For quite some time I have been thinking about the relevance to our Planet’s ecosystems by human beings. Are we, or perhaps I should use the overarching term humankind, a disturbance to the balance in ecosystems or are we able to maintain that balance or even reinstall that balance?
We know that our existence on Planet Earth relies on the services that these ecosystems provide, such as clean water, clean air and food (animals, plants). The ecosystems can only do this when they are healthy - in balance. Unbalanced ecosystems cannot sustain itself and as a consequence cannot deliver the services we rely on.
As far as I know all ecosystems consists of a diversity of living organisms, including supportive materials (dead matter) for some of these organisms to thrive, like stones to which organisms can attach. When speaking of organisms a full range of the Tree of Life is meant, from micro-organisms to apex predators like tigers. But does it include us, human beings. How and what do we contribute to the ecosystems that exist. Straightforward reasoning leads to the conclusion that nature conservation is part of our contribution. Although regarded as a positive impulse for ecosystems – I assume – it is not necessarily a balanced one, because nature conservation relies on availability of resources that are not stable. They come and go, so, it has its ups-and-downs.
Another contribution has had long-term effects, the industrial revolution. It took place in two runs, the first one mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the early 20th century and included not only Britain, but continental Europe, North America, and Japan as well. It can be regarded as a turning point in history, because it increased welfare standards and global population size. More mouths to feed while these mouths expect meat as the protein provider (that’s welfare isn’t it?), led to more land-use for animal husbandry (the animals themselves and their fodder crops). This also took place in biodiverse ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest. So healthy ecosystems were sacrificed on the one hand, while the livestock produced large quantities of greenhouse gases, mainly methane, on the other hand. When added to the greenhouse gas emission acceleration due to the industrial revolution a big burden was placed upon Planet Earth. This may have been the first trigger for the human-induced climate change reported in the recent years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Thus, Yes, humankind is a disturbance to the balance in ecosystems, as if man declared war upon Nature. And, No, we are not able to maintain the balance of well-functioning ecosystems. As a matter of fact, our ambition overreached itself. This is reflected in the fact that Earth overshoot day is earlier and earlier.
Over the decades, the ecological and carbon footprint of humans has gradually increased, all while Earth's biocapacity, i.e. its ability to regenerate resources has diminished significantly. That has led to Earth Overshoot Day arriving earlier and earlier, moving from as late as December 30 in 1970.
Yes, I know I oversimplified things a little but in my opinion the above proves that our development (progress) as a species has been the tipping point for throwing many ecosystems out of their essential balance.
Therefore, when humankind is taken out of the equation it would be a relief for Planet Earth’s ecosystems. We have been a burden to the Planet since the mid-18th century, and our unjustified demand as a species for enormous welfare (‘have it all’) prevent us from repairing what we broke.
So, I think that balanced ecosystems are worth dying for.
