When we fight to save the air, the water, the earth, we do so with some sense of self preservation. We say things like “save the earth,” but we mean things like, “save us.” Because that’s what we’re actually trying to do. If humans were to suddenly vanish, the earth would get back to the business of finding a balance without a species that has learned to game the (eco)system*. The drive to save our habitat does not come from inherent goodness, it comes from a genetic drive to preserve the species, which may be what “good” in fact means. “Good” is the primary word in English used to describe a positive. But what’s positive through the lens of human experience (or even the English speaking world’s experience) is often not a positive experience for competing organisms. And let’s be honest. It’s a competition. But competition between parties isn’t always negative. It often brings about cooperation between two species whose attributes compliment each other. Symbiosis.
So for example it’s in our best interest to be good to bees. Bees help sustain an ecosystem of plenty which benefits us. What’s not often discussed, or even widely known in North America, is that honey bees are imported from Europe. They’re an invasive species, introduced by Europeans, that were brought to pollinate our crops and help the tribe of European descendants thrive. Wild honey bees are bees that have gone feral, like razorback hogs or wild horses.
So are bees good? Elephants don’t think so. But we do. There’s a big movement currently to save the bees. I think what people mean is, “save the pollinators” but that isn’t as catchy or iconic. These things rarely are. I have an old friend named Sarah Bergmann that many of my Seattle people will know too. She started an urban design movement called, “Pollinator Pathway” that was urging an inventive way to build urban spaces with a eye towards creating pathways for all pollinators, and there are millions, to move from place to place, ensuring the proliferation of plants and flowers and fruit trees that require third party pollination to survive. It’s an innovative and unexpected design plan. It gained a lot of traction but when interviewed about the project, people asked Sarah almost exclusively about honey bees. When she pushed back about all pollinators, people wondered why she didn’t like bees.
So what’s good?
Bees are good because they help us live in an ecosystem we like. We like to have access to lots of fruits and veggies. Bees help with that. It helps that we find their byproduct, honey, delicious and packed with calories. In turn for their services we do everything we can to help them thrive. We protect their hives, we aid them in finding pollen. We move them to new crops and new continents where they can spread their genetic information and ensure the survival of their descendants. It’s a symbiotic relationship. But honeybees also compete with native pollinators who’ve evolved to pollinate native species of plants.
So maybe that’s bad?
It turns out Good and Bad are relative to your needs and experience.
The forest fires currently raging in the American West are bad. They’re bad for the people of the West. They probably didn’t need to happen. If we’d found some way, 30 years ago, to mitigate the effects of climate change so that the West wouldn’t become even drier than it already was, we may have avoided them. If we had some other way to get large amounts of electricity from one place to another (say, localized solar energy generators) we might have avoided the fires that power lines cause. If we did a better job doing aggressive controlled burns in forests that mimicked the way forests naturally clear undergrowth we might have avoided collecting the fuel that feeds these fires. If we did a better job of providing mental health support for people who’ve intentionally set some of these blazes… but we didn’t. And so now we’re on fire.
But if you’re a forest who hasn’t been cleansed recently by its natural cycle of burning and regrowth, maybe they’re good. I am not a forest (clearly) but I do like forests, and I want them to be happy. Only because I think when they’re happy, we are. A healthy forest therefore, is a good forest. A bad forest has a tendency to explode.
So can I find the good in a forest fire? Not really. There’s nothing good, by my human definition of good, about other humans being burned out of their homes. But I can find good in the after effects of fire, in that trees will regrow. And perhaps, if we let them regrow naturally, with a mix of tree species rather than the mono-culture that old clear-cuts were replanted with, they’ll be more adaptable to coming climate challenges and healthier in the long term. New trees absorb more carbon dioxide from the air than old ones, so we may see a slight decrease in low atmosphere carbon as they regrow. There is some evidence too that smoke from fires, while unhealthy to us (bad) may get into the high atmosphere and help cool the earth (good.)
Not that I’ll be around to see that new, healthier, happier forest. But some descendant of my tribe might, and that, for the sake of our species (if not the earth itself) is a good thing.
*I maintain that beavers have learned how to game the system.
Maybe I should imagine we will indeed get on top of all of this. Essays like the one above are a good step in the right direction....
I'm not sure anything can game the system much after we've been busy being human. How many miles of plastic is there in the middle of the Pacific? While we watch California burn, other things don't go on pause.