Animals Aren’t | Analogous to Humans Science Matters David Suzuki, David Suzuki Foundation “All-seafood could disappear by 2050, new report,’ was the headline. But the psychological effect may as well have been: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” Versions of the former headline abounded recently after a groundbreaking research article on marine biodiversity was published in the journal Science. “Kiss your fish and chips goodbye” was another popular heading, as were takes on “No more fish in the sea.” On one hand, this kind of alarming headline could be potentially beneficial because it high- lights the urgency of a dire situation in our oceans. Without that sense of urgency, no one will act to prevent a disaster from occurring and we really could lose most of our sea life. On the other hand, such headlines personally make me want to bury my head in the sand or stick my fingers in my ears and sing choruses of, “La la la, I can’t hear you.” When news is so depressing and on such a huge scale, it can make individuals feel power- less. And when people feel powerless, they tune out. That’s not how change happens. Interestingly, the actual title of the research article published in Science was “Impacts of biodi- versity loss on ocean ecosystem services.” The point about the potential for catastrophic declines in sea life abundance was a relatively minor one in the study, used to highlight the urgency of the need to change the way we manage our oceans. The main thrust of the article was much more interesting. 5 That thrust was the importance of biodiversity in maintaining healthy marine ecosystems. The international study, headed by researcher Boris Worm out of Dalhousie University in Halifax, looked at a variety of marine ecosystems and how well they handled stress. It conclud- ed that the miore diverse an ecosystem is, the better it is at dealing with stresses such as over- fishing. Biodiversity has long been seen as an important factor in the stability of land-based ecosys- tems. More biologically diverse ecosystems on land tend to be more stable, helping to secure G THE OTHER PRESS. NOVEMBER 30-2006 I’m sick and tired of people claiming that human beings are no more evolved, or advanced than animals. I think most people can agree that human beings are the most superior creature on Earth. Still, once in a while, some random jackass that has gotten through a couple anthro pology or psychology classes, and thinks he’s clever will try to claim otherwise. Their first point is usually, “human beings are animals too.” And sure, that’s relevant in a way; we have organs like animals, we eat and defecate like animals, reproduce like animals, etc However, there are a few key differences that separate us from our furry friends. Namely a lit tle thing I like to call “civilization.” John Q. Philosophy might retort with something like, “Animals have civilization, too. The have complex societies with war, friendships, life partners, blah, blah, blah.” Sorry, Captain Pretentious that’s not a civilization, that’s a “society.” The key difference is this: civilization contains culture, science, industry, and government. Last time 1 checked, penguins don’t paint hippos don’t hypothesise, cats don’t build cars, and lemurs don’t pass laws. About this point in the conversation, the animal champion usually abandons the sinking ship of the civilization argument, and starts arguing the validity of civilization, They will say things like: dolphins have it made, man. All they do is swim around, eat, have sex and play wi other dolphins. Well, hey there is nothing wrong with that. I like doing all those things. Portunately, I can enjoy these things without the fear of getting eaten by large sharks or Kille Whales. I usually don’t worry about getting harpooned by HUMAN BEINGS either. The ott advantage of being a human is that if I want to say, watch a movie, ride a motorcycle, jump out of an airplane, climb a mountain, or have a conversation, I have that option too. Screw dolphins, they are just a bunch of thumbless, krill-eating rapists. Other arguments I’ve heard are: animals are stronger, animals don’t have to deal with stre: like we do and unlike humans and animals “are one with nature.” My retorts to these state- ments are: big deal, 1 can shoot a rifle, only becuase they are too stupid, and go camping.. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for animals. In fact, I often fantasize about being a housecat. [t would be a great life; I would hunt (without any moral discrepancies), wa der, screw around, and climb trees. Then, when I get bored with it all I would jump in the wi dow and get free food and a warm place to sleep. Plus, I'd never have to'work...it would be awesome, like being a teenager on spring break, for my entire life. But then who wants to be teenager their whole life? News game not always compatible with science the continued functioning of the entire system. This was the first comprehensive study to fir the same is true for water-based ecosystems, discovering a consistent pattern across 32 small: scale experiments and through reviews of 12 coastal ecosystems. The conclusion has major ramifications for the way we manage our fisheries, which still tends to be based on individual fish stocks, rather than the ecosystems in which they are embedded. According to the new study, we’re going about it all wrong. If you want to protec individual fish stocks, you really need to protect entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, that story isn’t very newsy. Disappearing seafood is. Without the news hook of the dire predictions for the future of seafood, the article may not have made the front page, or any page at all in the popular press. So, either by chance or by design, the report’s authors rolled out their study bz ed with the sweet smell of disaster. And reporters took to it like sharks to a chum line, resulting in headlines around the worl Most newspapers and television stations stuck to the “total collapse” angle, often ignoring th biodiversity story altogether. More thoughtful journals, however, did focus on the actual thru of the study — fisheries management and biodiversity. In its news pages, Science used the head line “Global loss of biodiversity harming ocean bounty,” for example; while The Economist ras with “New research points to a better way of protecting fish stock.” Whether the popular press stories were motivational or paralyzing remains to be seen. Bu the fact remains that right now, the spectacular and the spectacularly awful make headlines. I the news game, the rest is just details. That puts the way the mainstream press reports news : odds with the way people become motivated and makes social change even more difficult th: it already is. Take the Nature Challenge and do more at www.davidsuzuki.org.