The second half of The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert focuses more on modern extinctions caused by humans as well as modern extinction concepts, including ocean acidification effecting reefs, global warming causing migration of rain forest trees to higher elevations, fragmentation of habitats, invasive species like the white nose fungus, and the extinctions of megafauna. Unlike the previous chapters that focused more on past extinctions, as well as the history of the concept, these chapters focus more on how and why humans have changed the environment.
One thing I noticed about these chapters is the more depressing tones. Although Kolbert keeps her humor and witty descriptions of people, it is much harder to escape the "doom and gloom" in these chapters. This was especially prevalent in the bat chapter. I couldn't help but cringe as she talked about walking over piles of dead bats. She uses imagery such as mummies to described how the bats looked to her. This chapter seemed especially grotesque mentioning blood, piles of bones, and dead bodies. The amount of death in this chapter made it really hard to stay positive. Despite this however, I would not say that the depressing imagery was off-putting for the reader. I felt that it was useful to add to the shock factor off how rapidly bats are declining. This helped the reader become emotionally attached to the situation. Furthermore, like other chapters, there are portions that talk about the history and concept of invasive species that tend to lighten the mood enough that the emotion does not weigh down the reader.
Another aspect that I found peppered throughout the last few chapters is that although humans may be the cause of many extinctions, humans are not distinctly amoral for doing so. She writes as though human nature has led us to unintentionally change nature in such a way that does not allow for species to adapt. For example, the megafauna chapter talked about how killing one individual a year could eventually wipe out the species in a few thousand years. Furthermore, in the last chapter, she writes that when people usually picture humans causing extinctions, they conjure up images of poachers and loggers, but could just as easily also picture themselves reading. We tend to think of evil Europeans coming to pristine areas such as North American and Australia and destroying the environment, but the author also talks about how the Aboriginals, who are typically thought of as living in harmony with nature, have also drastically changed the environment. The author claims that humans have never lived in harmony with nature. In addition, the Neanderthal chapter talks about how our need to explore may be linked to our DNA, which also contributes to our devastating effects on the environment. Although humans may be to blame, we are not necessarily "evil people" for our environmental impacts.
The last chapter is where the author wraps up her ideas on human mediated extinction, bringing together the ideas from previous chapters. She starts out by saying how much effort humans have put forth to help save species. This section almost appears hopeful. But then she states that this is just another example of how humans are changing the environment. Everything we do is effecting the environment in some way that is drastically different than what other species do. There is something about the nature of being human that is anomalous, like our exploratory nature, cooperation between individuals, and extensive communication. Despite this, we are still subject to the same natural laws, and may be paving the way for our own demise. On the other hand, we may be able to use our ingenuity to survive any obstacle that we cause, but at what cost to the environment?
Yes, there are many tensions in this book--the pull between what is natural or unnatural in human behavior & our role in extinction, as well as our attempts to help that are kind of hopeful even though the situation seems pretty unhopeful. It will be interesting to see how people view the tone (several people have thought it was surprisingly optimistic) and what role Kolbert should take in advocating for a solution. I think she has an opinion, but it's subtle in the book.
ReplyDelete