the human niche: towards an ecological politics

7f30b0e81d90a4fc1cfa5d8560de1de0When life was new on Earth, it invented photosynthesis. Photosynthesis takes light from the Sun and captures it as useful energy. It also produces waste oxygen.

We like oxygen, because we breathe it, but we forget that chemically, it’s pretty nasty. Oxygen gas is implicated in lots of bad things, from rust to explosions. It’s not stable, and it’s highly chemically reactive. It sits on the periodic table next to fluorine, and if you know anything about fluorine, you know you should stay away from it. And when photosynthesis first evolved, oxygen was deadly to most life on Earth.

And in fact, once it started reaching high concentrations in the atmosphere, it wiped a lot of that life out, in what we now call the Great Oxygenation Event. But then other organisms evolved to make use of that oxygen. They produced waste CO2, which the photosynthetic organisms used. So a cycle emerged, and an ecological balance came into existence. And here we are.

We talk about nature’s harmony and balance as though it’s eternal, but that’s wrong. These sorts of balances and cycles are older than humanity, but they are born in time, in the process of evolution. They are dynamic, and they shift with changes in the Sun and solar system, and with the things evolution invents as it progresses.

We are one of the things evolution invented. There is an idea that humans exist somehow outside nature, and that we create things and environments that are ‘artificial.’ I think that’s misguided. The problem is time: if you make enough of the very most toxic things humans produce, and then give nature enough time, it will invent processes that will make use of them, or render them harmless somehow.

It’s less a matter of ‘damaging nature’ than incurring a debt to Darwin: creating ‘waste,’  or unlooped materials, substances that nature doesn’t yet know what to do with. And time really is the problem: we don’t have the millions of years to wait around while evolution figures out what to do with our garbage.

Personally, I don’t think it’s within our power to threaten all life on Earth. Life has endured worse things than us. It might be in our power to extinguish all human life, though humans are pretty hardy: we have existed in a lot of environments, from the Arctic to the Sahara to the Amazon, for many generations. It would be possible to render our current civilization untenable. I think that’s the track we’re on now.

To get off that track, we need to think about humanity in the context of broader nature. We often talk about other species as occupying an ‘ecological niche,’ a role in nature. Wolves are hunters, at the top of the food chain; wildebeests are ruminants, eating grass, pooping fertilizer, and feeding alligators. But we don’t talk much about the human niche.

We do talk about our ‘footprint,’ but that’s still non-ecological thinking: everything in our ‘footprint’ is assumed to be artificial, damaging, an interruption in nature; everything outside is assumed to be harmonious, balanced, and ecological. When we seek to ‘reduce our footprint,’ we seek to reduce the damage we do. But we don’t seem to focus much on legitimate ways for humans to participate in nature.

Notice we never ask: what is a wolf’s ‘ecological footprint?’ It’s hard to apply the logic of ‘footprint’ when we assume an organism is already operating in a way we see as ‘natural.’

the human niche

So what would a human niche be? Being humans, we have some choice in the matter. We probably can’t become ruminants, because we can’t digest grass (unless we modify our own biology, or the biology of the grass), but there are so many things we can do. The only question is, how long can we do them? If we don’t consciously choose to participate in ecological cycles, we can only persist doing what we’re doing so long. Our current role is probably short-lived, one way or the other. So for a longer-term role, we need to be inventive. Here are a couple ideas that come to mind:

ecological designer

So what can humans do that other species can’t? The closer we look at that question, the shorter that list is, but we do seem to be pretty good at designing things, and we do seem to have some ability to be reflective. So if we combine those and look at our role in nature, it’s logical that we could find  a long term role as ecological designers, creating and participating in new natural cycles.

And clearly, to create a natural cycle is to participate in it. You might not execute all the steps yourself, but you can cooordinate with others, humans and other species, to close your loops and eliminate your debt. Bill McDonough talks about it in detail in Cradle to Cradle.

OK, then: what does it mean to do good ecological design?

A lot of what comes to mind should be familiar: closed loop recycling, balanced capacities for generating and using waste products, complete recycling of the entire waste stream. Some might seem pie-in-the-sky, but we’ll have to get there at some point. I’m reminded of this Ted talk by Michael Pollan. A couple new things (to me) do come to mind:

managing debt: parsing waste as debt brings to mind all the financial tools related to debt, as well as all their risks and rewards. You can build up debt in planned and unplanned ways. You can pay down debt. You can work with it in a strategic way. Which I think would be useful in moving towards a more sustainable society.

But debt can also mess up your life, and on a large scale, your society. Ask a Greek how they feel about debt right now. Poison in the groundwater,  waste CO2 in the air, can cause us and a lot of other organisms problems. Like I said above, maybe if we had a few million years, we could wait around for nature to adapt our debt to its use. But in the time scales humans care about, we need to take some kind of action.

beauty: the dimension of time is central to the idea of sustainability. For humans to continue to make choices that benefit an ecology over long periods, they must develop a heritage of an appreciation of that ecology. So beauty is more than a good thing we should all want, it’s also a material priority.

It’s part of what persuades others to join us, and part of what binds the next generation’s way of life to ours. We don’t expect them to live the same way we do, but we do need to persuade them that what we create for them is worth sustaining and building upon. And if what we create is beautiful, and we can show them how to appreciate that beauty, that will be easier.

infection agent

Terraformation is a staple of science fiction. But from the viewpoint of Earth’s ecology, it’s infection: spreading Earth’s life to other worlds. Mixed with the ‘ecological designer’ role, it means we could be a vector for life in general, inventing new ecologies that could persist in diverse environments. Freeman Dyson speculates that we could even make species ‘native’ to space itself. It’s an interesting idea. One open question: how do we get off Earth in  a harmonious way? Launching payloads into space requires enormous concentration of energy in one place, far more than nature generally does. And the scale of terraforming would require truly massive launch capability, or very long timeframes.

biome protector

Another staple of science fiction is the comet strike. Protecting the Earth’s life from comets could be an important ecological role for humans to play.


I guess what I’m saying is: we can participate in natural cycles deliberately or not. Not participating is not an option.

We’ve built a civilization that we value. If we want to operate in a civilized, conscious way for the extended future, we need to include nature in that vision of civilization. If we don’t deal with broader nature on the best human terms, it will deal with us on its own.



  1. Love this post. I especially appreciate the part about beauty. That said, the term ‘infection agent’ is not particularly beautiful. I prefer ‘help the body of all life give birth to a family of living worlds’ or something that evokes a family, flourishing metaphor rather than an image of sickness.

    Where is the community you chew on these sorts of ideas with?

    1. I’m sure I have a more perverse sense of humor than you do, Brandon. ‘Infection’ is a beautiful thing from the point of view of the ones doing the infecting.

      Community… I really don’t have an intellectual community like that. I debate with myself a lot. I’m pretty good at being dissatisfied with my own ideas. But I’m sure I could use some help.

  2. John, I love what you’ve written here, and how you’ve written it. What you describe about creating and participating in new natural cycles is reminiscent of the practice of permaculture. In my own experience, humans can participate in the life of nature in very unexpected ways. I have found that elements of landscape and nature can communicate with us in remarkably nuanced and complex ways. When we genuinely participate, it means coming into relationship as equals in a living field. What humans can bring to the relationship is a level of conscious intention which is not found elsewhere in nature. It allows us to co-create with nature in ways that have the potential to take the natural world to places it cannot go without us, because of its natural propensity to maintain balance (homeostasis). That, and our appreciation of beauty, are two huge innovations that evolution has offered into the mix by bringing forth humanity.

    I’d love to be part of your thinking community on this topic.

    1. Thanks so much! Yes, permaculture is something I don’t understand much at all, but from my limited understanding it does resonate. Do you have a thinking community? I sort of don’t–as you can see from my blog, I’m sort of all over the place, and I imagine it would be tricky to find a group that I matched up with. I think. I dunno, I haven’t really tried to form a thinking community. But I like the idea.

  3. Okay…I pondered this on the trail yesterday. What is Man’s natural role and function in the laws and patterns of Nature, where all other life is governed by “instinct”. Nature functions in ecological effortlessness, i.e. all its living manifestations engage in what appears to be harmony and balanced interactions, including corrections to restore balance, without “trying”. As nearly as I can tell, Man is obligated to be the tender steward of all Earth’s inhabitants, using only what he needs, and replacing/repairing what he takes. He is, indeed, part of Nature, integral, but lacks the instincts of all other flora and fauna to go with the flow…he has to “figure it out”. Almost an invasive species as it has turned out. Well, to add to this idea, why does Man perceive beauty as beauty, or why has the eye and the brain been constructed in such a way? I suspect the Creator intended Man to appreciate Creation beyond his belly, and thus beauty is the signal for Man to appreciate and respect the Earth. It is via beauty that we become the tender stewards of our planet. And when technology takes Man too far away from the beauty connection, and the insatiable appetites of “belly” and material gain trump the stewardship goal, the question of Man’s role becomes a headache. So…was our role only to simply fit in, using our tools of consciousness, intellect, and intuition? Not that I don’t like the designer idea, but Nature is the master in that realm too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s