Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

Introduction B
9
In early 1962, the American biologist Rachel Carson
published her book entitled ‘Silent Spring’ – a black
mark on the seemingly immaculate façade of the
agro-industrial revolution of the post-war period, a
book that gave strength and direction to the emerging
environmental movement and thus, possibly,
changed the course of modern history. In a compelling
combination of analysis and poetry Carson’s
work for the first time highlighted the threats posed
to the natural biosphere by the thoughtless use of
chemical plant protection agents.
Almost forty years later many of the terrifying
visions of ‘Silent Spring’ have not become reality (in
line with the logic of the ‘self-avoiding prophecy’?).
Nonetheless, some aspects of the ecological reality of
the late 20th century eclipse Carson’s worst presentiments
in the most banal and malicious way. A brief
report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 14
April 1999 casually states: ‘The European Commission
has prohibited the import of fish and fisheries
products from Lake Victoria, East Africa. Allegedly
some fishermen deliberately discharge pesticides
into the Lake in order to improve their catches. In the
last few weeks a number of people have died in the
littoral states of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya due to
poisoning from residues of plant protection agents in
fish.’
Is it not a grotesque irony of the biosphere’s fate
that those chemicals whose unintentional side effects
in conjunction with a definitely beneficial increase in
food production were denounced in the 1960s, are
now being deliberately misused in the 1990s in order
to directly destroy higher animal life with their main
toxic effect? This observation makes it alarmingly
clear that the onslaught of humankind on creation is
no longer being waged in the wealthy centres of
‘Western civilization’, but mainly in the least developed
countries of the world, where sheer poverty
makes all scruples and considerations of self-protection
appear pure luxury when plundering natural
resources. As a result, destructive and thoughtless
exploitation of fauna and flora is currently being perpetrated
in most tropical and subtropical regions.
While the hunt for the last hyacinth macaws (worth
US$40,000 each on the black market) is on in the
Amazon rainforests and the ecological integrity of
the West African jungle is being sacrificed to the
extraction of individual high-value trees, the destruction
of the coral reefs of the Indonesian archipelago
by cyanide and and dynamite fishing continues at a
breathtaking pace.
This means that the total triumph of a single
species over millions of species in co-evolution is
nearing completion; the crowing glory of this victory
will ultimately be a completely reconstructed biosphere.
This most spectacular of all monuments to
civilization will sit on three main pillars, namely:
1. the reduction of genetic and species diversity,
2. the functionalization and homogenization of ecosystems
and landscapes,
3. the modification of the regulatory services of the
biosphere at the planetary level.
Species, landscapes, cycles – these are in fact the three
basic quantities whose hyper-complex interactions
determined the identity of the pre-modern biosphere
(Box B-1). Humankind not only shapes the associated
elements according to its short-sighted wishes, it
also tears their interaction out of the evolutionary
time-space context and forces an artificial, highly
unstable metabolism on the biosphere. Today, for
example, essential nutrients for plant growth are
transported and distributed by the machinery of
international trade to a greater extent than by natural
processes.
The extent to which the reconstruction of the biosphere
by its modern ‘flagship species’ has already
progressed can be shown by dry figures, but perhaps
even more impressively by some current, randomly
selected examples that throw a harsh light on the
limited wisdom of the ‘architects’:
Since the beginning of 1999 there has been bitter
debate in the United Kingdom about the ecological
risks of genetically modified crops. In particular, the
effects of the release of GMHT (genetically-modified
herbicide tolerant) cereal varieties on the natural
interrelationship of species in a mature cultivated
landscape are the subject of extremely controversial
assessments. Given the limited theoretical
knowledge and the almost complete empirical ignorance
of some experts, a debate of this kind is not
only understandable, but is also necessary (WBGU,
1998a). However, it will become dubious and even
counterproductive if it diverts public attention from
the fact that – beyond all speculation – a verdict can
already be given on normal, ‘standard’ agriculture as
regards the extinction of species: as the New Scientist
magazine reported on 27 February 1999, from 1971 to
1995 the populations of the previously dominant
British bird species fell by up to 90 per cent. ‘The
problem has been caused by the everyday use of
highly toxic chemical sprays, by ripping out hedgerows,
and by the relentless spread of farming practices
which we have never quite had the collective
energy or will to resist.’
An almost touching counterpoint to the destructive
everyday practice is being attempted by a zoological
project in the Hai-Bar Nature Reserve, near
the Israeli port of Eilat: there, in the middle of the
Negev Desert, all of the animal species that are mentioned
in the Holy Scriptures are to be brought
together again in a limited area. In spite of successes