A visit to the grocery store is a weekly routine for most people in the developed world. Everything is neatly displayed for us to go through; fruits, vegetables, meats and an assortment of packaged foods. I sometimes think of how remarkable it is that practically every store I have ever shopped in contains basically the same foods. How many potatoes, oranges, tomatoes or whatever else, needs to be grown or produced in order to supply stores on a worldwide scale? How much land, manpower and machinery are required? And where do all these goods come from? I couldn’t even begin to guess; the question alone is enough to boggle the mind.
Unless one is involved in the farming industry, I question whether much thought goes into it. Life is busy these days, and filling the grocery cart is just one of many routine tasks to complete. I don’t think that most of us (me included) can fully appreciate how our basic survival needs are laid out for us. Conversely, before modernization people would have had a closer connection to their food supply. For most of human history people were gatherers, hunters or farmers. They would have been keenly aware of what it took to get food on the table, if they even had a table. They would have been reliant on the land. We are as much dependent on the land today, but we don’t feel the same way. The process of getting food on the table or to the grocery store is mostly out of sight, therefore out of mind.
Modernization has drastically changed our way of life. We live with comforts that could not have been imagined only a few hundred years ago. If you are an average person living in a developed country, you may not think of yourself as wealthy. With the steady stream of bills to pay and debts that many of us are carrying, it can feel as if we just don’t have enough. We probably give little thought to the conveniences that most of us enjoy in our homes: television sets, radios, telephones, computers, microwave ovens, etc. Then there are the basics in the developed world: running water, washing machines, refrigerators, conventional ovens and let’s not forget electricity, which allows for all of the above to work. In other words, the average person is living in a land of plenty. In terms of affluence, we are living an anomaly in the evolution of human civilizations.
But how long will we be able to sustain our standard of living? There are storm clouds on the horizon. The technologies we presently enjoy have come at a cost that goes much deeper that the pocketbook. As industrialization takes hold on a global scale, the natural balance of the planet is being threatened. In only a century, human activity has caused environmental changes that would have previously taken thousands or even millions of years.
How did it come to this? How did a way of life take hold with such vigor that is essentially detrimental to the planet? It appears to be the result of the unintended side effects of human creativity and ingenuity. One hundred years ago it would have been inconceivable that our planet could be significantly changed by human activity. Yet we may have become victims of our own success. For example, improved modes of transportation and manufacturing are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Advancements in agriculture and medicine are contributing to overpopulation, which increases demand for modernization even further. As a result, even more greenhouse gases are produced.
And then there is the economy to consider. I believe that from a scientific and technical standpoint we are beginning to understand the environmental conditions at hand and that in principle solutions are not that far away. That being said, there are the practical aspects of implementing whatever solutions are proposed. But it seems that whenever solutions are proposed, political leaders are helpless to act due to economic reasons. “We can’t afford to do it,” they say. The way the global economy is presently constituted, they may have a point—to a degree. But for environmental reasons, the time will come sooner than later, that we won’t be able to afford not to do it.
The economic system seems to have taken a life of its own, somewhat like an entity that needs to survive. It rewards monetary profit, with little regard for the well-being of the environment. The global economy has become more powerful than any nation. When I follow the news on a daily basis, I get the impression that humans are serving the economy, as much as the economy is serving us. A point worth noting is that the economy is not an unchangeable part of nature—it is a man-made system. Although it is generally accepted in its present form, it could be changed and the sun would still rise tomorrow. And as drastic as this may sound, the economy may need to be significantly restructured to meet the environmental demands. I don’t pretend to know what that would look like, but I think it’s an issue that should be on the table.
There is an impending risk that the modern way of life is not economically and environmentally sustainable. The strength of the global economy is dependent on growth, which requires mass production, purchasing and consumption of material goods. It sounds good when economists talk about economic growth. After all, economic prosperity and technological progress are ideals that most people aspire to attain. However, how can the global economy grow indefinitely in a world with finite natural resources? As the economy continues to grow at present rates, nonrenewable energy and materials are being extracted from the earth. What we have is a world population that has become dependent on having more, living on a planet that has less to offer. At some point something has to give.
In developed countries we have enjoyed the benefits of technology and economic growth for several decades, and in the process, created most of the environmental problems. Now that previously underdeveloped nations with large populations (such as China and India) are beginning to modernize, is it not somewhat hypocritical for the western world to suggest they shouldn’t do it? For countries that are just starting to benefit from modernization, it’s a hard sell to contemplate scaling back. In this case, it appears that history is destined to repeat itself, which could significantly delay global environmental efforts. The challenges are immense. First there are the technical aspects to be ironed out; then there is the willingness to act. Can countries agree on what should be done? Can the economy be restructured to reflect beneficial behavior for the planet? Are we willing to give up some of our prized possessions? Will we be able to deliberately control population growth?
The population problem clearly shows how grave the situation could become. The total world population has now reached over 7 billion people; only 200 years ago the world population was around 1 billion. To get a feel for what an increase from 1 billion to 7 billion looks like, the Dec 2011 edition of National Geographic charted the cities with populations of 1 million or more. In the year 1800, there were 3 cites of 1 million or more. In 1900, there were 16 cities. And in 2010, 442 cities had populations of 1 million or more. That’s a staggering increase in such a short time of human history. It is not reasonable to think that a planet with finite natural resources can sustain indefinite population growth. There are limits on how much food we can grow, how much clean water we can access and how much land is available. Given social customs, religious beliefs, and poverty in many parts of the world, is it realistic to think that population growth can be deliberately controlled? What is especially troubling, is if population growth is not intentionally controlled, nature will decide—and it’s not going to be pretty. It is difficult to imagine the potential human suffering that could come about as a result of natural population control.
There is a paradox here that I want to point out. It would seem that what is good for people leads to population growth and what is bad for people results in population control. For instance, industrialized agriculture, advanced medicine, peace, and a benign climate all contribute to population growth. On the other hand, drought, famine, poor medicine, war, and natural disasters are all good for population control. So, do we want population growth or population control? This is quite a quandary.
The environmental issues cannot be solved by any one region or country, nor will one singular approach be successful; the effort will have to be global. Given the dynamics of our modern world, no practical or applicable solution has been proposed. It appears that ultimately the solutions are technological and political. But meaningful change will only occur when the collective will of the population demands change. It may be too late for the current generation—those who hold positions of power—to implement the necessary changes. Perhaps it will take an entirely new generation who grow up with environmental sensitivities at the forefront.
Nevertheless, the first step towards meaningful change may come from a shift in awareness. My hope is that a shift is already underway. For too long the earth has been viewed as an endless resource for human consumption. We are now realizing that there are limits and that we must change our mindset. I believe we need to incorporate the general well-being of other species as part of a new paradigm. We are simply too interconnected to all other life forms to view the earth strictly from a human perspective. Yes we need to preserve the air, water and soil, but we should be aware that living things are part of it too. All life on earth has to a degree become dependent on the human population, and humanity holds the balance of power in choosing the next path. Albert Einstein once advised, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
Technology has greatly improved our way of life, but on the downside, the earth is poorer for it. Clearly technology is here to stay; we will not go back to the pre-modern era. But perhaps the time has come to reevaluate which technologies are fundamentally beneficial and which are detrimental. A more subtle consequence of technology, but just as noteworthy is the lack of connection we feel with nature. The modern way of life operates at a few levels of separation from the natural world. We don’t actually live separate from nature; we just don’t feel as connected as older civilizations would have felt. People from ancient civilizations would have extracted what was needed from the land in close proximity. They would have felt the immediate effects of what nature handed out. In contrast, today’s food supply primarily comes from far away. What’s more, very little of what we have in our homes do we build ourselves or fully appreciate how it gets to our door. So many things are accomplished with a flick of a switch, or the push of a button, that it’s easy to forget where it all comes from. It all comes from the earth, one way or another. And unless we preserve the source, what purpose will our gadgets serve?
Improving our way of life has long been a quest of mankind and today we benefit greatly from years of discovery and innovation. In principle there is nothing wrong in desiring a better quality of life than previous generations. However we are now immersed in an era of disconnect, dominated by people’s fascination with technology and material possessions. Will we again value nature for what it truly means to us—as our life support system? I believe that of the utmost importance at this time is a shift in awareness, which balances human needs with the needs of the natural world. In this mutually beneficial exchange a new path in human / earth relations can begin. This new state of consciousness is only the first step, but it is a necessary one towards the recovery of a life-sustaining planet.
The chemistry necessary for life has its origins inside the core of stars, and the eventual death of stars is fundamental to life. The early universe consisted of atoms of hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of lithium. All other heavier elements were forged by stars. For about 90% of a star’s life it generates its energy by fusing hydrogen to make helium. Eventually it runs out of hydrogen, and begins to fuse its stocks of helium, making yet heavier elements. The fusion process continues producing heavier and heavier elements until the star has nothing left to burn. Of course all this takes anywhere from about a million to hundreds of billions of years, depending on the size of the star. The larger the star the faster it burns, resulting in a shorter life span. When a large star runs out of fuel a delicate balance is lost between gravity, which wants to keep material in, and the outward pressure generated by thermonuclear fusion in the core of the star. It collapses in on itself and then recoils outward in a gigantic explosion called a supernova.
From everything we can see it appears that the momentum of life sustains the whole and that individual life is expendable. The natural cycle of birth, growth, decline and death repeats indefinitely, all the while preserving the whole. Living organisms are necessary for a living planet, but no one organism is essential. You could think of individual life forms as leaves from the same tree. A living tree needs leaves, but no single leaf is crucial. As long as the falling leaves are replaced with new healthy leaves, then the tree is sustained. This does not mean that any given leaf is not valuable to the tree. Each leaf contributes to the well-being of the tree. It serves the tree (the whole), and then dies in order to allow other leaves to take its place. Keep in mind that it doesn’t stop there. The tree has a life span of its own. The tree serves the forest as the leaves serve the tree.
I will conclude with a fitting gardening analogy. In the late fall, when the gardening season is winding down, it’s the time to plant tulip bulbs. From experience I know what the bulbs will bring to the gardens the following spring. Yet there is nothing in the dull brown bulbs that would indicate that colorful tulips are in the offing for next year’s gardens. The brown bulbs will transform into bright flowers after a long winter in the frozen ground. This transformation happens not because of any hope, belief or wish on my part, it happens as a result of a natural process. The bulbs will grow into the only thing they can become—tulips. On the other hand, if I were to bury a few small stones into the ground, they will remain lifeless, regardless of any wishes on my part.
It is human nature to have goals, dreams, and expectations. Our ability to project into the future, to plan, imagine and create is a unique quality that separates us from other animals. That being said, it can also be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, in order to accomplish a goal we need to project how we will get from here to there. On the other hand, in spite of our best efforts, there is no guarantee we will ever get there. In fact, there are often numerous obstacles to overcome from the moment we conceive a goal. Contrary to some peoples’ belief, the universe is not conspiring in our behalf. We are but one moving part in a multitude of moving parts. There are many factors that help us, but there are many others that do not.
What the tree needs to grow and prosper is always present in the forest: energy from the sun, nourishment from soil and water, necessary processes from microbes, and protection provided by nearby trees. The environment of the forests will determine which seed (or tree) will grow, and which will not. The same can be said for every living thing in the forest. 
The plans that we make for our lives are presumably forms of order that we envision. The more in depth the extent of the planning is, the more variables will come into play. It’s quite simple, the more factors involved, the more difficult it becomes to predict or direct the outcome. In order to move ahead with confidence, it is important to have an open perspective on goals. Life’s unpredictability and uncertainty is the cause for much anxiety and worry, however, it is intensified by our expectations. For me, my expectations have probably caused more anxiety than any other reason I can think of. Although it is difficult to pull off, I find that when I live with no expectations, I am more at peace and more productive in general.
The best we can do is to accept life on its own terms, and try to respond appropriately. We can achieve this by being actively engaged in life’s present realities, and moving in a desirable direction. This should at least allow us to move forward, regardless of the uncertainty that lies ahead. We may or may not get to where we want to go. We use different words to define that place: goals, dreams, success, happiness, peace and fulfillment. However, in time we may realize that these final destinations do not matter absolutely. We may also realize that the fullness of life can only be found in the journey and not in the final destinations.
What has allowed the earth to maintain stable conditions that are favorable for life? To answer this question we need to look at our planet’s history, and ask why the earth has been habitable for almost 4 billion years. This is an extremely long time, and probably the time needed for intelligent life to evolve. Scientists have second-hand evidence to go by, like entering a crime scene after the fact. But there is plenty of evidence to reconstruct the major historical events of our planet; this comes from a wide range of scientific fields.
The earth is in constant motion and in relation with other celestial bodies in the solar system. Somewhat like a mobile hanging above a baby’s crib, all the bodies have influence on the system. In addition to a habitable zone, a long-term stable system is necessary. At least, the overall effects of the celestial bodies must stabilize the movement and climate of one body (like the earth). Here are 4 earth-friendly characteristics of our solar system:
Lovelock expanded the Gaia Hypothesis (also called Gaia Theory) to include the whole biosphere (climate, rocks, oceans, biology, etc.) and described the earth as a self-regulating system. In other words, the earth acted as one organism. Gaia was controversial as a scientific hypothesis when first proposed. The main objection was evolutionary theory, as organisms are not believed to act in concert with their environment (sometimes supportive and sometimes destructive). The argument against Gaia Theory was that organisms would somehow have to communicate with each other, and act altruistically towards the planet. This was impossible.
Photosynthesis is a chemical process, by which plants, algae and some bacteria convert solar energy into chemical energy. Basically, the organisms take in carbon dioxide and water, and use sunlight to make glucose, thus releasing oxygen as a by-product. The organisms are able to make their own food (glucose) by capturing sunlight. Other elements, such as nitrogen, phosphorous and magnesium are also needed to complete the process.
Around 2 billion years ago, a variant form of photosynthesis emerged. These bacteria lived in the ocean, used water as electron donors, and the release of oxygen into the atmosphere was the result (oxygenic photosynthesis). Photosynthesis was one of the most important developments in earth’s history. Learning to use sunlight to produce food took advantage of an endless supply of energy.
The earth’s atmosphere contains 20.95% oxygen and .039% carbon dioxide. The remainder is mostly nitrogen (78.09%). What concerns us here is the oxygen/carbon dioxide relationship. Most of the oxygen is provided by terrestrial green plants and microscopic phytoplankton in the ocean (they consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen). Non-photosynthetic organisms, like humans, animals and fish do the opposite (they breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide).
Interestingly, most of the plants that feed humans today were domesticated before the first century. From these initial regions framing would continue to spread around the globe. Why did humans change their way of life after so many years of foraging? One factor worth considering is that agriculture developed independently in unconnected parts of the world. What could account for this fact? It happens that the beginning of agriculture coincides with the end of the last ice age. This was a global phenomenon; as regions warmed framing became possible.
Once villagers became dependent on agriculture for sustenance, they now had something very valuable to protect. Their lives depended on farm land, animals, and crops. The notions of property, state, law and quite possibly economics can be traced back to the early agrarian villages. What’s more, in time the shift to agriculture made cities and empires possible. With the first crops came questions that did not previously exist. Who manages the land, animals and crops? How will the area be protected from other humans and pests? If there was a surplus of food, should it be traded and who acquired the wealth?
In most cases development come with a cost; the adoption of agriculture was no exception. As you can imagine, the life of foragers was probably not an easy existence. However, it does not mean that early farmers had an easy time of it. Framing with primitive tools was hard work and as societies emerged a hierarchy was created. This usually meant that a large group of people toiled for the benefit of the higher class. I can’t help but think that if it were not for agriculture, would slavery have existed in the same way? And let’s not forget the fate of farm animals, who in effect, have been enslaved for thousands of years. At the hands of humans, some of these animals have been subjected to cruelties too numerous to mention.
Have you ever wondered why mature trees in a forest are roughly the same height. Given the fact that there is tremendous diversity in nature, why not have trees of various heights. Although different species can naturally grow to different heights, they are not found in the same forest environment. The reason is due to a race upward for sunlight. All the trees in a forest are competing for solar energy.
The relationship between predator and prey is a complicated one, with each trying to outwit the other. Both predator and prey will evolve their own skill set. Some traits are specific for catching prey, while others are specific for avoiding predators. But there is an overlap as some traits are shared. For example, let’s consider the running speed of animals, which is just one of many skills needed by both sides. Running speed is valuable for both predator and prey.
Viruses attack the human body by invading cells. The immune system produces antibodies that fight off the virus. Therefore, a specific virus can only infect a host body once. However, viruses evolve very fast and are inaccurate replicators. As a result they evolve into different strains that can evade the human immune system. Viruses are not trying to change; they change because of chance mutations. The ones that are resistant to antibodies populate. It may appear that viruses are attempting to outsmart the immune system, but they simply evolve through the process of natural selection in their environment.
Although the antibiotics are engineered to target the invaders, they are not perfect and they kill some of the symbiotic bacteria. Because antibiotics have been widely used, this has changed the balance of bacteria that dwell in humans. The effects of these changes is not clear, but there is evidence it can contribute to some diseases.
For many years I have enjoyed the fall colors, yet without knowing exactly why the leaves change colors. People have given me a number of one-line explanations, such as: It is because of cooler temperatures. It is caused by lack of sunlight. The fall colors are already in the leaves, but are covered up in the summer by the green color. At some point I became curious enough to look it up. It turns out that I had received a collection of partial answers, and the fall colors are due to more than one cause.
During the growing season the leaves produce chlorophyll, which is responsible for the normal green color. The production of chlorophyll is part of the chemical process of photosynthesis. This is the process that converts sunlight into energy the tree needs to grow. When the fall arrives the daylight hours get shorter and this decreases the production of chlorophyll, until it will eventually stop altogether. 
The yellow pigments are always present in the leaves and this will keep the yellow colors fairy consistent. However, red pigment production is whether dependent. Falls that have warm sunny days and cool nights (but above freezing) will result in the most spectacular red and orange colors.
These questions have been debated by biologists and academics for a long time. 
The selfish gene metaphor, though powerful, has its limitations; a single gene can’t do very much. Genes interact with each other and combine in complex ways to give rise to physical traits. It is essentially groups of genes that survive (genes that work well together). Therefore, a successful gene can be defined as a portion of genetic material that survives through a number of successive generations.
When an animal acts altruistically, it appears that the animal is sacrificing some survival need in order to increase the chance another will survive. It does not matter how small the sacrifice is, because a number of small sacrifices can accumulate over time, and also can be reciprocated. The group selection hypothesis interprets altruism as benefiting the group, and in the long run, these groups will be more successful. However, others claimed that selfish individuals would undermine the altruistic group. The selfish individuals within the group would exploit the altruistic system, eventually winning out. The struggle for existence would favor the selfish individuals over the altruistic individuals.
Legend has it that a wise old man, named 
The Tao Te Ching also points out the paradoxes of nature. Even polar opposites are viewed as working together. Hence the terms and symbols of yin and yang, which represent opposite forces in nature; they are seen as complementary and interconnected. For example, there is a balance between high and low, soft and hard, hot and cold and light and dark. Or one could say there is no light without darkness. Following the way is living in balance.
I find it refreshing that ancient concepts contained in the Tao Te Ching are lining up with a modern scientific view. Science has discovered a multitude of interconnected parts that make up our world. Life is so interconnected that it is sometimes difficult to determine when one living system begins or ends. The whole planet (or even the universe) can be viewed as one system or organism. Everything that exists is compatible with the whole. If it were not, it wouldn’t be here. Alan Watts summarizes the Tao in the following manner:
THE LANDSCAPE OF REALITY 