16 February 2006

Extermination: The Civilized Exception

by Benjamin Shender

No life evolves in a vacuum. Every animal, plant, fungi, and microbe in existence evolved with other animals, plants, fungus, and microbes around. It would seem likely that animals would evolve methods of interacting with other members of the community of life. Not simply in predator/prey relationships, but also in relationships between species that do not eat one another.

The details of these interactions vary as much as one would tend to think. However, the broad nature of these interactions is surprisingly specific. Any life form can and will compete with other member’s of the same species to the best of their ability. However, no species will use it’s energy to exterminate cross-species competition.

In a given ecosystem an particular species might be eaten by any number of other species, each of which eats other things and are, in turn, eaten themselves. We can see it as such: species A eats food a, b, c, and d. While species B eats food c, d, e, f, g, and t. Obviously species A and B compete for foods c and d. But species A does not attempt to exterminate species B in order to secure those foods. The reason is simple enough: it’s not worth it.

If species A were to attempt to exterminate species B, this requires that they go out of their way to kill as many members of species B as possible. Which requires energy, in the form of food, that cannot be used for mating or for gathering more food. All in the interest of gaining a greater security for only half of species A’s food sources. And all of this is ignoring species C that eats foods c, q, r, and t. So species A’s work also benefits species C.

But this doesn’t really get to the crux of the matter. Any behavior introduced to a species that doesn’t learn behavior (most likely this includes any non- mammalian or avian species) must have that behavior introduced through genetic variation. In essence, a given member of species A would have to have a compulsion to kill all members of species B, and this would have to give that member a significant enough advantage to their survival or reproductive capabilities in order for this behavior to become species wide.

This behavior does not gain any such advantage to an individual. That individual is using an excess of energy that would otherwise be spent on procreation risking it’s life killing members of species B. While at the same time any success that individual does have will give the same advantage to all members of species A, regardless of their participation. So any such individual with such a gene would leave themselves eliminated from the gene pool very quickly.

This leaves us with the question “why do civilized humans do this?” If it’s truly suicidal, then why? The answer as to why humans are not dead yet is perhaps simply stated as “wait.” As for why humans are doing it at all is simple enough: it’s coupled with agriculture. Every other species couples this with a form of foraging. Civilization couples it with agriculture, which can create a significant excess of energy input. This allows civilization to waste so much energy one purposeful extermination. And when one remembers that agriculture is subject to diminishing returns, we can realize that not only does agriculture allow for civilization to practice extermination, but in fact requires it. After all, any loss of crop can be devastating to a system so precariously balanced. If a significant amount of the crop was eaten by other species then the farming society might fall victim of famine. So farmers have no choice but to practice extermination as a way of life. This does not make such a way of life sustainable, it only makes it required for farming. The reason why this way of life is still unsustainable is very adequately addressed here and here.

Categories: Articles

Tags: , , , ,

Tags


Comments

  1. Thoroughly explored, deftly explained.

    Once again, excellent.

    - Chuck

    Comment by Chuck — 16 February 2006 @ 1:18 PM

  2. I have seen some debate in the many articles here, does farming include permaculture biointensive ‘farming’ techniques under its large umbrella?

    I had a great uncle who was a hermit in Kane, Pa & he survived for decades through biointensive ‘farming’, hunting etc. He did this without running water, or oil products for fertilizer etc. His example is why I sometimes wonder why it is not deemed possible to do such a thing? Or is farming, more based upon the modern day version of it?

    Comment by bubba — 16 February 2006 @ 3:09 PM

  3. In this case I’m very specifically refering to agriculture. I’m not absolutely positive yet I believe that permacultural techniques would not apply.

    Thanks, Chuck.

    Comment by Benjamin Shender — 16 February 2006 @ 5:12 PM

  4. does farming include permaculture biointensive ‘farming’ techniques under its large umbrella?

    No. Permaculture is a kind of horticulture, or, colloquially, “gardening.”

    His example is why I sometimes wonder why it is not deemed possible to do such a thing?

    It works wonderfully for individuals, but it doesn’t scale.

    Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 February 2006 @ 5:43 PM

  5. It works wonderfully for individuals, but it doesn’t scale.

    So then everyone could do it in their own garden (for who has one..) and a big population could survive.

    Comment by gunnix — 16 February 2006 @ 6:31 PM

  6. Except that the numbers being quoted all come from a specific kind of place, ecologically. Most of the world doesn’t fit into that category, and so we’re back to where we started. The end result is that permaculture helps increase the yield a piece of land to an extect approximately equal to the yield 10,000 years ago, and we can then forage in it to our heart’s content. When you add in desertification it sounds like such a thing would result in a population lower than we had during the upper paleolithic. But I could be wrong.

    Comment by Benjamin Shender — 16 February 2006 @ 6:47 PM

  7. “Greening the deserts” from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm :

    Robert: How have you applied your method to the deserts?

    Masanobu: Chemical agriculture can’t change the desert. Even if they have a tractor and a big irrigation system, they are not able to do it. I came to the realization that to make the desert green requires natural farming. The method is very simple. You just need to sow seeds in the desert. Here is a picture of experimentation in Ethiopia. This area was beautiful 90 years ago, and now it looks like the desert in Colorado. I gave seeds for 100 varieties of plants to people in Ethiopia and Somalia. Children planted seeds, and watered them for three days. Because of high temperature and not having water, the root goes down quickly. Now the large Daikon radishes are growing there. People think there isn’t any water in the desert, but even in Somalia and Ethiopia, they have a big river. It is not that they do not have water; the water just stays underneath the earth. They find the water under 6 to 12 feet.

    Diane: Do you just use water to germinate the seeds, and then the plants are on their own?

    Masanobu: They still need water, like after ten days and after a month, but you should not water too much, so that the root grows deep. People have home gardens in Somalia these days.

    The project started with the help of UNESCO with a large amount of money, but there are only a couple of people doing the experiment right now. These young people from Tokyo don’t know much about farming. I think it is better to send seeds to people in Somalia and Ethiopia, rather than sending milk and flour, but there isn’t any way to send them. People in Ethiopia and Somalia can sow seeds, even children can do that. But the African governments, the United States, Italy, France, they don’t send seeds, they only send immediate food and clothing. The African government is discouraging home gardens and small farming. During the last 100 years, garden seed has become scarce.

    Diane: Why do these governments do this?

    Masanobu: The African governments and the United States government want people to grow coffee, tea, cotton, peanuts, sugar - only five or six varieties to export and make money. Vegetables are just food, they don’t bring in any money. They say they will provide corn and grain, so people don’t have to grow their own vegetables.

    One thing the people of the United States can do instead of going to outer space is to sow seeds from the space shuttle into the deserts. There are many seed companies related to multi-national corporations. They could sow seeds from airplanes.

    Diane: If seeds were thrown out like that, would the rains be enough to germinate them?

    Masanobu: No, that is not enough, so I would sow coated seeds so they wouldn’t dry out or get eaten by animals. There are probably different ways to coat the seeds. You can use soil, but you have to make that stick, or you can use calcium.

    My farm has everything: fruit trees, vegetables, acacia. Like my fields, you need to mix everything and sow at the same time. I took about 100 varieties of grafted trees there, two of each, and almost all of them, about 80%, are growing there now. The reason I am saying to use an airplane is because, if you are just testing you use only a small area. But we need to make a large area green quickly. It needs to be done at once! You have to mix vegetables and trees; that’s the fastest way for success.

    Another reason I am saying you have to use airplanes is that you have to grow them fast, because if there is 3% less green area around the world, the whole earth is going to die. Because of lack of oxygen, people won’t feel happy. You feel happy in the spring because of the oxygen from the plants. We breathe out carbon dioxide and breathe in oxygen, and the plants do the opposite. Human beings and plants not only have a relationship in eating, but also share air. Therefore, the lack of oxygen in Somalia is not only a problem there, it is also a problem here. Because of the rapid depletion of the land in those parts of Africa, everyone will feel this happening. It is happening very quickly. There is no time to wait. We have to do something now.

    People in Ethiopia are happy with wind and light, fire and water. Why do people need more? Our task is to practice farming the way God does. That could be the way to start saving this world.

    Fukuoka claims regreening the deserts could be done quite succesfully with what he calls natural farming.
    He suggests regreening the desert with seedballs (clay, humus, mixed seeds) from airplanes.
    What is it that Fukuoka missed? For example, there might not even be enough seeds, or clay, etc.

    Comment by gunnix — 16 February 2006 @ 8:08 PM

  8. Within the diminishing returns context, wouldn’t a farming community also reject their own species?

    At least this is my idea and will want to be far away from areas with only agriculture as a backdrop.

    Comment by Rick Larson — 16 February 2006 @ 9:17 PM

  9. If you are referring to cannibalism, yes, we are expecting a sizable amount of gristly cannibalism.

    Comment by Benjamin Shender — 16 February 2006 @ 9:35 PM

  10. So then everyone could do it in their own garden (for who has one..) and a big population could survive.

    No, that’s what it means to “not scale”–it stops working if everyone does it.

    “Greening the deserts” from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm

    Rather than go through all this again, just check over in this thread, where we previously discussed that link. Also see this thread specifically on how permaculture scales.

    Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 February 2006 @ 9:57 PM

  11. Consider this; while re-greening the desert wouldn’t save civilization, it would certainly make it easier on those of us Left Behind (hehe… making a bad joke on Armageddon now).

    Are there any deserts in the Appalachian Confederation you could test it on?

    Best

    Bill Maxwell

    Comment by Bill Maxwell — 16 February 2006 @ 10:28 PM

  12. Hey, I have joined the Anthropik but must have entered a wrong digit when typing my e-mail as haven’t received my instructions for logging in (my virtually indestructable keyboard sometimes misses a punch)(or maybe it’s my finger)(or brain)(:-).

    Since I can’t private message anyone, am using this method.

    Please delete this! And help me become a member, please!

    Comment by Rick Larson — 16 February 2006 @ 11:06 PM

  13. As a way for individuals or groups to get a leg up, permaculture is great.

    As a global scale silver bullet to save civilization and allow a population of billions of humans … less so.

    Rick–email me at jason@anthropik.com, let me know where exactly you registered, and we’ll sort out what all happened here.

    Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 February 2006 @ 12:54 AM

  14. Ah ok, I thought “doesn’t scale” meant that it doesn’t work with big farms and machines. I’m sorry if I’m bothering you with Fukuoka many times but that’s because I haven’t been able to really understand why it wouldn’t work (even after reading almost everything here — I guess I need a good short sum up?). I guess I have to see it in the perspective from foraging to understand why it’s not such a good option. So here I list the downsides of natural farming (just to make myself clear):

    -As natural farmer you are more safe from disasters like pests, drought, other humans fucking your land up .. then a modern farmer but less then a forager. The extermination of others who destroy your food (land) counts for natural farmers as well.

    -A human is not able to understand the whole ecosystem or to keep an eye on every detail (and every detail is important) all the time so a bigger influence on the surroundings generally doesn’t mean a good thing. While natural farming has less influence on it’s surroundings then modern farming it has more influence then foraging.

    -Nature is capable of “rebuilding” itself and doesn’t need the help of a well meaning human who could do more harm then good easily. Yet it seems that with natural farming it could be possible to rebuild destroyed lands quicker (even deserts). But I guess I have to drop this idea as a theortical one and look in history at some real examples to see how good humans are in rebuilding nature.. Although it seems possible in small scale with controlled conditions.

    -Not all land is good for natural farming.

    Right, I guess I’ve made it myself a bit more clear. Did I miss any big points?

    Comment by gunnix — 17 February 2006 @ 7:29 AM

  15. - Automated harvesters and any other kind of economy of scale is right out. They only work on large, monocropped fields. So, the marginal return curve is much tighter. At lower calorie requirements, it’s extremely efficient–indeed, the most efficient subsistence strategy we’ve ever used, as Marvin Harris pointed out. But, to match our current caloric needs, we’d need far more caloric input–making our current “10-to-1″ needs enviable by comparison.

    Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 February 2006 @ 8:25 AM

  16. My former great Uncle, who lived a permaculture/hunting existence probably could not have supported more than 1 other person. Also, he still made use of some modern day equipment such as guns, although he mostly trapped & had a thick permagarden. He lived to 101, before he died from an infection. But his example and visiting him as a young child definitely had an impact on me. Primarily, that people could be very different, have no TV, water etc. amidst ‘modern day civilization’ and be quite content, perhaps more so. In addition that there was a lot of knowledge out there, that no one was teaching me in school.

    “the future belongs to those who prepare for it.” Emerson

    Comment by bubba — 17 February 2006 @ 10:05 AM

  17. -not every location will have equal output no matter the techniques used. a place with low rainfall will not grow as much as a rainforest. Taking this into account, eve ignoring the rest of it, if everyone had their garden, times the average output of all land times seven billion…well, we’re talking about more land than we really have. A pragmatist must first start with what we have, and work from there.

    Comment by Benjamin Shender — 17 February 2006 @ 12:52 PM

  18. The problem I have with permaculture isn’t just people applying the numbers from one area over the entire world - I consider that to be wishful thinking or just plain stupidity.

    What concerns me is when people admit, “Okay, so a desert under permaculture can’t support as many people per unit of space as a Pacific Northwest temperate rainforest under permaculture would be able to. That just means that we’ll put MORE desert under permaculture.”

    Even though a big part of permaculture is supposed to be decreasing the land that humans use, the unspoken assumption of the vast majority of the Permaculture movement (most of whom are still mentally civilized) is that eventually the entire Earth will be surfaced with one big permaculture garden. Inevitably, in this garden, nothing would be allowed to live except life forms that directly benefit humans, or life forms that benefit the human’s benefactors. Humanity would control this world and be its “stewards”.

    Hmm… nothing allowed to live but the food of humans or the food of that food - humans controlling the entire planet - humans reproducing all over the place without constraint or care… It’s civilization, just sustainable. It’s a benevolent dicatatorship instead of tyranny. It’s five times as subtle and fifty times worse.

    - Chuck

    Comment by Chuck — 17 February 2006 @ 1:07 PM

  19. Chuck,

    “Even though a big part of permaculture is supposed to be decreasing the land that humans use, the unspoken assumption of the vast majority of the Permaculture movement (most of whom are still mentally civilized) is that eventually the entire Earth will be surfaced with one big permaculture garden. Inevitably, in this garden, nothing would be allowed to live except life forms that directly benefit humans, or life forms that benefit the human’s benefactors. Humanity would control this world and be its “stewards”.

    Hmm… nothing allowed to live but the food of humans or the food of that food - humans controlling the entire planet - humans reproducing all over the place without constraint or care… It’s civilization, just sustainable. It’s a benevolent dicatatorship instead of tyranny. It’s five times as subtle and fifty times worse.”

    I agree with everything you say here, except the “unspoken assumption” bit. Bill Mollison says that population reduction is imperative in the permaculture vision of the world. The concept of the Zone 5 is all about leaving space for wilderness. The permculture vision, as described by Bill Mollison is not a vision of a world dominated by humans - don’t make that mistake. Permaculturalists, if they assume anything, assume that things will turn out as Bill Mollison plans.

    However, the way things end up rarely end up the way we imagine them. This is why, like everybody else, Permaculturalists should read more anthropology.

    Comment by Clive — 17 February 2006 @ 1:45 PM

  20. …or are you saying that Permaculturalists quite consciously pay lip service to wilderness protection and population reduction, but deep down they know that it will not turn out like that? Perhaps you’re right.

    Comment by Clive — 17 February 2006 @ 3:20 PM

  21. Hmm… nothing allowed to live but the food of humans or the food of that food - humans controlling the entire planet - humans reproducing all over the place without constraint or care… It’s civilization, just sustainable. It’s a benevolent dicatatorship instead of tyranny. It’s five times as subtle and fifty times worse.

    Well said, Chuck.
    - Devin

    Comment by Devin — 17 February 2006 @ 3:57 PM

  22. “So, you want to save the resources for the spleen cells? You think spleen cells are better than cancer cells? Other cells wouldn’t have any value without cancer cells around to appreciate them. Cancer cells are the pinnacle of evolution. We’re special because we can think. We’re more successful because we’re smarter.” :o) I love that video in the vault.

    “Sometimes, I think all the cells in form an organism and that organism has a soul and it can feel what we’re doing to it!”

    Comment by planetwarming — 18 February 2006 @ 7:23 PM

Close
E-mail It