Advertisement

Human Ecology, Material Consumption, and the Sea: Indices of Human Ecological Dysfunction

  • William E. Rees
Chapter
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

This paper recognizes declines in fisheries and the biodiversity of the world’s oceans as symptomatic of human ecological dysfunction. The ultimate cause of the problem are the dominant values of modern society combined with basic facts of human ecology that are little-appreciated by either policy makers or the public. Humans are big social mammals with correspondingly large natural metabolic energy and material demands. This alone is sufficient to qualify humans as a “patch disturbance” species. With technological “advances” and rising incomes, average per capita resource use has greatly increased in modern times. This, together with continuing population growth, has vastly increased global gross consumption. As a result, humans are now the major macro-consumer in all the Earth’s major ecosystem types, including the oceans. Indeed, trophic analysis shows that humanity’s appropriations of biomass from the seas exceeds that of any other macro-consumer organism feeding at the same average trophic level in the marine food web. In effect, in terms of energy and material flows, modern energy-subsidized harvesting technologies have enabled humans to become the dominant marine mammal. Depleted fish stocks and evidence that commercial fleets are “fishing down” the marine food web to maintain total catch, show that this dominance is already systemically dysfunctional. With the continuing expansion of human numbers, rising material expectations, and increasing gross world product, human appropriations from marine ecosystems can be expected to increase for the foreseeable future. Without a dramatic change in the prevailing values and behaviour of an increasingly westernized global industrial society, the further expansion of the human “ecological footprint” on the world’s ecosystems bodes ill for marine biodiversity conservation and ecosystems integrity.

Keywords

Ecological Footprint Natural Capital Killer Whale Coral Bleaching Kelp Forest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bioscience 8, (1988).Google Scholar
  2. Daly, H. 1992. Steady-state economics: Concepts, questions, policies. Gaia 6: 333–338.Google Scholar
  3. Diamond, J. 1992. The Third Chimpanzee. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Diamond, J. 1998. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  5. Estes, J.A. 1989. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science, 16 October, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. Flannery, T.F. 1994. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and Peoples. Chatsworth, NSW: Reed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Folke, C, A. Jansson, J. Larsson, and R. Costanza. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26: 167–172.Google Scholar
  8. Haberl, H. 1997. Human appropriation of net primary production as an environmental indicator: Implications for sustainable development. Ambio 26: 143–146Google Scholar
  9. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, A. 1987. From fragmentation to wholeness: A Green approach to science and society (Part 1), The Ecologist 17(6), 236–240.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, A. 1988. From fragmentation to wholeness: A Green approach to science and society (Part 2), The Ecologist 18(1), 30–34.Google Scholar
  12. Kaufman, R. 1995. The economic multiplier of environmental life support: Can capital substitute for a degraded environment? Ecological Economics 12:67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kleinman, P.J.A., R.B. Bryant, and D. Pimentel. 1996. Assessing ecological sustainability of slash-and-burn agriculture through soil fertility indicators. Agron. J. 88: 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleinman, P. J.A., D. Pimentel, and R.B. Bryant. 1995. The ecological sustainability of slash-and-burn Agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 52: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Logan, J. 1996. Patch disturbance and the human niche. Manuscript at <http://csf.Colorado.EDU/ authors/hanson/page78.htm>. (also, pers. comm. 1997. E-mail exchanges with the author on patch disturbance).Google Scholar
  16. McGinn, A. P. 1999. Safeguarding the Health of the Oceans. Worldwatch Paper 145. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Naiman, R. J. 1988. Animal influences on ecosystem dynamics. Bioscience 38: 750–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ophuls, W. and A. Stephen Boyan, jr. 1992. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited: The Unraveling of the American Dream. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  19. Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374: 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pimm, S.L., G.J. Russell, J.L. Gittleman, and T.M. Brooks. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 296: 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ponting, C.1991. A Green History of the World. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.Google Scholar
  23. Rees, WE. 1990. The ecology of sustainable development. The Ecologist 20: 18–23.Google Scholar
  24. Rees, W.E. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rees, W.E. 1994. Pressing global limits: Trade as the appropriation of carrying capacity. Chapter Three in: Growth, Trade And Environmental Values. (T. Schrecker and J. Dalgleish, eds.) London, Ontario: Westminster Institute for Ethics and Human Values.Google Scholar
  26. Rees, W.E. 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: Area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment 17: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rees, W.E. 1997. Is “sustainable city” an oxymoron? Local Environment 2: 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rees, W.E. 1999. Consuming the earth: The biophysics of sustainability. Ecological Economics 29: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rees, W.E. 2001. Patch Disturbance, Eco-Footprints, and Biological Integrity: Revisiting the Limits to Growth (or why industrial society is inherently unsustainable). Chapter in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health (D. Pimentel, L. Westra, and R. Noss, eds.) Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rees, W.E. and M. Wackernagel. 1994. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. Chapter 21 in Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability (A-M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds.) Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rees, W.E. and M. Wackernagel. 1996. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 16:223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tuxill, J. 1998. Losing Strands in the web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Worldwatch Paper 141. Washington, DC: The Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Tyedmers, P. 2000. Salmon and Sustainability: The biophysical cost of producing salmon through the commercial salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  34. UN. 1995. World Urbanization Prospects: The 1994 Revision. New York: The United Nations.Google Scholar
  35. UNDP. 1998. Urban Transition in Developing Countries. New York: United Nations Development Program, The United Nations.Google Scholar
  36. Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A., and Matson, P. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36:368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wackernagel, M. and W.E. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC and Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Wackernagel, M., L. Onisto, A.C. Linares, I.S.L. Falfán, J.M. Garcia, A.I.S. Guerrero, and M.G.S. Guerrero. 1997. Ecological Footprints of Nations. Report to the Earth Council, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  39. Wackernagel, M., L. Onisto, P. Bello, A.C. Linares, I.S.L. Falfán, J.M. Garcia, A.I.S. Guerrero, and M.G.S. Guerrero. 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29:375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wada, Y. 1999. The Myth of Sustainable Development: The Ecological Footprint of the Japanese Economy. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  41. Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology, December 1998.Google Scholar
  42. Weber, P. 1993. Abandoned Seas: Reversing the Decline of the Oceans. Worldwatch Paper 116. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Weber, P. 1994. Net Loss: Fish, Jobs, and the Marine Environment. Worldwatch Paper 120. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  44. WRI. 2000. The Weight of Nations. Washington: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  45. WWF. 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Rees
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations