to do. Which is the Spotted Owl in? I think you’re having it both ways in your arugument.

    I think that there’s a difference between the environment changing “naturally” or through interference by man. It’s pretty easy to see which is which a lot of the time. Man interferes with “natural law” all the time. Man also has way more ability to change his environment than just about anything else on the planet right now. Does might make right?

    “all progress comes at some cost”

    I think there’s another way to have progress that’s more sustainable. That’s a newer way of thinking about things…it may be harder, but I think it’s better in the long-run. The idea that it’s us or the environment is the old, tired way of doing things. We can have both.

    “Every acre of land in this country that is productive”

    Productive for who? Us…that’s who. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t productive for something else before we came along. I think you err too much on the side of leaving man off the hook.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: