TREES OF LIFE:FORESTS IN PERIL
  • home
  • Blog
  • About The Book
    • Bookstore
    • Press
  • The Author
  • Videos
  • Contact

March 11th, 2020

3/11/2020

0 Comments

 
A JOURNEY TO UNDERSTANDING OUR NATURAL WORLD.
 
My college education provided the knowledge required to manage the renewable natural resources from the forests and the variety of silvicultural systems that had been developed for treating the forest communities. I learned the scientific names of the various tree species, how to read aerial photographs and survey land units, the variety of measurement systems for determining lumber volumes and the agricultural processes used to grow trees as a crop. I was ready to become a forest land manager, or so I thought! Just 2 months after graduation, I received a permanent appointment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; and realized my education was inadequate and I was about to begin a long journey of advanced education based on observation and experiences. After thirty-four years, I was left with a successful career and many questions and concerns about the science I had dedicated my life to. I had achieved my personal goals, had a wonderful family with a wife that had provided the strength to succeed in my chosen career and retirement seemed to be the next step. I was not however, ready to forget about the concerns developed through empirical observations I had developed during my working years. Retirement offered time to analyze and study issues and concerns which required a much deeper understanding then I possessed at the time.
My first thoughts were with the scientific theory itself, but soon realized it was a people problem and the cultural values humanity had developed. I was still frustrated with the difficulty of understanding why issues and concerns were so complex, until I realized previous actions had failed to consider the connections our natural world shares with humanity. Everything is connected, from the smallest micro-organisms to the advanced human species. Decisions cannot be made on scientific knowledge alone, but require an in-depth discussion and understanding of the relationships and impacts that will affect living organisms. Past actions have actually resulted in the extermination of some species. Today, we have the power and knowledge to do the same for human beings. This is the concern that has led me to search for a deeper understanding of humanity’s connection to the natural world.
Philosophy and environmental ethics seem to offer at least part of the wisdom I have been searching for. Environmental ethics analyses human being’s ethical relationship with the natural environment. Science has taught us how to put humans on the moon, construct weapons of mass-destruction, remove fossil fuels from a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, fill the sky with satellites and the list goes on. The next thing will be the development of artificial intelligence to replace humans. All these great discoveries will accelerate the destruction of our natural world. What will all this advanced technology do to the mental and emotional stability of the human species? The answer is simply we, as human beings, will perish if we fail to constrain our demands we are placing on nature.
It may be acceptable for individual scientists to focus on developing new information about their specialized subject, but decision makers and managers are responsible for a much broader understanding of the impacts their decisions will have on humanity! A decision-maker must have access to scientific data, the ecologist’s understanding of relationships within the non-human life systems and the ethicist’s appreciation for the moral relationships of human beings to the values and status of the environment and non- human contents. Leave anything out and the future will suffer. Many of the concerns we have regarding the environment, are serious concerns because of the way they can affect human beings. This helps explain the major concern I have been focused on from the beginning, (our focus on profitability rather than the impacts on human requirements and their destiny)! In other words, an anthropocentric ethic claims that we possess obligations to the natural world for the sake of our individual well-being and prosperity. What about future generations? Some philosophers actually deny that human beings in the future have moral standing because they can give us nothing in return, and certainly non-human species have no standing based on biblical teachings. Maybe this helps explain our reluctance to change our life-styles and demands for the limited resources provided by Mother Earth! The fact is our actions will impact those who will exist in the future! Brian Barry (1999) has argued that our obligations lie with ensuring we do not prevent future generations their basic needs!
What does all this mean? It is apparent, my quest for a deeper understanding and appreciation for the value and necessity of our natural world has not concluded, even in retirement. My continued interest has led to philosophy and environmental ethics, which has provided insight into humanity’s relationship with the natural world and has provided considerable personal insight. I now see the responsibility of leadership and management requiring a much deeper knowledge base then had been defined before. A degree in forest science, or any natural resource science, does not prepare a person for a leadership and decision-making role in managing our natural world. The future of our human species depends upon our ability to radically overhaul prevailing philosophical perspective and ideology of the western society. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service must play a critical role in this overhaul effort, as forest management of our public forest covered lands, needs to set the example for managing our remaining forests worldwide. Forest science and academia must cast aside the concept of growing trees as crops and introduce new principles that amplify the availability of life sustaining elements required by humans and non-human species for the next generation of life! We must start by recognizing that as human beings we are not removed from nature, but are interconnected with it. Richness and diversity of life forms allow life systems to function, and humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity for future generations! The foundations of the environmental crisis lie in the dominate ideology of modern western society, and demand a radical overhaul of this ideology! Do we live for today or do we have obligations to the future?     
0 Comments

February 28th, 2020

2/28/2020

0 Comments

 
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS III
 
Reviewing recent discussions on environmental ethics has been an eye opener and has encouraged the need to expand the public’s understanding of key environmental issues. We need to spend some time discussing sustainability and climate change.
In 1993 Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway, held a Conference on Biological Diversity which was strongly influenced by a United Nations document entitled, “Our Common Future”. The report focused on the increasing amount of evidence that planetary systems required for life on Earth were under strain. The major issue raised was whether it is equitable to sacrifice options for the future to support current lifestyles, especially for the rich counties and sometimes lavish lifestyles of the wealthy. Bryan Norton suggested, the world faces a global challenge to see whether different human groups, with widely varying perspectives, can accept responsibility to maintain a non-declining set of opportunities based on possible use of the environment. He went on to state, “the future ought not have to face, as a result of our actions today, a seriously reduced range of options and choices, as they try to adapt to the environment that they face”. These discussions lead to the concept of what is sustainable development?       
The Brundtland Report defined “sustainable development”, as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Current sustainability in forest management is defined as a sustainable flow of goods and services from the forests, with no consideration for the elements forests provide that support 80% of all living creatures on Earth. With such a large percentage of life dependent upon forests, and the continuation of deforestation with population expansion, sustainability must focus on the health and diversity of the remaining forest cover. We must consider the concept of “needs”, particularly the essential needs of the world’s poor, and understand the limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment and its ability to provide for today and the future! In other words, our efforts to define acceptable sustainable development must consider the entire world population. It is unacceptable to focus necessary changes only on those whose life-styles are already demanding more than their share of environmental capital. The report also suggests, “the industrial world has already used up much of the Earth’s ecological capital”. Inequality and development problems are major issues we face worldwide. This information demands significant changes in the management goals for our remaining forested lands! The report states, “maximum sustainability can only be defined after considering the system-wide effects of exploitation on ecological capital”. It is no longer acceptable to manage forest communities for a sustainable flow of products from the forests. We must now focus on sustainability of our remaining forests and their health and diversity.
The warnings of environmental problems have become even more pessimistic with further studies. New data on increasing human population and its impact on humanity; particularly on the poorest people, loss of biodiversity, scarcity of fresh water, overconsumption of resources and climate change; has elevated our environmental concerns! When we discuss sustainable development, what exactly are we attempting to sustain? Are we to focus on the flow of goods and services for world markets that must be maintained, or is it current or some future level of consumption? How is climate change related to sustainability? What are the established facts about climate change?
Over the past 650,000 years, Earth has experienced 7 glacial advancements and retreats, the last one occurring 11,700 years ago. Data suggests we are still experiencing a retreat of the past ice-age, however current warming is occurring at a rate which is ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. From 1880 to present, the average temperature of the earth’s surface has increased by 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit, with most of the change occurring in the last 35 years. Since 1969 the ocean’s surface water temperatures have warmed by 4 degrees Fahrenheit, resulting in an 8-inch rise in sea-levels in the last decade. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the acidity of the surface ocean waters has increased by 30%. The warming of ocean water has a direct impact on the severity and frequency of storms that form over the water.
We live in a greenhouse like environment caused by the greenhouse gases that surround our planet. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon and water vapor, prevent heat from escaping from the surface of Earth.  From 1750 to present, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased by 96% and NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency)  reports an increase of 43% from 1990 to 2018. By far, the most important anthropogenic gas is carbon dioxide which is responsible for 81% of the increased warming effect. NOAA reported in 2018, we released worldwide 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere in that one year. Yes, the climate is changing and 160 years of weather data confirms the facts presented here, and documents the need for us to make significant changes in our life-styles if we want to provide for the needs of future generations!

The facts are clear, global warming and climate change are real, and we must recognize that deforestation plays a critical role in both issues. Forests provide shade that keeps the surface of planet Earth cool, slows and redirects wind and is the largest storehouse of carbon dioxide. The most important anthropogenic gas is carbon dioxide which is responsible for 81% of the warming effect. We have destroyed over half of the forest cover that once existed on Earth, and are deforesting the equivalent of 22 soccer fields every minute worldwide. Forests are the major storehouse of carbon dioxide where it is converted to sugar for plant growth and through photosynthesis, oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.
It is true that a small part of the changes which are occurring, are the result of natural Earth systems, but it is apparent that population growth, the industrial revolution over the past 200 years, and deforestation have significantly accelerated the destruction of our natural world. The question is; are we willing to find solutions that will prolong life on Earth, or will we ignore the facts, continue our over-consumption of Earth’s resources and allow our future generations to suffer with the limited carry-capacity of Mother Earth? The problem is not lack of facts, but rather lack of courage to make the required adjustments!               
         

0 Comments

February 07th, 2020

2/7/2020

0 Comments

 
 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS II
 
Australian philosopher, Richard Routley, suggested in 1973, that anthropocentrism, which he called “the dominate western view”, was in effect “human chauvinism”. This view, he argued, is just another form of class chauvinism. He went on to recognize that natural things have intrinsic value and require respect. Holms Rolston III in 1975, argued that the deliberate destruction of a species would show disrespect for the very biological processes which make possible the emergence of individual living things. In 1972, Christopher Stone professor of law, proposed that trees and other natural objects should have at least the same standing in law as corporations. Stone reasoned that if trees, forests and mountains could be given standing in law, they could be represented in their own right in the courts.  The late 1970’s focused the attention of philosophers and political theorists firmly on the environment. Environmental ethics was providing a deeper understanding of the natural world and the human dependency we have on this world. These new debates raise serious questions about the adequacy of the management principles of “preservation” and “conservation”. Neither system is capable of meeting the human demands for the future! Earth is crying out for help from the dominant species!
Feminist theories began to influence environmental ethics and concerns about the natural world in the mid-1970’s. Susan Collins in 1974, argued that male-dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation and ecological destruction. In 1989,Ynestra King suggested human exploitation of nature may be seen as a manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, as it is the result of associating nature with the female. Feminism theory argues that the “logic of domination”, dictates that those on the superior side (men, humans and rational beings) are normally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (women, irrational thinkers and non-human species). It has been suggested that the projection of domination requires the suppression of our own human nature. We must replace domination with stewardship! Some have argued that a flourishing human life requires the moral capacities to value, love, respect and care for the non-human natural world as an end in itself.
Despite the variety of positions in environmental ethics developed over the last thirty years, environmentalists have focused mainly on issues concerning wilderness and the reasons for its preservation. Concerns over humanity’s requirements from our natural world demand much boarder considerations. Will designating a few acres as Wilderness provide any real value to future generations? The first 65 years of management of the national forest system lands, by the Forest Service, focused on Gifford Pinchot definition of forestry, “growing trees as crops”. The late 1950’s early 60’s saw a rise in several environmental preservation groups, which initiated pressure on the U.S. Forest Service to set aside areas where timber harvesting and road access would not be allowed. The Agency’s long history of supporting timber industry, created a lack of trust by many within the preservation community, thereby resulting in elevating the issue to the political arena. This resulted in the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the start of a nationwide effort to identify and designate 447 areas (36,106,078 acres) of national forest system lands as “Wilderness”. A discussion of the value and need to preserve Wilderness raises a number of concerns; does the experience of wilderness change or enhance people’s valuations of nature and the natural world, is a wilderness experience available to most people or only the more affluent, what impact does mass human access to the wilderness have on these areas, does aesthetic appreciation for nature truly enrich or re-enchant human life and what results will the  aging of these areas have on the ability to provide the life sustaining elements required for the future. Hugh Stretton in 1976, argues the enjoyment of wilderness by “natural aristocrats” and more generally the life styles of many people in the affluent countries, seems implicated in the destruction and pollution which has provoked the environmental problems in the first place. Others believe just knowing wilderness areas exist provides an aesthetic peace of mind about the natural world. Is this simply a means of feeling good about and justifying our alienation from the natural world due to industrialization and urbanization? 
What does all this mean as we search for a desirable future for humanity? An expanding worldwide population and more affluent life-styles for people in developing countries will stress Earth’s ability to provide food, shelter and energy. More tillable acres of land will be required, thereby requiring continued deforestation. The ability of our remaining natural world to supply the life-sustaining elements, only it can provide, will reach its limits. When will this happen? Possibly sooner then we expect!
Next time; Environmental ethics – Sustainability and Climate Change               
0 Comments

January 20th, 2020

1/20/2020

0 Comments

 
                                   ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
 
During the writing of my book, “Trees of Life-Our Forests in Peril”, my editor challenged me to consider environmental ethics in relation to the issues I was concerned about with forestry. I did limited research and included a brief discussion of ethics in my book, but must admit I had limited knowledge of the subject. Philosophy is the study of the fundamentals of knowledge, reality and existence. Ethics, or moral conduct, involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy, which studies the moral relationship of human beings, along with their value and moral status, to the environment and its non-human contents. I have spent considerable time studying the discipline and its relationship to current forest management principles. It has helped me understand the challenge of environmental ethics to the anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) which is the traditional western ethical thinking of people in the United States. It has also helped me better understand the need for major changes in the scientific application of forest management practices on our remaining public forested lands.
I was reminded of Professor William Rees’s explanation of eco-economics when he described how ecologists in their field focus on non-human species, and economist focus on humans with little to no understanding of the relationship’s humans share with the natural world. Ethics appears to be what I have been searching for to link modern day science to humanity. My concerns have been based on the need to link our advancements in science to the human element in order to reduce the accelerated destruction of our natural world.   Anthropocentrism and human relationships to the natural world reminded me of my involvement in the forest planning process we were required to complete during my final ten years of employment. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 directed the U.S. Forest Service to prepare integrated management plans for each of the 155 National Forests. This was a significant change in the Forest Service planning processes, from individual resource plans to a plan for the land, integrating the resources and identifying relationships. To accomplish the task, most Forests established an interdisciplinary team with each member being a specialist in a different resource area. The results were not as I had expected, since rather than defining the relationships, each member tended to become an advocate for their specialty. Anthropocentrism explains the difficulty of implementing an integrated planning approach and the inability of the American people to come together and to agree on environmental issues that will impact our future, such as climate change.
Ethics involves studying human being’s moral relationships to the environment and non-human species, and includes consideration of value and moral status. Environmental ethics recognizes two types of values, instrumental value and intrinsic value. Instrumental value is using things as means to further some other ends, where intrinsic value refers to things as ends themselves. A teacher presenting knowledge to a person desiring that knowledge has instrumental value, but the teacher as a person has intrinsic value. Traditional western ethical perspectives are human-centered (anthropocentric) as they assign intrinsic value to humans, but seldom to non-human things. An early example is Aristotle who maintained, “nature has made all things specifically for man”.  This opinion is now understood to be wrong, but helps explain our western cultures focus on anthropocentrism. Earth does not belong to us; we belong to Earth! A discussion of environmental ethics requires considering if the environment and non-human species have rights. If the natural world is the only environment that can provide the elements that sustain life on Earth, should they not have rights similar to human beings?
Although nature was a focus of study during the nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, environmental ethics did not emerge as an academic discipline until the 1970’s. The review of human relationships with nature through environmental ethics has supported previous predictions of a human population explosion and the increase of serious environmental crises. In 1967, historian Lynn White, presented an essay suggesting, “Judeo-Christian thinking encouraged the over-exploitation of nature as created for use of humans”. The rationale of his thesis was that the Church Fathers and the Bible, supports the anthropocentric perspective where humans are the only things that matter on Earth, and may use and consume everything to their advantage without committing any injustice.  The elevation of human beings above the environment and non-human species has alienated many of us from the natural world and its contribution to life. The proper translation of the original Hebrew language is now thought to be “provide stewardship” rather than “take dominion over”.       
In 2007, the Department of Agriculture published a report known as, The Report on Abuse. Leading scientists and economist contributed to the report and assigned an instrumental value to a single tree over a 50-year life cycle. The intrinsic value of the tree would be the actual value of the tree itself, and would normally be in the hundreds of dollars. The largest tree value I have known of was a black walnut tree that sold for $2000. The specialists that prepared the Report on Abuse, assigned the instrumental value of an average tree over a 50-year period to be $162,000.00. This value was arrived at by assigning economic values to; storage of carbon dioxide, production of oxygen, purification of water, supply of water, soil erosion prevention and air purification.
In 1968, Stanford ecologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book, “The Population Bomb”, which suggested, “the growth of human population will threaten the viability of planetary life-support systems”. A 1968 photograph of Earth from space, taken by NASA, was published in 1970 in “Scientific America” journal, described the photo as, it was plain to see a living, shining planet voyaging through space and shared by all of humanity, a precious vessel vulnerable to pollution and to the overuse of its limited capacities. Aldo Leopold, in 1949 advocated the adoption of a “land ethic”. This is the missing link in the science of forestry, the ability to “read the land”, the ability to observe and understand the complexity of individual forest communities! This must then be followed by the ability to appreciate and comprehend the relationships between the natural world and life-systems including human beings!   
Philosophy courses were not a consideration in forestry school when I was working on my degree, but my continued interest in environmental issues and the natural world, has led me to the necessity of understanding the topic of environmental ethics. Without the understanding of the moral relationships with human-beings, advanced technology and science will lead to the accelerated destruction of our vital natural world. We are but one small part of the Earth community and must remember, “nothing is itself without all the rest”.
We will continue this discussion next time.
    
 
0 Comments

January 08th, 2020

1/8/2020

0 Comments

 
WORLDWIDE CRISIS – DEFORESTATION
 
During the past six years, I have published 144 articles (blogs) about the environmental issues we are facing, caused primarily by human demands. The number one issue is population expansion, which fortunately has been slowing in the developed countries but worldwide is continuing to expand by 75 million people annually. This expansion, obviously, increases the demand for more resources from our limited land base and increases deforestation of our remaining forest covered lands. Deforestation then, becomes the second major environmental issue.
Controlling population growth is difficult, if even possible, as demonstrated by past attempts that have failed. Although demands for more resources will stress our remaining forested lands, there may be some opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our remaining tree covered lands. This will require significant changes in our management policies and life styles which will not happen until we understand the magnitude of the issue of deforestation!
Just what are the facts? Our planet’s land base was once 60 to 70% covered with trees and today is only 30% forested. Over half of our forested lands have been cleared to grow crops, graze livestock, build cities, transportation corridors, golf courses, factories and other facilities requiring cleared land. We have discovered almost 10 million different species of living organisms which science has determined 80% of these species cannot survive without tree covered lands, and that includes humans. Scientific data suggests we have discovered less than 20% of the species that exist on Earth. The necessity of remaining forest cover is essential for the future of humanity and life in general.
Our next concern focuses on what is happening to our remaining forest covered lands. We are told the majority of undiscovered species are to be found within the tropical zone and the vast majority of bio- diversity, which supports our life systems, is also found in this zone.  It is not unusual for a forest community in the tropics to have several hundred different trees species, where a frigid zone community would normally have less than eight different species. Science has confirmed that 20% of the required oxygen on Earth comes from the tropical zone and the majority of the undiscovered 40 million plants and animals will be found within this zone. All three zones contribute to the sustenance of life on Earth, and it is obvious the tropical zone is the most important contributor to the elements required for life.
Today, tropical forests are being threatened by deforestation more than any other zone. The World Bank reports, since the beginning of the 20th century, we have deforested 3.9 million square miles of tropical forested lands. In just one year, 2017, the tropics lost 61,000 square miles of forest cover, an area the size of the country of Bangladesh. Current practices involve removing the marketable trees and then burning the debris and remaining vegetation. In 2019, over 80,000 fires burned in the Amazon following timber harvesting activities which was an eighty percent increase over 2018. Once cleared, the land is used to grow crops or to graze livestock. Over the past 25 years, Uganda has lost 63% of their tropical forest cover. These facts are shocking for the valuable tropical zone, but are also occurring at a slower rate in the other two zones, especially the temperate zone. Worldwide, we are deforesting the equivalent of 27 soccer fields every minute.
Deforestation is also the second major causes of climate change. The removal of trees in the three zones results in warming temperatures of the soil and air, reduced rainfall causing drought conditions, increased wind velocity and major reductions in the storage of carbon dioxide resulting in increased greenhouse gases. The first major cause of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels; followed closely by deforestation and massive wildfires that burn the vegetative debris remaining after the timber harvesting activities.
Controlling population expansion offers limited hope, which has been demonstrated by past failed efforts. The expanding population and improved life styles will certainly result in increasing demands for resources and increased damage to our natural world. The management of our remaining forested lands may offer some opportunity for a more desirable future, but will require significant changes in current management principles. There is no way we can stop deforestation, but improved utilization and new product materials can slow and reduce deforestation rates. The continued reduction of forest covered lands will demand increased effectiveness and efficiency from the remaining forested areas to produce the life sustaining elements required by humanity. This requires focusing on the forest communities to maintain their health and bio-diversity, rather than managing for a sustained flow of forest resources.
It is the forest environment that provides the life-sustaining elements required by 80% of the 10 million species known to exist on Earth. Success requires an intensive management strategy for each individual forest community, designed to maintain healthy vibrant trees and maintain or enhance the bio-diversity within naturally established communities. The first principle of this strategy is to never introduce non-indigenous species into a community. This principle must be followed by the use of natural regeneration strategies utilizing the seeds provided by the various tree species which are natural to the site. Plantations of single species and single age class trees, destroys diversity and sets in motion the probability of a continued cycle of catastrophic event like massive wildfires and insect or disease infestations. I have offered a brief description of how to start a new management philosophy which I call “Nature’s Way” but if we truly care about the future we must change. The major goal of Nature’s Way shifts the management focus to the forest itself and makes the forest resources the by-product of good management.  The concern for changing climate conditions is a major issue today, but we must also be concerned about the future of life on Earth as both are inter-connected. Diversity is the most important element that allows life systems to function on planet Earth. Scientists suggest the carrying- capacity of Earth may be 10 billion people, and the U.S. Census Bureau projects the world population will reach that number in just 30 years. Has tomorrow already come, or can we still make a difference?  
          
       

0 Comments

December 31st, 2019

12/31/2019

0 Comments

 
THE WORLDS’ NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE- POPULATION EXPANSION!

Tomorrow is a new year and I wanted to provide some factual data that justifies my concerns for worldwide population expansion being our number one environmental issue for the future!
In 1798, Thomas Malthus published, “An Essay on the Principles of Population”. He was one of the first to raise concerns about the issue of population expansion and the potential impact it could have on humanity. In his publication he stated, “The power of population is much greater than the power of Earth to provide for human needs”. It wasn’t until 1968, that Paul Ehrlich again highlighted the issue with his publication of, “The Population Bomb”. Paul pointed out, “we live on a finite planet with finite resources in a system where population is not finite”. Professor William Rees, ecological economist at the University of British Columbia, in an interview pointed out that the exchange value cycle was an inappropriate process for understanding the issue of population demands on our natural resources. He argued, “ecologists were studying non-human species and economists were studying humans with no concern for the natural resources”. His conclusions support my finding that, “Nothing is itself without all the rest”.
There have been a few members of the scientific community that have been concerned about population expansion for a long time however, the public has shown little interest in the issue. I suspect this is true because most people are not aware of the magnitude of the issue or it’s implications. In 1800, the world population was 1 billion and has since increased seven-fold. From 1950 to 2010 the global population nearly tripled, and the United States population doubled. Our current global population is 7.75 billion and expanding by 75 million annually. The U.S. Census Bureau projects we will reach 10 billion people worldwide in just 30 years, and the U.N. has projected a global population of 13 billion people by the end of the century.
In addition to population numbers, we need to understand the problem of population density. The average global population density is 25 people per square km, however there is a wide disparity between the various countries. Singapore has the highest density with 8000 people per square km, and Bangladesh, one of the larger countries, has 1252 people per sq. km. The higher the country’s density, the more dependent they are on materials and resources from other countries.
What can we expect in the future? Generally, we can expect birth-rates to gradually slow and life expectancies to increase. When poor countries expand their wealth, their birth-rates tend to slow, however the fastest growing age class, worldwide, are the 90 plus group. We can expect the world population to continue to expand at about 75 million per year, and the U.N. projects we will experience about 140 worldwide births per year for the next 80 years, which explains why population expansion will continue at close to 75 million per year. The statistics presented clearly establish why the most critical environmental issue we face worldwide is population expansion. The future demand for resources will stress Earth, resulting in issues like deforestation, poor air quality, water shortages, loss of water quality, food shortages, climate change, global warming, drought and a worldwide shortage of natural resources!     
This information is interesting, but what does mean for humanities future? Remember Thomas Malthus conclusion that the power of population is much greater than the power of Earth to provide, and Paul Ehrlich’s conclusion that although population is not finite, we live on a finite planet that has finite resources. There have been several efforts to define Earth’s carrying capacity based on human population numbers. This can be estimated by determining what each one of us demand in energy and materials each year and then incorporating the data to world population data. Understanding this is an estimate, most scientists suggest Earth’s limit to supply needed resources is in the range of 10 billion people. Remember, we expect to reach 10 billion people in just 30 years. A poll in 2014 showed only 59% of Americans felt we will experience natural resource shortages on our planet. Professor Rees projects that each individual living on the North American Continent, today, require 20 acres to produce the energy and materials required to support our current life style, and the U.S. utilizes 20% to 25% of all the natural resources available on Earth. If you combined the required bio-physical resources utilized by China and the United States, it would require 125% of Earth’s total resources.  Professor Rees projects, if the world enjoyed the U.S. life-style, it would require at least 3 additional planets like planet Earth.  He goes on the indicate that people living in most poor countries use less than 1 acre to provide the energy and materials require for their life styles. If you divide the worlds land base by todays world population, there is only 4.2 acres per person, which means citizens of the United States and Canada are using 5 time more than the rest of the world.   
Professor Rees tells us, “Sustainability is a collective problem requiring a collective approach to solve”. Dr. Jered Diamond suggests in his book, “Collapse”, in past societies which have failed the poor are the first to experience the final days, however the wealthy and powerful suffer longer and still experience the same finality. I do not want to be negative, but the facts tell the story and the future may arrive too quickly. The next 30 years will require major change if we hope to prolong life on our planet. There are only two options available; change our life style to conserve resources and intensify management of our remaining natural world by focusing on its needs rather than on what we can take from the natural world. It is much larger than simply reducing fossil fuel utilization or finding a new substitute energy source. This is truly a collective problem requiring a worldwide effort to solve! Much of our remaining natural world lands are forested and therefore require a major commitment for those responsible the management of these valuable lands. This requires significant re-evaluation of current management principles and goals, as a continued application of current goals too maintain a sustained flow of resources from the forest will lead to an accelerated loss of the life sustaining elements provided only by the NATURAL WORLD!
0 Comments

December 10th, 2019

12/10/2019

0 Comments

 
AMERICA’S CURRENT STATE!
 
I have been observing our great country’s progress and changes for over 70 years now, with particular attention to the impact humans have had on the natural world and its surroundings. Most of you are aware that my education and experience was in forest science and that forests are a critical part of our natural surroundings. My career, although influenced by the goals of the U.S. Forest Service, focused on doing my best to understand the complexity of the forest environment and to manage the lands I was responsible for to meet the needs of the American public. National Forest System Lands are held in trust for the citizens of the United States of America. I was always prepared to listen to the public in order to find new and different management strategies to better accomplish their goals and objectives. I have been retired now for 25 years but, unable to ignore the concerns about the natural world which I retired with. The first 15 years of retirement involved frequent visits to the forest I last worked on and engaged in numerous discussions with employees and forest visitors about their future desires for our valuable remaining forested lands. In fact, as a member of the Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, I visited numerous interests throughout the State of Wyoming, to identify their views on the future of the Greater Yellowstone Area and then draft my findings, along with other members findings, into a “Vision for the Future of the Greater Yellowstone Area”. Retirement offered time to observe more closely the nations forest conditions and discussions with the people revealed serious concerns with existing management goals, strategies and management actions.
Even though I had limited experience as a writer, I felt a need to help people understand what was happening to our natural surroundings and why. For many years, I have been convinced the Native American culture possessed a deeper appreciation for the relationships we share with our natural surroundings and the complexity of the natural world. I reached out to find information from the few scholars in science, religion and academia that had published their findings and concerns. There are in fact, a few insightful scholars that have been warning us of unacceptable changes in our environment for the past 40 to 50 years. The more I observed and studied, the more heightened my concerns became, and the more convinced I was that advanced science and technology will not provide for our desired future. I have seen considerable change in our tree covered lands, since I became old enough to start squirrel hunting in my grandparent’s woodlot. My interest continued to expand as my observations, experiences and education grew. Thirty-four years practicing my profession, left me with more questions than answers. I had to learn more!      
I am concerned about the current state of America and my concerns intensify with each passing day. I see a greater division among our people than I have previously observed and an inability or unwillingness of the people to work together for the good of all citizens. Individual greed has overtaken the desire to provide for future generations by protecting our natural environment. We are involved in a Constitutional Crisis with an Administration attempting to achieve autocratic power by destroying our egalitarian democratic principles. Our wealthy investors seem willing to cast aside their allegiance to the American middle class, for higher profits using cheap foreign labor sources. Our expanding world population is demanding more from Mother Earth than she can provide, resulting in an accelerated destruction of the vital resources and relationships only our natural surroundings can provide. I am troubled that we have become so urbanized, greedy and technocratic, that we have alienated ourselves from the vital elements that sustain life on our planet. I don’t understand what has happened that we allow a small group of corrupt people to destroy the free democratic principles we have spent 150 years establishing. It is difficult to understand how we have allowed greed to eliminate regulations designed to try to protect the viability of our home, planet Earth. The United States is withdrawing from a worldwide effort to focus on the changes which are occurring in our natural world and climate. Talking to people, has confirmed our individual concern for the future yet, our actions do not support the concerns! Where is the leadership America needs for the future? Are politicians no longer public servants? Since when have they been given liberty to follow their own greedy desires rather than work to achieve the needs of the people they represent? The Constitution of the United States and the definition of Democratic government certainly has not changed! Our current path is not taking us in the direction which will provide the future we seek! It is up to us, you and me, to insist upon the goals and values that will provide our desired future!                

0 Comments

December 10th, 2019

12/10/2019

0 Comments

 
 
0 Comments

November 21st, 2019

11/21/2019

0 Comments

 
EDUCATION AND THE NATURAL WORLD
 
Listening to the political discussions and debates over the current conditions of the human environment, has intensified my concern for how we will begin the process of changing our life-styles to provide for a more desirable future. The greedy removal of regulations designed to help protect the natural world, has set our country back significantly. Corporate America’s search for cheaper labor sources and reduced responsibility for worker benefits has had serious implications for American workers. The intensity and frequency of catastrophic storms continue to wreak havoc on people throughout the world. Demand for cleared land increases daily and, we sit back and hope our personal wealth will increase and advanced technology will provide and extend life on Earth! Why do we continue to dis-regard the facts and ignore the implications for the future?
It seems simple, present the facts and the people will insist on changes. History clearly demonstrates, that major changes have resulted when the people have endured enough and significant pressure is applied to the leadership of a country. Major solutions to complex problems inevitably come from the bottom up, not top down, and usually involve confrontation and conflict. I have difficulty understanding why we are comfortable with the status quo when overwhelming evidence tells us our future generations will face devastating results. Our younger citizens appear to be aware and very concerned about issues related to the natural world such as climate change. Is this due to concern for their personal future or academia’s effort to present information on environmental issues? Regardless of the reason, it has focused my interest in the education process for all levels of academic learning.
Efforts to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation for the natural world and the story of creation, has led me to identify three major elements designed into the natural world and the story of creation. These three elements are; NOTHING IS ITSELF WITHOUT ALL THE REST, THE EXTENT OF DIVERSITY IS THE MEASURE OF PERFECTION, and THE CYCLING OF THE FOUR SEASONS DEMONSTRATES THE RESTORATIVE POWER OF THE NATURAL WORLD. The first element tells us that the circle of life depends upon relationships. Everything is connected and requires the other organisms to sustain life. This element defines what is missing in our educational process. Relationships are the foundation which supports all life systems. Education needs to focus on defining the relationships humans share and depend upon with the natural world. Ecology is the study of relationships but, few people major in ecology and then, only at the college level. We need to start at the elementary level with science and environmental studies, introducing students to the connections and relationships we share with other organisms and elements of the natural world. My book, “I’m Just A Tree-Life Depends on Me”, demonstrates how this can be done at the elementary level. High school students should be required to enroll in two or more environmental education classes which introduce each student to ecological relationships between the various life systems on Earth. Science classes must connect the pure scientific facts to the human element so these connections and relationships are fully understood. College and university levels should require science and natural resource students to first develop a sound foundation in ecological principles before specializing in one of the various majors in the scientific world.
Education and an appreciation for the importance of relationships within our Universal, Earth and Human communities is essential if we care about the future! What kind of a future can we expect if our destruction of the natural world continues? When I began my search for a deeper understanding of the concerns I developed during my career, I thought the science of forestry needed to adopt new goals and principles but, I now understand creation and the natural world were developed through the principles of perfection and it is the human element that is interfering with the ability to maintain these perfection principles. The United States is no longer seen as a leader in the education of our youth and changes are necessary, if we want to regain and retain our world leadership position. Our youth must understand and respect the complex workings of our Earth community and it must start with our elementary students. Life systems are completely dependent upon relationships and failure to appreciate and understand these relationships will provide unacceptable consequences for future generations!         
0 Comments

November 12th, 2019

11/12/2019

0 Comments

 
Education of Nature’s Way
 
Do you ever pause to consider the changing society we live in today? I can now look back over my life and see dramatic adjustments in how our lives have changed, both good and bad. The majority of our population has become urbanized and we are rapidly losing our opportunities to observe and connect to the natural world. Urbanization concentrates people in metropolitan areas where the jobs are more prevalent and services more available. It is now common-place for both spouses to pursue careers, complicating family relationships particularly, for children. School children now must face the issues of school security, discipline and drugs. Management of employees now requires different considerations as the mobility of two career families is now limited, if even possible. The reliance on computers and smart phones has reduced the personal interaction between people and the need to learn by observation and experience. Probably, the most critical change has been the concrete jungle of city life that has removed our daily connection to the natural world and our appreciation for the life sustaining relationships we share with this world.
Many of our urban adults can still remember their connection to rural life during their early childhood or visits to their grandparents that might have lived in rural America but, what about today’s children? I talk to young folks that have no idea as to how the local grocery store shelves get stocked and where that food comes from. We talk about what children need in their development such as food, shelter, love, security, etc. but, usually overlook the need to connect with the natural world. My concerns with the science of forestry led me to a deeper understanding of the connections we share and depend upon with the natural world and the desire for a more in-depth knowledge of the story of creation. It is apparent, we are losing our intimate relationship and appreciation for the natural world and life sustaining elements provided only by this world.
A few highly qualified education experts are beginning to recognize the importance of experiencing nature in child development. Research has demonstrated experiencing the natural world aids children in their intellectual, social, physical and emotional development. The professional literature states that nature’s experiences can reduce stress, improve creativity, provide more positive relationships with others and improve concentration. There are indications that spending time in nature reduces symptoms of attention deficit disorder and improves problem solving and observational skills. There is no question that eliminating a child’s opportunity to experience nature will result in major changes in how that person will relate to and value the natural world in adulthood. The responsibility is not just with our educators but, also requires the help of parents. When is the last time your child told you that trees can talk or rocks can feel? The magical wisdom of children is amazing! Today, we know trees can communicate with each other and maybe with humans through bio-rhythm’s, and rocks feel the effects of weather and deteriorate into soils providing life for millions of organisms on our planet. Everything is connected and children growing up without a connection to the natural world can develop fears and prejudices against our natural surroundings. Linking the story of creation and the multitude of relationships within the story, to modern scientific knowledge is essential to future management of our natural world.          
I am truly concerned with the changing life styles of our people and the education of our youth for the future! Environmental education is critical but must transition from a scientific course to an ecological presentation that identifies and creates an appreciation for shared relationships. Our youth need to spend time outside in at NATURE! Our entire Universe functions through relationships that were designed into the creation of this World! The future of humanity depends upon educating our youth to understand and respect the relationships required for continued life on Earth!    
     
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Archives

    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013

Proudly powered by Weebly