Even deleting the chestnut blight won’t necessarily bring the chestnut tree back*
Leave a reply
Tag Archives: Human
A new challenge
A few years ago, Sharon Baruch-Mordo posted a provocative challenge. She called it the biodiversity challenge and offered it as an opportunity to write about the importance of your research in the context of biodiversity and conservation. The biodiversity challenge was a tough one. Not many graduate students are given training in science communication, and when we are, it’s usually targeted towards generating concise scientific prose that can be published in peer-reviewed journals. But the challenge is an important one. If we want to disseminate our knowledge, we have to be able to communicate it effectively. Well, you rose up to the challenge, and we were amazed by the quality and breadth of the results.
Today, BioDiverse Perspectives is emerging from a months-long torpor to issue a new challenge. We still want you to tell us what makes your research topic relevant. But we want you to evaluate the importance of your research from a different angle. What would happen if the thing you study were to disappear off of the face of the earth tomorrow? How would the world change if your research topic simply ceased to exist?
Tomorrow, your favorite focal biological unit of research (molecule, gene, organelle, organ, organism, ecosystem, general law of nature) will be deleted from the face of the earth. What are the implications?
We took the challenge. Next week we’ll be posting our results, and we challenge you to join in, too. You can upload your posts here. We will publish them all, in full, as we receive them, unedited, in all their glory.
May 9, 2016
Degrading Forests and Extinction Debts
When I ask my introductory biology or ecology students what they think the biggest threat to Earth’s biodiversity is, climate change or pollution typically get the most votes. Perhaps the (much warranted) public attention and debate on these issues leads students to focus on these particular problems, but in fact, habitat loss and degradation have the largest impact on biodiversity. Further, many of the other major threats to biodiversity (e.g., climate change, pollution, etc.) can be directly or indirectly linked to habitat loss.
It is easy to connect complete habitat loss to loss of biodiversity – if a forest is cleared of trees, the diversity and abundance of associated flora and fauna will likely be reduced. But what about fragmented habitat? How does the size and shape of patches of forest or grassland influence remnant communities and ecosystems? The theory of island biogeography gives us hypotheses of how fragment size and isolation might influence populations and diversity. However, habitat fragments are embedded in an anthropogenically-influenced landscape and just how much that landscape influences the structure and function of the remaining habitat is an important question for conservation.
Nick Haddad and colleagues recently reported on the state of the world’s fragmented habitats; including a meta-analysis of long-term experiments specifically designed to test how area, isolation, and edge (distance to perimeter) of fragments effect the remaining communities and ecosystems. High-resolution satellite data revealed that 20% of the world’s forests were within 100 meters of a forest edge and 70% were within 1 kilometer, meaning most forests today are in close proximity of human activity.
A series of long-term (20+ years) habitat fragmentation experiments (see below), spanning multiple continents and biomes, have provided a data set of 76 studies testing how this proximity to human activity influences ecosystems. Specifically, this synthesis enabled Haddad et al. to test the effects of reduced habitat area, increased isolation, and increased habitat edge on a variety of community and ecosystem variables. Not surprisingly, all three treatment variables had negative effects on processes such as organismal abundance, species richness, pollination, nutrient retention, etc. and reduced habitat area and increased isolation appear to have the strongest effects.
Most striking however, was the accumulated long-term consequences of habitat fragmentation. By comparing changes in species richness, immigration, and ecosystem functions (e.g., biomass, total organic carbon, etc.) over time, a delayed effect of fragmentation appeared. That is, the proportional (negative) change in community structure and function increased over time. The negative effects of habitat fragmentation are not necessarily seen immediately after deforestation, and those effects may get worse over time – extinction and ecosystem function debts yet to be realized.
Large, expanses of forest still exist in South America, Africa, and boreal regions. Given that biodiversity loss itself can have strong detrimental effects on ecosystems, that climate change will likely exacerbate effects of fragmentation, and our economic incentives for protecting habitat, the analysis by Haddad et al. present a strong argument for maintaining these large stretches of uninterrupted forest.
Long-term experiments included the meta-analysis:
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments (Brazil, in Portuguese)
Kansas Fragmentation Experiment (USA)
Wog Wog Fragmentation Experiment (Australia)
SRS Corridor Experiment (USA)
Moss Fragmentation (UK, Canada)
Newly established experiments:
Metatron (France)
S.A.F.E. Project (Borneo)
April 1, 2015
Big stink! 24,500-pig factory farm defeated Updated for 2026
The Environment Agency has turned down a permit application by Midland Pig Producers for a 24,500 pig ‘mega-farm’ because the operation would risk human health and the rights of residents to breathe clean air free of heavy agricultural odours.
According to the Agency, “The reason for refusal is that based on the information that has been provided to us we cannot be satisfied that the activities can be undertaken without resulting in significant pollution of the environment due to odour which will result in offence to human senses and impair amenity and/or legitimate uses of the environment.”
“We do not have confidence in the Applicant’s control measures to prevent an unacceptable risk of odour pollution beyond the installation boundary”, the decision notice continued. “We cannot give the Applicant any comfort that in this location any proposals would reduce the risk of odour pollution to an acceptable level.”
On health impacts, the Agency stated that “we cannot yet conclude that the risks from bioaerosols emitted from site are low”, and “we cannot yet conclude that the risks from ammonia emissions on human health from site are not significant.” It also found that the plans to dispose of excess water were “unclear” and could pose a risk to a local stream, Dale Brook.
Residents welcome decision
The proposed unit at Foston, Derbyshire, has been the subject of fierce opposition in a four-year-long fight that saw celebrities – including actor Dominic West and River Cottage chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall – stand up against the proposed farm due to its monstrous scale.
The Ministry of Justice, which runs the women’s prison at Foston less than 150 metres from the proposed site, also sent in a list of objections.
Jim Davies, leader of the Foston Community Action Group, said local residents, who had been almost unanimous in opposing the plan, were hugely relieved: “After four years of public consultation the facts are now clear; the applicants provided insufficient information and should now abandon this flawed scheme forever.”
Sue Weston, whose house is next door to the proposed site, said she was “over the moon” at the decision. “This industrial development would totally ruin the small village community of Foston and put innocent families in danger from the unknown consequences of an experimental pig prison.”
But the story may not be over yet. A spokesperson for Midland Pig Producers told the BBC: “While not wishing to second-guess any decision by any other body, it seems inevitable that this outcome will provide others with the reason to refuse any application connected with our plans. However, now that we have an actual decision, we can move forward. This is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of the second stage.”
The wider problem
There is mounting public anxiety that industrial, intensive pig rearing systems cause stress and illness in animals and threaten human health. The regular over-use of anitbiotics in such ‘factory’ farm systems is producing antibiotic-resistant superbugs. The farms also pollute the air and water.
“These factory systems are cruel to pigs”, said Tracy Worcester, Director of Farms Not Factories, which campaigns for consumers to buy their pork from real farms. “They are also a threat to traditional family farmers who, though costing less in terms of human health and environmental pollution, incur more expense when rearing their pigs humanely and therefore cannot compete economically with cheap, low-welfare pork.”
“Consumers need to look for UK high welfare labels like Freedom Food and Organic”, she added. “To cover the extra cost we can buy less popular cuts, shop online or at a local farmers’ market. We urge consumers to take our Pig Pledge and pay a fair price for high welfare pork to avoid animal factories such as Foston.”
Responding to the company’s statement about moving to “the second stage”, Worcester insisted: “It’s time for Midland Pig Producers to withdraw their planning application and give local people back their peace of mind.”
Not a moment too soon!
Her view is heartily endorsed by the Soil Association, which in 2010 received legal threats from the company insisting that it withdraw its formal complaints to the planning authority about the proposed farm.
Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said: “This is a great victory for the local residents, who remained resolute in their determination to defeat this proposal, which posed a serious health risk to the village of Foston and the nearby Foston Women’s Prison.
“What is most significant is the signal this sends to the British farming industry about the future of livestock farming in this country. We are not, as is often claimed, on a relentless and unstoppable drive to have bigger and more intensive livestock systems.
“The Soil Association’s Not in My Banger campaign, launched nearly five years ago to oppose the Foston pig farm, calls for all pigs to have the right to live part of their lives in the open air, not to be subject to mutilation and for sows to be able to make a nest in which to give birth. The Environment Agency’s decision vindicates the Soil Association’s long campaign.
“We are confident that the planning application can now be swiftly dismissed by Derbyshire County Council, bringing an end to this unhappy saga.”
Action: Buy only high welfare pork (or go meat-free). Look for supermarket labels ‘Freedom Food’, ‘outdoor bred’, ‘free range’ or ‘organic’. Sign the Pig Pledge and get your local high welfare producers to sign up to our High Welfare Directory.
Why Conservation? Communicating Applied Biodiversity Science Updated for 2026
Applied Biodiversity Science Program – Texas A&M University
You might have a favorite science writer. Mine are David Quammen, Bill Bryson, Carl Sagan, and Tim Flannery. Others may be more inclined to read Pulitzer Prize-winning and nominated authors like Jonathan Weiner, Siddhartha Mukherjee, or James Gleick, MacArthur-fellow Atul Gawande, or consummate greats like E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, and Oliver Sacks. Or perhaps books aren’t all you’re interested in. In that case you may be a fan of Carl Zimmer’s blogging or the stories and editorials from journalists/authors Malcolm Gladwell or Stephen J. Dubner.
It’s likely you’ve read at least one of these authors. Like most readers you were probably impressed by how well they articulated the complexities and subtleties of their topic: everything from astrophysics to evolution, cancer, neurology, chaos theory, economics, and psychology. If you find an author who draws you into a topic that wouldn’t otherwise gain your attention, particularly an unfamiliar scientific discipline, take notice. Take stock of what they have accomplished by gaining your interest and curiosity. As George Gopen and Judith Swan stated in their 1990 for American Scientific, “the fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication.” Good communication requires gaining the reader’s attention. Attention requires garnering interest and curiosity.
In our ever-connected world with vast communication and social networking ability, we have the ability to do just that. We possess the tools to communicate science to a diversity of people in a diversity of ways.
As a member of the Applied Biodiversity Science Program (ABS) at Texas A&M University I find myself in a position where communicating science is an imperative for success. The ABS program is graduate program originally funded by the National Science Foundation as part of their Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program. The principle mission of ABS at Texas A&M is to achieve integration between biodiversity research in the social and natural sciences with on-the-ground conservation practices and stakeholders.
To that end, a foundational component of ABS is to communicate across scientific disciplines with various institutional actors to facilitate broader impacts across the realm of conservation. In essence, the ABS Program seeks to produce applied scientists who can communicate effectively across disciplines. A natural corollary of this goal is the ability to communicate science outside the realm of science. In this respect, our ABS Perspectives Series is intended to communicate more broadly and inclusively who applied biodiversity conservationists are, what we study, where we conduct research, how we conduct research, and why we are doing it. The current issue of the ABS Perspectives Series, features experiences from the Caribbean, the United States, Sénégal, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Contributions cover topics ranging from captive parrot re-wilding with pirates to blogging in the Nicaraguan forest with limited Internet access.
Perhaps more importantly, the ABS Perspective Series wants to reach out and share ABS student and faculty experiences with a diverse readership to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation issues. Outreach is an important axiom of actionable science, especially outreach that informs, improves and influences management and policy. I consider both the ABS Perspectives Series and BioDiverse Perspectives outreach initiatives to communicate the biodiversity conservation mission to the general public, communities where our research has been conducted, fellow academics and practitioners, and institutions that can provide logistics, infrastructure, and support. We must intend to make and practice making our research accessible and intriguing to everyone.
November 18, 2014
Fracking is driving UK civil and political rights violations Updated for 2026
The UK is faced with extreme energy development that will utilise all three ‘fracking’ technologies: Shale Gas/Oil, Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG).
Currently exploration licences cover a relatively small area of land, but roughly a third of the British Isles is being offered to fracking companies as part of the 14th onshore licensing round.
A new report released today by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation highlights a number of potential human rights impacts for UK citizens should fracking development proceed beyond the exploratory stage.
The human rights implications of extractive activity are being increasingly discussed on the international stage, as concerned citizens demand global leaders take action to modify the excesses of human consumption and consumerism.
The report’s concluding section alludes to issues beyond its scope which we elaborate on here; specifically the violations of civil and political rights that both exploratory and production phases of fracking development will likely entail.
Interviews, online surveys and correspondence with local campaigners have returned a wealth of personal testimony that dispels any suggestion that fracking development’s problems are limited to environmental and human health concerns.
The anti-fracking movement is the fastest growing social movement in the UK with currently over 180 local groups, up from around 30 in 2013. This inconvenient fact poses a problem for a government wanting to go ‘all out for shale’. How has the state reacted so far?
Nationally coordinated suppression?
To date there have been over 400 arrests of peaceful protestors, and data from Balcombe and Barton Moss is suggestive of a nationally coordinated attempt to suppress opposition to shale gas extraction at the expense of domestically and internationally recognised rights.
This campaign has been interpreted by those within the anti-fracking movement as akin to the state response to the 1984-5 Miners’ Strikes through the use of political policing and intimidation of protestors.
Civil and political rights have been primarily infringed by the response of Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police to peaceful protest at exploratory drilling sites, exhibited most commonly through protestors attempting to delay the arrival of equipment by walking in front of delivery lorries.
The resultant interactions between police and protestors have prompted concerns over the prioritisation of fracking development’s alleged ‘economic benefits’ and provision of short-term ‘energy security’ over the rights of individuals and local communities.
The analysis of interview data indicates that through these actions the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, liberty and security of person, a fair trial, and respect for a private and family life, have been threatened or violated through the use of unnecessary or excessive force, unlawful arrests, covert surveillance of protestors, and intimidation of members of the Anti-fracking movement.
Each of these rights is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the UK is legally bound to observe.
Police Violence and arrest quotas
Police interaction with anti-fracking protesters at both Balcombe and Barton Moss involved the use of violence, forcible removal of individuals from the protest site without arrest, and kettling.
Interview respondents described how they were “kicked and pushed and punched”, “pushed and shoved in the back”, “pushed off the road by the police”, and “shoved in the back repeatedly”. Police behavior was described as “brutal”, “violent”, “thuggish”, “rough”, and “very, very aggressive”, resulting in interactions in which a bone got broken.
The use of physical violence was widely reported amongst interview and survey respondents, indicating unlawful police activity at both Balcombe and Barton Moss that directly impacted upon the ability of anti-fracking protestors to realise one of their fundamental civil and political rights.
This violence was accompanied by other forms of unlawful activity to inhibit anti-fracking protest activity at both sites.
References were made in several interviews to the concept of arrest quotas, whereby police would carry out specific numbers of arrests over consecutive days.
At Barton Moss, throughout the autumn and winter of 2013, one interview respondent recalled how “there were five arrests every day”, and that “Officers were heard to say ‘We need one more arrest’.”
The same respondent believed that the use of arrest quotas was “almost certainly planned in advance”, and designed as “a long term plan” which would ensure that “eventually everyone would be arrested”.
More explicitly, the respondent explained how such patterns of arrests effectively worked, as “you’re arrested, you get bailed, next time you get arrested in breach of bail. Over a period of time, such a cycle would decrease the effectiveness of the protest camp’s actions and increase the likelihood of its disbandment.”
Arrests were also described as “clearly random”, “quite random”, and “completely random”, with one respondent expressing the most telling sentiment, that: “there was a risk that at any time you could be arrested”. Such arrests were believed to be used as a way of “undermining people’s morale”.
Spurious arrests
In addition to arrest quotas and arbitrary arrests, allegations were made by an interview respondent of arrests being knowingly made on unlawful charges by Greater Manchester Police.
At Barton Moss, delivery lorries travelled down Barton Moss Lane to reach the IGas drilling site, a designated private road with footpath access for the public. The respondent described how police made arrests on Barton Moss Lane for “the crime of obstructing a public highway”, an entirely unlawful charge given that the road is private and therefore does not constitute a public highway.
Significantly, the respondent described how, at a court hearing of individuals charged with the crime of obstruction of a public highway in November 2013, “a solicitor informed the court that Barton Moss Lane was a private road which has public footpath access”, but Greater Manchester Police “continued to make arrests. under that crime until […] February.”
This meant that, as expressed by the respondent, “for nearly three months they continued to arrest for a crime that wasn’t a crime”.
Many arrests appear to have been made under what were somewhat spurious claims. For example, interview respondents detailed how at both Balcombe and Barton Moss, while escorting delivery lorries to the exploratory drilling sites, protestors were arrested for “obstructing a police officer” if they fell over.
These arrests were justified under the premise that “if you fall down in front of a police officer you are obstructing him from moving down the road”. Such interactions between police and protestors prompted frustrations, but also fears.
Monitoring of Communications
Several interview respondents raised concerns of police surveillance of email accounts, telephones and social media.
Although, as one interview respondent indicated, such activities are “difficult to prove”, other interview respondents were insistent in their belief of surveillance activity, stating that “We knew that they were monitoring our Facebook pages, our emails and our phones”, and “I have no doubt that they were bugging certain people’s phones” and “keeping a close eye on people’s Facebook pages”.
Concerns for some anti-fracking protestors over the security of information were such that one interview respondent described how, when important details about protest action required discussion, the individuals involved would “get together and speak about it rather than using [social] media.”
Seemingly to confirm fears of surveillance, another respondent described how a list of press contacts on an email account were “scrambled”, preventing messages from reaching the majority of the list’s recipients.
The use of covert surveillance has prompted fears of how intelligence gathered by Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police has been shared nationally, with explicit reference made by one interview respondent to the Domestic Extremist Unit.
Another correspondent reported having been visited at home by two members of the Counter Terrorism and Domestic Extremism Unit after filming at a potential drilling site. The visit, according to the two “officers”, was made on the request of a local police force who in turn received their request from the firm’s “security personnel”.
It seems that behind such examples of close cooperation and coordination between ‘fracking’ firms, the state and police forces lies a specific intent to intimidate and deter individuals involved in protest or related activities.
Democratic freedoms eroded
The explicit violations of rights in the context of anti-fracking protests fit within a wider discussion of democracy, and concern the right to public participation, which is protected in matters of environmental impact by the Aarhus Convention.
The increasing opposition to fracking, evidenced in the growing plethora of local campaign groups across the UK, indicates governmental failure to adequately respond to local and national concerns over the human rights implications of fracking or provide sufficient opportunities for public participation in decision making.
Both interview and survey respondents have expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of governmental consideration of public concerns, stating variously that “The government are not listening to people”, “the government refuses to engage and consult with the public”, “The government is ignoring the will of the people”, and “we have never been consulted”.
These comments indicate a deeper concern with the denial of citizen participation in a democratic society, with survey respondents describing how “democracy appears to be disregarded completely”, and that the process of introducing fracking in the UK “is eroding our democracy”.
With specific respect to public opinion, one survey respondent described how, when the application for exploratory drilling was made by Cuadrilla in Balcombe, and the local council requested residents’ opinions, “899 letters against it […], 5 for and they still went for it”.
This example demonstrates a particular disregard for the individuals living in proximity to exploratory sites, and indicates how individuals have become disillusioned with official avenues of complaint.
Fundamental rights are at risk
Not all anti-fracking activity in the UK has been ‘lawful’ as such, and has included the occupation of Cuadrilla’s offices in Blackpool and the blockading of roads to exploratory drilling sites.
Although instances of direct action which technically violate domestic law are not protected by international human rights legislation, these events indicate the extent to which individuals are sufficiently disillusioned with governmental policy to consider and undertake ‘illegal’ action.
Acts of both civil disobedience and peaceful protest will occur with increasing frequency as local communities realise the extent of the extractive industry’s impact.
This indicates the vital nature of further human rights based research into the planning, implementation and infrastructure of fracking development, and the need for genuinely independent human rights impact assessments for all communities before any extractive activity begins in the UK.
The civil and political implications of fracking development in the UK will only intensify as anti-fracking protests proliferate alongside exploratory activity.
The rights violations described above must therefore prompt both public awareness and governmental response to the reality that fracking development can no longer be considered in separation from the civil and political sphere, as personal testimony indicates the extent to which fundamental rights of UK citizens who oppose governmental policy are at risk.
As the report concludes, “for the UK Government to proceed with fracking without adequate assessment of the human rights position would amount to a serious failure of responsibility.”
The report: A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom is launched today.
Also on The Ecologist:
- ‘Fracking – human rights must not be ignored!‘ by Anna Grear
- ‘Fracking – why are human rights being ignored?‘ also by Damien Short.
Jess Elliot is a Research Associate at the Human Rights Consortium, School of Advanced Study, University of London.
Damien Short is a Reader in Human Rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London and Director of the School’s MA programme in Understanding and Securing Human Rights, Human Rights Consortium and Extreme Energy Initiative.
This article is an extended version of one originally published today on The Conversation.
For further information on violations of civil and political rights in the context of anti-fracking protests in the UK, please look out for the forthcoming Short et al, 2014, International Journal of Human Rights, December 2014.
Human consumption driving wildlife loss Updated for 2026
Human pressure has halved the numbers of many of the Earth’s wild creatures in just four decades, the Worldwide Fund for Nature says.
While the main recorded threat to biodiversity comes from habitat loss and degradation, it found, climate change is a growing concern. Both are driven by unsustainable human consumption.
WWF’s Living Planet Report 2014 says that vertebrate wildlife populations have declined by an average of just over half, with freshwater species suffering a 76% decline, almost double the average loss of land and ocean species.
In a foreword the director-general of WWF International, Marco Lambertini, writes: “This latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-hearted.
“One key point that jumps out is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52% since 1970.
“Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half.”
The Report is based on the Index, a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London(ZSL).
Industrial-scale killing
According to WWF, the state of the world’s biodiversity “appears worse than ever.” But it is confident in the robustness of its findings:
“This is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously, as a result of a new methodology which aims to be more representative of global biodiversity.”
The authors calculated the decline by analysing 10,000 different populations of 3,000 vertebrates. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative Living Planet Index, reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates. The consequences, it shows, can be drastic.
Last week conservationists said that elephant poaching was now happening on an unprecedented and “industrialised” scale in Mozambique, after 22 of the animals were killed for their tusks in the first two weeks of September. Numbers of some marine turtles are estimated to have dropped by 80%.
Professor Ken Norris, director of science at the ZSL, said: “The scale of biodiversity loss, and damage to the very ecosystems that are essential to our existence is alarming. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.”
There is wide disagreement about the number of species on Earth. In 2007, when the total was estimated by many scientists at around 1.5 m (it is now thought to be 8.7 m) the number of vertebrate species was put at about 60,000 in the IUCN Red List.
WWF says too that humans are using more resources than the Earth can continue to provide, felling trees more quickly than they can regrow, for example, catching fish faster than they can reproduce, emptying rivers and aquifers – and emitting too much carbon for natural systems to absorb.
Boundaries crossed
The Report devotes a section to the idea of the Ecological Footprint, the sum of the ecological services that people demand which compete for space. For more than 40 years, it says, humanity’s demand on nature has exceeded what the planet can replenish, principally through climate change.
“Carbon from burning fossil fuels has been the dominant component of humanity’s Ecological Footprint for more than half a century, and remains on an upward trend. In 1961, carbon was 36% of our total Footprint; by 2010, it comprised 53%.”
WWF urges respect for “planetary boundaries” beyond which humanity will “enter a danger zone where abrupt negative changes are likely to occur.”
It says “three planetary boundaries appear to have already been transgressed: biodiversity loss, and changes to the climate and nitrogen cycle, with already visible impacts on the well-being of human health and our demands on food, water and energy.”
The Report argues for the diversion of investment away from the causes of environmental problems and towards solutions, and for “ecologically informed” choices about how we manage resources.
Next year world leaders are due to conclude two critical global agreements: the post-2015 development framework, which will include Sustainable Development Goals intended to be met by all countries by 2030; and a UN treaty leading to effective action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The report: Living Planet Report 2014.
Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.
Also on The Ecologist
- ‘To save the world’s wildlife, first we must love it‘ by Hugh Warwick.
- ‘Five ways to stop the world’s wildlife vanishing‘ by Paul Jepson.
Deconstructing Defaunation Updated for 2026
Many species globally are threatened by numerous biotic and abiotic stressors, resulting in declining population and shifts in ecosystem functioning.
Science recently released a special issue on defaunation, which spanned seven articles detailing the recent decline in animal species diversity and abundance. Among others, the issue included two peer-reviewed articles, an opinion piece, and an analysis of national policies tied to global and local conservation strategies. The statistics associated with defaunation are sobering, but the issue presents a few solutions to help us curb this global environmental crisis.
First, a damage assessment. According to Defaunation in the Anthropocene, between 11,000 and 58,000 species go extinct each year. At least 16% of all vertebrate species are endangered or threatened, and there’s been a 28% decline in their abundances since the 1970s. Approximately 40% of invertebrate species are considered threatened, though less than 1% of described invertebrates have been assessed. There is data to suggest that invertebrate species’ abundances are also decreasing, but it’s difficult to put an exact number on that decline since they are not as well monitored as vertebrates. On a global scale, these statistics may be underestimated because our monitoring practices bias our data toward specific taxa. Groups of large and charismatic organisms, like mammals and birds, get most of the attention because they are easier to monitor and more sympathetic than invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. In some systems this is beneficial, where large mammals and birds are the most threatened and contribute significantly greater function to an ecosystem than smaller organisms. However the opposite can be true in other instances, so it is critical that we prioritize greater sampling of underrepresented groups.
Additionally, there is concern that such measures of declines in species and abundance may not reflect the true extent of our ecological troubles. Shifts in ecosystem compositions may not be reflected in a given measurement of biodiversity, yet are nonetheless indicative of environmental change. The primary goal behind many conservation strategies has been to restore a species or population to a certain number. While population viability is critical for any species, the authors argue that ecosystem functionality is a useful yet underutilized goal for conservationists. With this goal, the composition of an ecosystem (i.e. the identity and abundance of resident species) can be more flexible, as long as the ecosystem functions in a similar way. The issue with this then becomes how to measure ecosystem function, or rather, against what do we compare it? Do we set an arbitrary time in history that we would like to restore it to, or do we attempt to maintain its function while integrated with a unique environment managed by humans? Some proponents of the latter strategy see historical comparisons as unrealistic and uninformative, especially given our changing climate. Regardless, restoring the functionality of ecosystems is a key predictor of the future success of not only animal and plant populations, but the human population as well.
One of the strongest arguments this issue makes derives from its use of specific economic values of animals and ecosystems. According to the article Wildlife decline and social conflict, the harvest of land and sea animals accounts for $400 billion annually around the world. Defaunation in the Anthropocene claims that pest control by native U.S. predators is worth approximately $4.5 billion annually, and that the decline in North American bat populations (a specific type of pest controller) has cost the agriculture industry $22 billion in lost productivity. Insect pollinators are required for about 75% of the world’s food crops, and are therefore responsible for approximately 10% of the economic value of the entire world’s food supply. According to the World Bank, food and agriculture represents about 10% of global GDP, which in 2012 was estimated at $72 trillion. If we take total food supply to be approximately $7.2 trillion (again, estimating), then insect pollinators are worth around $72 billion dollars. These estimates apply tangible figures to a broad and occasionally overwhelming issue, and may be good starting points to unite many different stakeholders under a common currency.
The article Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world details the different strategies conservationists use to preserve species abundances and their associated ecosystem functions. These strategies can broadly be grouped into two categories, translocations and introductions. Translocations involve moving individuals within their indigenous range to either reinforce a local population or to reintroduce them following a local extinction. Introductions, on the other hand, move species outside of their indigenous range to prevent a global extinction of a species or to replace a lost ecosystem function. Though planning a conservation strategy in terms of these labels can be useful for setting long-term goals, they are not mutually exclusive. Certain strategies can incorporate aspects of both translocation and introduction, or can introduce a species both to preserve its numbers and to restore ecosystem functionality. Therefore, it’s best to use these terms as guidelines for how to measure the success of any plan rather than as constraining requirements.
These losses in biodiversity, and their associated shifts in ecosystem functioning, are primarily driven by a combination of over-hunting, habitat destruction, impacts of invasive species, climate change, and disease. The Defaunation articles make a point of addressing national policies aimed at preventing species extinctions, namely those regarding over-hunting and poaching. Many of these policies simply impose penalties for illegal hunting rather than address the underlying causes of the issue, poverty and starvation. While it’s unrealistic to expect a conservation plan to alleviate world hunger and income inequality, it may be useful to consider animal overexploitation as an unintended side-effect of the economic cycle caused by scarcity. Supply and demand states that as a species becomes less common, its value on the market rises. However, this scarcity also leads to a reduction in the amount caught per unit effort. The rise in price drives a greater hunting effort by the sellers, further decreasing the population, and the cycle begins again. Since many of these hunters are using their profits to feed themselves or their families, simply enacting penalties for poaching may not have the intended effect. Overhunting is not a simple problem, and most likely will not have a simple solution. However, the only way we can begin to address it is by determining its causes.
September 30, 2014
FLUMP – Sargasso Sea biodiversity, penguin citizen science, criticism and more! Updated for 2026
It’s Friday and that means that it’s time for our Friday link dump, where we highlight some recent papers (and other stuff) that we found interesting but didn’t have the time to write an entire post about. If you think there’s something we missed, or have something to say, please share in the comments section!
A study by Huffard et al. published this month in Marine Biology gives evidence for declining biodiversity within the Sargasso Sea. The authors compared samples from 2011 and 2012 with those taken back in the 1970s, and found declines in species richness, diversity, and evenness. It is unclear whether these community shifts are inherent to the Sargasso Sea’s ecosystem or if they are driven by changes in sea surface temperature and pH.
A new citizen science project called Penguin Watch lets you look at images taken by researchers in the Antarctic and count how many adult penguins, chicks, and eggs are in each photo. This data will be used to better monitor and protect penguin populations against anthropogenic threats such as climate change and human stressors. I’d like to think Bruce Wayne has a Penguin Watch as well, making all who contribute to this research a little more like Batman.
An interesting article on Science Careers details the uphill climb a lot of doctoral graduates face when seeking employment outside of academia, and the drawbacks of taking a job you are overqualified for. – Nate Johnson
For those of you who enjoy watching the IDH tennis match, Michael Huston offered a critique of some recent critiques (how meta) of the IDH, and its cousin the intermediate productivity hypothesis, in the context of ecological logic vs. ecological theory. It’s here in this week’s Ecology.
How much evidence is there really that co-evolution promotes diversification? Hembry et al. in last week’s AmNat.
And because I’m on a roll (in a rut?) of reading papers that offer primarily criticism: “A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’ concept” by Murcia et al. in the most recent TrEE. -Emily Grason
Here is a couple of interesting special issues that came out recently; the first is a special issue dedicated to Functional Biogeography, published in PNAS and the second one is an Oikos’ edition dedicated to soil food webs. – Vinicius Bastazini.
What are the 71 important questions for the conservation of marine biodiversity? You can read it here in the latest issue of Conservation Biology. – Kylla Benes
September 26, 2014
The cetacean brain and hominid perceptions of cetacean intelligence Updated for 2026
“What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!
How infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals!”
– William Shakespeare, Hamlet
The human species may not be the paragon of animals as Hamlet so eloquently described to us. There is another group of species on this Earth perhaps more deserving of such lofty praise.
It is ironic that science, in its pursuit of knowledge, may soon lead us to understand that we are not what we believe or desire ourselves to be, that we are not the most knowledgeable life-form on the planet. Biological science is provoking us to shatter our image of human superiority. Confronted with new realities, we may be forced to change our perceptions.
For the first time in our history, a small group of scientists stands on the threshold of communicating with a non-human intelligence. Probing the oceans instead of deep space, they are searching for an alternative terrestrial intelligence. (ATI)
Astronomers devoted to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) keep our collective inquisitive ears tuned for signs of sentience from space. At the same time, cetologists observe, document, and decipher evidence that points to a profound intelligence dwelling in the oceans.
An ancient intelligence in the ocean
It is an intelligence that predates our own evolution as intelligent primates by millions of years. Furthermore, it is an intelligence that may prove to be far superior to us in terms of complex associative, linguistic, and survival abilities.
Dr. John Ford’s patient monitoring of the speech of orcas off British Columbia has revealed distinctive dialects between orca populations, so distinctive that it is possible to link a captive animal of unknown origin with its long-lost family in the wild.
In the cold waters off Patagonia, Dr. Roger Payne thrilled the world with his recordings of the songs of the humpback whale. Behind the aesthetic value of whale music, Payne’s research has revealed fascinating insights into the complex and highly sophisticated language of whales.
In the realm of zoological study, no other family of species has had such a profound impact upon human researchers. A few brilliant researchers have even been accused of losing their scientific objectivity simply because their study of cetaceans revealed knowledge about themselves.
“You see”, wrote Dr. John Lilly, “what I found after twelve years of work with dolphins is that the limits are not in them, the limits are in us. So I had to go away and find out, who am I? What’s this all about?”
Dr. Paul Spong, who came to the study of cetology as a psychologist, found himself transformed into a devout advocate of dolphin freedom.
“I came to the realization”, says Spong, “that at the same time I was manipulating their (orca) behavior, they were manipulating my behavior. At the same time I was studying them and performing experiments on them, they were studying me and performing experiments on me.”
Both men have taken to heart an advice: eloquently expressed by novelist Edward Abbey that, “it’s not enough to understand the natural world, the point is to defend and preserve it.”
Intelligent? But dolphins just eat fish …
Other scientists have told me that they understand this effect that cetaceans have on people and resist the tendency to become ‘involved’ with their subjects only from fear of ridicule from other scientists.
Knowing something is so does not mean that others will accept it or even be open-minded enough to ponder it. Some things are just not on the table for serious scientific debate, and the idea that humans are subordinate in intelligence to another species is one of them.
Ingrained anthropocentric attitudes dismiss the very idea that a dolphin or whale could be as intelligent as a human being, or more. In this respect, science is dogmatic and intransigent, differing little in attitude from the Papal pronouncement that the Earth could not possibly revolve around the sun.
Human imagination can instantly recognize intelligence in a blob of purple protoplasm or an insectoid extraterrestrial if it steps from a space ship dressed in a metallic suit and armed with a fantastic proton-plasmodic, negative-charged, ionic-cell destabilizer-blaster. Dolphins, on the other hand, just eat fish.
We willingly accept the idea of intelligence in a life-form only if the intelligence displayed is on the same evolutionary wavelength as our own. Technology automatically indicates intelligence. An absence of technology translates into an absence of intelligence.
Dolphins and whales do not display intelligence in a fashion recognizable to this conditioned perception of what intelligence is, and thus for the most part, we are blind to a broader definition of what intelligence can be.
Evolution molds our projection of intelligence. Humans evolved as tool-makers, obsessed with danger and group aggression. This makes it very difficult for us to comprehend intelligent non-manipulative beings whose evolutionary history featured ample food supplies and an absence of fear from external dangers.
Thinking like a whale, or a Neanderthal
I have observed whales and dolphins in the wild for fifty years, seeing varied and complex behavior that has displayed a definite pattern of sophisticated social interactions. They have exhibited discriminatory behavior in their dealings with us, treating us not like seals fit for prey but as curious objects to be observed and to be treated with caution.
They can see beyond to the manifest technological power that we have harnessed, and they can adjust their behavior accordingly. It is a fact that there has never been a documented attack by a wild orca on a human being. Perhaps they like us. More likely they know what we are.
The interpretation of behavior remains subject to the bias of the observer; one observer can classify behavior as intelligent, and a second observer will dismiss the same behavior as instinctive. There is also the tendency to be anthropomorphic – to attribute human feelings and motives to the behavior of non-humans.
Until we can actually talk with a non-human, it is difficult, if not impossible, to do anything but speculate on what is being thought or perceived. We cannot even understand with any certainty what a human being from a different culture, speaking a different language, may be thinking or perceiving.
Even among people of our own culture, language, class, or academic standing, it is a formidable task to peer inside the workings of the brain. In this respect all brains other than our own are alien, and I might venture to add that the inner workings of our individual brains are still a mystery to each of us that possess one.
It is a great tragedy for our development as a species that we have been alone among hominids for the last 30,000 years. Imagine Homo neanderthalensis existing today as a separate intelligent species of hominid primate. Our perception of the nature of intelligence would be profoundly different.
Homo neanderthalensis is an example of a species that possessed both technology and media communication. This tool-maker created haunting images of its experiences and environment. Some Neanderthal tools, artifacts, and cave art from the Chatelperonian period have survived and remind us that we are not the only species capable of material artistic expression.
Neanderthal ivory and bone carvings were used for adornment in addition to more practical purposes. Symbols carved on antlers relating to the movement of animals in relationship to the seasons indicate that Neanderthals may have invented ‘writing’, and carried a hunting almanac around with them.
I have often heard lectures and read articles on the art of early humans. Yet seldom have I heard it said that it was not Homo sapiens alone but Homo neanderthalensis who also left us that legacy. Another species created something that we believe we alone created.
The layers of the mammalian brain
We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words, we see what we want to see. Let’s take a close look at the anatomy of the brain. This is an organ that the human organism shares with most species above the invertebrate order. More specifically, we should look at the mammalian brain that is an organ composed of three distinct structures.
The foundation of the mammalian brain is the paleocortex, sometimes called the ‘reptilian’ or ‘ancient’ brain. The paleocortex segment reflects the primordial fish-amphibian-reptile structure. This basal combination of nerves is called the rhinic lobe (from the Greek rhinos, for nose) because it was once believed to be the area that dealt with the sense of smell.
The poorly developed rhinic lobe is overlaid by the slightly more advanced limbic lobe (from the Latin limbus, for border). On top of this lobe is overlaid the third and much larger segment called the supralimbic lobe.
Draped over these three lobes is a cellular covering called the neocortex, meaning ‘new brain’. This is the instantly recognizable, fissured, convoluted layer that envelops the other two more primitive segments. The neocortex is a bewilderingly complex community of intertwined axonal and dendritic nerve cells, synapses, and fibers.
The mammalian brain is a complex layering or lamination of evolutionary processes that reflects hundreds of millions of years of progressive development. The billions of electrochemical interactions within this complex organ define consciousness, awareness, emotion, vision, recognition, sound, touch, smell, personality, intuition, instinct, and intelligence.
The first factor in determining the mammalian stages of development is the number of brain laminations. The layering of the neocortex differs greatly between humans and other land animals. The expansion of the neocortex is always forward. This means that neocortex development can be used as a fairly accurate indicator of the evolutionary process of intelligence.
We cannot assume, however, that the determining factor in comparative intelligence is neocortex mass. The other factors considered in the equation are differentiation, neural connectivity and complexity, sectional specialization, and internal structure. All these factors contribute toward interspecial measurements of intelligence.
Comparing intelligence among species
Interspecies comparisons focus on the extent of lamination, the total cortical area, and the number and depth of neocortex convolutions. In addition, primary sensory processing relative to problem solving is a significant indicator; this can be described as associative ability.
The association or connecting of ideas is a measurable skill: a rat’s associative skill is measured at nine to one. This means that 90% of the brain is devoted to primary sensory projection, leaving only 10% for associative skills. A cat is one to one, meaning that half the brain is available for associative ability. A chimpanzee is one to three, and a human being is one to nine.
We humans need only utilize 10% of our brains to operate our sensory organs. Thus the associative abilities of a cat are measurably greater than a rat but less than a chimp, and humans are the highest of all.
Not exactly. The cetacean brain averages one to 25 and can range upward to one to 40. The reason for this is that the much larger supralimbic lobe is primarily association cortex. Unlike humans, in cetaceans sensory and motor function control is spread outside the supralimbic, leaving more brain area for associative purposes.
Comparisons of synaptic geometry, dendritic field density, and neural connectivity underscore the humbling revelation that the cetacean brain is superior to the human brain. In addition, the centralization and differentiation of the individual cerebral areas are levels higher than the human brain.
Many of us may remember our lessons from Biology 101. We were shown illustrations of the brain of a rat, a cat, a chimp, and a human. We listened as the instructor pointed out the ratio of brain to body size and the increased convolutions on the neocortex of the human over the chimp, the cat, the rat. The simplistic conclusion was an understanding that humans were smarter.
Of course, it was a human demonstration of intelligence, and the conclusion was arrived at by discrimination based on the selection of the examples. When the brain model of an orca is inserted into the picture, the conclusion based on the same factors places the human brain in second position.
But the cetacean brain is very different
Unfortunately for the pride of humankind, this simple comparison is elementary compared to a truly astounding fact: whereas the human brain shares three segments with all other mammals, the cetacean brain is uniquely different in its physiology.
Humans have the rhinic, limbic, and supralimbic, with the neocortex covering the surface of the supralimbic. However, with cetaceans we see a radical evolutionary jump with the inclusion of a fourth segment.
This is a fourth cortical lobe, giving a four-fold lamination that is morphologically the most significant differentiation between cetaceans and all other cranially evolved mammals, including humans. No other species has ever had four separate cortical lobes.
This well-developed extra lobar formation sandwiched between the limbic and supralimbic lobes is called the paralimbic. Considering neurohistological criteria, the paralimbic lobe is a continuation of the sensory and motor areas found in the supralimbic lobe in humans.
According to Dr. Sterling Bunnell, the paralimbic lobe specializes in specific sensory and motor functions. In humans, the projection areas for different senses are widely separated from one another, and the motor area is adjacent to the touch area. For us to make an integrated perception from sight, sound, and touch, impulses must travel by long fiber tracts with a great loss of time and information.
The cetacean’s paralimbic system makes possible the very rapid formation of integrated perceptions with a richness of information unimaginable to us.
Technology, or evolution?
Despite Biology 101, brain-to-body ratio is not an indication of intelligence. If this were so, the hummingbird would be the world’s most intelligent animal. Brain size in itself, however, is important, and the largest brains ever developed on this planet belong to whales.
More important is the quality of the brain tissue. With four lobes, greater, more pronounced neocortex convolutions, and superior size, the brain of the sperm whale at 9,000 cc or the brain of the orca at 6,000 cc are the paragons of brain evolution on the Earth. By contrast, the human brain is 1,300 cc. And by point of interest, the brain of a Neanderthal was an average 1,500 cc.
Apart from our collective ego as a species, the idea of an Earthling species more intelligent than ourselves is difficult to swallow. We measure intelligence in strictly human terms, based on those abilities that we as a species excel at.
Thus we view hand-to-eye coordination as a highly intelligent ability. We build things; we make tools and weapons, manufacture vehicles, and construct buildings. We use our brains to focus our eyes to guide our hands to force our environment to conform to our desires or our will.
Whales cannot or do not do any of the things we expect intelligent creatures to do. They do not build cars or spaceships, nor can they manage investment portfolios.
Cetaceans do have built-in abilities like sonar that put our electronic sonar devices to shame. Sperm whales have even developed a sonic ray-gun, so to speak, allowing them to stun prey from a head filled with spermaceti oil to amplify and project a sonic blast.
However, we expect an intelligent species to arrive in a spaceship armed with laser rayguns, bearing gifts of futuristic technologies. This is a fantasy that we can understand, that we yearn for. For us, technology is intelligence. Intelligence is not a naked creature swimming freely, eating fish, and singing in the sea.
The whale is an organic submarine. A whale may not arrive in a spaceship, but it is itself a living submersible ship. All of its technology is internal and organic. We do not accept this. The human understanding of intelligence is material. The more superior the technology, the more superior the intelligence.
Intelligence is adapative, not abstractive
Yet intelligence is relative; it evolves to fulfill the evolutionary needs of a species. All successful species are intelligent in accordance with their ecological position. In this respect, the intelligence of a crocodile or a whale, an elephant or a human is non-comparable.
A complex intelligence exists within every sentient creature relevant to its needs. We as humans cannot begin to compare our elaborate intelligence to the complex intelligence of other creatures whose brains or nerves are designed for completely different functions in radically different environments.
Most modern humans believe that we are vastly more intelligent compared to our ancestors of 75,000 years ago or even 10,000 years ago. Our technology is proof, is it not? The fact is that the brain of a person living today is identical in size and composition to that of our kind from tens of thousands of years ago. If you were to set Einstein’s brain beside the brain of a cave-dweller of the Paleolithic era, you would not be able to find a single difference in size or complexity.
Our technology is cumulative, the end product of millennia of trial and error. It is also exponential, and we now live in the time of the most rapid exponential growth. Individually, the average cave-dweller of the past could match the average citizen today in associative intelligence and would be as capable of learning.
Our intelligence is also cultural, and the vast amount of information that we have at our disposal lies outside of ourselves as individuals. Apart from the community, we are severely limited in understanding or manipulating technologies.
Left to our own resources on an undeveloped island, most of us would have absolutely no idea how to survive. We do not even have the knowledge to construct rudimentary stone tools or weapons. In this respect stone age humans would be our intellectual superiors.
Physiological measures
If we look at the comparative intelligences of species strictly on a morphological basis, judging all aspects on cortical structural development alone, we can assign an average associative score relative to human intelligence. Let’s assign the average human brain a score equal to 100. This is the number we consider average on human Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests.
Based on associative skills as defined by the physiological structure of the comparative brains, we will find that a dog scores about 15, and a chimpanzee around 35. These are scores that are comfortably within our understanding of intelligence.
Based upon comparisons of cortical structure alone, a sperm whale would score 2,000.
The truth of the matter is that we know absolutely nothing about what goes on in the brain of a whale or a dolphin. In our ignorance, we resort to the arrogance of denial and dismissal. We deny the physiological evidence and in general we have denied that other animals can think or even feel.
We forget that all mammals have climbed the evolutionary ladder with us, and some, like the whale, started climbing that ladder tens of millions of years before we evolved from that apelike ancestor that we shared with the Neanderthal, the chimp, and the mountain gorilla.
The whale has evolved in a different manner, its natural physical abilities giving it little cause to desire material baggage. The spear was not needed to get food – the whale is one of the most efficient hunters in natural history. The whale’s ability to travel, to communicate, to care for its young, and its complex social systems are all separate from external material acquisition.
Whales have biologically evolved what we utilize technology to achieve. Technology is something that the whales have never needed. They contain all the assets needed for survival and development within their massive bodies and formidable brains.
Humans are big-brained manipulators. Cetaceans and elephants are big-brained non-manipulators. The hominid brain grew in size from 450 cc to 1,300 cc over a period of only 5 million years. Cetaceans had already reached 690 cc in brain size some 30 million years ago and had developed to their present capacity well before our own evolutionary jump in brain development.
Another major difference between the cetacean and human brain is the shape. The cranium of the whale evolved over millions of years to conform to the need for streamlined movement through the water.
This need has shaped the brain, making it higher, but shortening the length front-to-back slightly. And this shape has resulted in a relatively thinner layering of the cortex that is more than compensated by the much greater surface area of the neocortex due to the tremendous in-folding of the convolutions.
According to Pilleri and Gihr, dolphins, toothed whales, and primates have the most highly differentiated brains of all mammals, and Krays and Pilleri showed through electroencephalographical studies that the Amazon River dolphins have the highest degree of encephalization, much higher than primates.
Construction of the cortex was found to be equal or superior to primates. Cetaceans are the most specialized mammalian order on the planet, and we see intelligence in dozens of species. By contrast, Homo sapiens are the sole surviving hominid.
Making, or thinking?
Humans may be the paramount tool-makers of the Earth, but the whale may be our paramount thinker. We can only imagine how a dolphin perceives the stars, but they may well do so better than we. Indeed, if the power of such an awesome brain could be utilized, travel to the stars might have already been achieved. The mind can travel to realms that rockets can never reach.
Or perhaps they have already discovered that the ultimate destination of a voyager is to arrive back where it belongs – in its own place within the universe. The desire to travel to the stars could very well be an aberration, a need within a species that has been ecologically deprived.
Intelligent species here or else where in the universe may have determined that space travel is not the ultimate expression of intelligence. It may only be the ultimate expression of technology: technology and wisdom may be widely diverse expressions of different forms of intelligence.
Intelligence can also be measured by the ability to live within the bounds of the laws of ecology – to live in harmony with one’s own ecology and to recognize the limitations placed on each species by the needs of an ecosystem.
Is the species that dwells peacefully within its habitat with respect for the rights of other species the one that is inferior? Or is it the species that wages a holy war against its habitat, destroying all species that irritate it?
What can be said of a species that reproduces beyond the ability of its habitat to support it? What do we make of a species that destroys the diversity that sustains the ecosystem that nourishes it? How is a species to be judged that fouls its water and poisons its own food?
On the other hand, how is a species that has lived harmoniously within the boundaries of its ecology to be judged?
A moral responsibility is upon us
It is an observable fact that whales and dolphins hold a special place in the hearts of human beings. We have had an affinity with them for years, recognizing in them something that it has been difficult to put a finger upon.
What we do know is that they are different from other animals, apart from them in a manner that suggests a unique quality that we can intuitively recognize. That quality is intelligence.
Recognizing this quality has profound moral responsibilities. How can humans continue to slaughter creatures of an equal or superior intelligence? The path toward the reality of interspecies communications between cetaceans and humans may lead us to the recognition that we have been committing murder.
Utilizing the computer technology of our species in company with the linguistic and associative skills of cetaceans, we may be able to talk with these beings some day soon. The key is in understanding the different evolutionary developments within two completely different brains with uniquely developed sensory modalities.
Imagine being able to see into another person’s body, being able to see the flow of blood, the workings of the organs, and the flow of air into the lungs. Cetaceans can do this through echo-location. A dolphin can see a tumor inside the body of another dolphin. If an animal is drowning, this becomes instantly recognizable from being able to ‘see’ the water filling the lungs.
Even more amazing is that emotional states can be instantly detected. These are species incapable of deception, whose emotional states are open books to each other. Such biologically enforced honesty would have radically different social consequences from our own.
Sight in humans is a space-oriented distance sense which gives us complex simultaneous information in the form of analog pictures with poor time discrimination.
By contrast, our auditory sense has poor space perception but good time discrimination. This results in human languages being comprised of fairly simple sounds arranged in elaborate temporal sequences. The cetacean auditory system is primarily spatial, more like human eyesight, with great diversity of simultaneous information and poor time discrimination
A language more like music
For this reason, dolphin language consists of very complex sounds perceived as a unit. What humans may need hundreds of sounds strung together to communicate, the dolphin may do in one sound.
To understand us, they would have to slow down their perception of sounds to an incredibly boring degree. It is for this reason that dolphins respond readily to music. Human music is more in tune with dolphin speech.
Utilizing their skill at echo-location with elaborate detailed mental images of what they ‘see’ through auditory channels, dolphins may be able to recreate and transmit images to each other.
In other words, whereas our language is analog, cetacean language is digital. With the invention of the computer, we are now communicating with each other digitally, and this may be the key to unlocking the doors of perception into cetacean communication.
The possibilities are fantastic. Instead of communicating across the vast expanse of space, we may be able to bridge the chasm between species. But we will not be able to say that “we come in peace.” The tragic reality is that we will be speaking with species that we have slaughtered, enslaved, and abused. We can only hope that they will be forgiving of our ignorance.
If so, the future holds a place for the exchange of knowledge, the secrets of the seas, alternative philosophies, and unique and different perspectives. I can envision the words of the whales translated into books.
Instead of just listening to the music of whale song, we will be able to understand what the songs convey. This may open up new horizons in literature, poetry, music, and oceanography.
In return, Moby Dick by Herman Melville might serve to show the whales that our species has come a long way toward peace between humankind and whalekind. The whales will learn the mysteries of the land and will be able to negotiate the release of members of their families that have been held captive for human amusement.
A universal right to dwell in peace
Perhaps we can convince them that our species is not uniform in its evolution toward morality and understanding. If so, we may be able to convince them that our whalers are aberrations, throwbacks to our more barbaric origins and a collective embarrassment to our species.
Most importantly, we will learn the lesson that we cannot presume to judge intelligence based upon our own preconceptions, prejudice, and cultural biases.
In so doing, we will be able to understand that we share this Earth with millions of other species, all intelligent in their own manner, and all equally deserving of the right to dwell in peace on this planet that we all call our home – this water planet with the strange name of Earth.
“They say the sea is cold, but the sea contains the hottest blood of all, and the wildest, the most urgent.”
– D.H. Lawrence, Whales Weep Not.
Captain Paul Watson is founder of Sea Shepherd.
This essay was originally published on his Facebook page.
Bibliography and Sources:
- Bunnell, Sterling. 1974. The Evolution of Cetacean Intelligence.
- Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Coevolution of Language and the Brain.
- Jacobs, Myron.1974. The Whale Brain: Input and Behaviour.
- Lawrence, D.H. Whales Weep Not. Licino, Aldo.
- ‘Just Animals? Mammalian Studies Point to an Anatomical Basis to Intelligence.’ Mensa Berichten: Mensa International Journal Extra. June 1996.
- Lilly, John. 1961. Man and Dolphin.
- Morgane, Peter. 1974. The Whale Brain: The Anatomical Basis of Intelligence.
- Pilleri, G. Behaviour Patterns of Some Delphinidae Observed in the Western Mediterranean.
- Sagan, Dr. Carl. 1971.The Cosmic Connections, The Dragons of Eden.
- Watson, Lyall, 1996. Dark Nature: The Nature of Evil.
- Some information based on conversations over the last two decades with Dr. Michael Bigg (orcas), Dr. John Ford (orca dialects), Dr. Roger Payne (whale communication), and Dr. Paul Spong (orcas).
Illustration: Comparison of a human and dolphin brain showing the 4th lobe and more complex convolutions upon the neo-cortex of the dolphin as opposed to the human brain.
Photo: Whale shark and diver. Robin Hughes via Flickr.
