43 pages • 1 hour read
The Future of Life
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaChapters 6-7Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 6 Summary: “For the Love of Life”
Wilson opens Chapter 6 asking what, in the face of the destruction of many other life forms, it means to be human, and what ethical obligations this role places on human beings. First, there is the moral value of the “living library” represented by other life forms. Like humans, other species are made up of genetic material that is immeasurably complex and adapted to their specific ecological niche. Second, there is the fact that all life shares the same genetic heritage, a common ancestor dating back 3.5 billion years. Finally, there is stewardship—the idea that human beings represent the mind of nature, the self-conscious manifestation of the biosphere, responsible for its conservation.
Wilson then asks if other species have inalienable rights. There are three possible responses, ranging from anthropocentrism, by which only humans have rights, through pathocentrism, in which some other species do, to biocentrism, in which all organisms have an intrinsic right to exist. Wilson notes that the root of the latter framework—biophilia, or the love of life—could be an instinctual appreciation for “novelty and diversity in other organisms” (134). Psychological research suggests this tendency starts to manifest between ages six and nine. Wilson notes that other research suggests that nature has a positive impact on well-being, supporting the idea that biophilia is an essential part of human nature. Furthermore, many health conditions, such as obesity, depression, and asthma, can be mitigated by contact with the natural world. On the other side of this inclination is biophobia, or the fear of nature, such as fear of water, snakes, and blood, which also seems to have a genetic basis.
While early humans likely did not see themselves as separate from nature, the development of agriculture led to a sense of superiority over and mistrust of wilderness, “the menacing amorphous unknown” (144). This mistrust shifted, at least in the United States, in the 1890s, as wilderness began to disappear. While some people claim there is no true wilderness—that is, land untouched by humans—left on the planet, Wilson says this does not mean remaining wild lands have no value. Moreover, wildernesses still exist in the form of the microenvironments inhabited by bacteria, protozoans, and tiny invertebrates. Wilson closes the chapter by noting that both small and large wildernesses spark childlike wonder and curiosity in observers, and their exploration forms the basis of a satisfying human life.
Chapter 7 Summary: “The Solution”
Wilson opens Chapter 7 by comparing humans to the myth of the giant Antaeus, who was weakened by being separated from his mother, Gaea, the goddess Earth. Humans are also hurt by the separation from Earth, Wilson writes, but in our case, the separation is self-engineered, through the pursuit of resource development and economic growth at the expense of the environment. Fortunately, Wilson says, now that the problem is understood, people can begin to find solutions.
Turning to solutions, Wilson says these must start with ethics—specifically, an environmental ethic that combines viewpoints from those who would prioritize human well-being at the expense of the environment, and those who would prioritize the long-term well-being of nature. To do so, we must first let go of assumptions of moral superiority in either position and then do away with the stereotypes of those on the opposing side. Such stereotypes foment mistrust and drive people further apart, and these divisions are further cemented by political ideologies. Instead, what is needed is an ideology in which common ground is built on a shared goal of both economic progress and rising living standards in the developing world and conservation—in other words, an environmentally sustainable capitalism.
Given the broad consensus on the need for conservation, the most pressing question is how best to accomplish it. Wilson lays out the strategy that scientists and conservationists have developed, which includes: protecting remaining hotspots of biodiversity, including rainforests and Mediterranean-climate scrublands, which host 43.8% of remaining species of vascular plants and 35.6% of remaining species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians; cease old-growth logging and switch to tree-farming; complete mapping of the world’s biodiversity; and initiate projects to augment the proportion of the earth dedicated to nature: “half the world for humanity, half for the rest of life, to create a planet both self-sustaining and pleasant” (163).
Vital to accomplishing this goal, Wilson says, are non-governmental organizations, which are nimbler and more strictly focused on conservation than governments could reasonably be. Funding to these organizations, like the World Wildlife Fund, in the form of memberships and individual donations, has increased dramatically. In turn, these organizations have evolved; for instance, the WWF has pivoted to focusing on preserving entire ecosystems, has formed partnerships with the people who live around these ecosystems, and has increased the resources devoted to ecosystem research.
Ultimately, though, governments still play a role, as the cost of preserving biodiversity will run into the billions of dollars—beyond the reach of the world’s NGOs. One way governments can find funding for preservation is to reduce subsidies that encourage unsustainable practices, such as those for fishing, ranching, and mining. Global treaties such the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity are also important. Within national borders, legislation to protect diversity—such as the United States Endangered Species Act—is vital.
Wilson ends the chapter with “a tribute to protest groups” (188). Such groups, he says, demand to be included in decisions made about the environment, and—like Julia Hill, who lived in a California redwood tree for two years to protect it from logging—draw attention to the consequences of environmental exploitation. Ultimately, whether protesters and other groups devoted to conservation succeed in protecting the environment will depend on an ethical decision on the part of societies. In closing, Wilson expresses optimism that we will make the right choice.
Chapters 6-7 Analysis
In Chapters 6 and 7, Wilson turns from diagnosing the problem to examining the potential for solutions: first, locating the roots of a potential solution in our innate love of nature, and second, laying out the practices some organizations have already undertaken, or have proposed as useful, in the fight to preserve biodiversity.
In Chapter 6, Wilson offers a counterpoint to the trail of destruction that has followed human beings around the planet: our seemingly ingrained love of life. In doing so, Wilson lays out an ethical grounding for this love. Ethically, Wilson suggests that other life forms have intrinsic value, due to the complexity of their genetic makeup and the millions of years of evolution that led to them being perfectly suited to their ecological niche. What’s more, these life forms share genetic heritage with human beings. To understand the complexity of these life forms is to love them, Wilson says, an appreciation that is informed by, for example, an understanding of how ecosystems function but is based on normative principles about the inherent value of all life. Wilson is unabashed about this: The question of whether to conserve biodiversity is not ultimately economic or even scientific, but moral: “what we agree we should or should not do” (130).
Morality plays a role in guiding not only how humans choose to respond to the question of whether to conserve biodiversity, but how they go about doing so. Wilson illustrates this point by imagining a dialogue between a people-first, or anthropocentrist, speaker, and a nature-first, or biocentrist, interlocutor. Each is motivated by a moral outlook. They may even share some sense of the value of nature. When other moral values—such as the importance of human prosperity—are in play, however, they make consensus on conservation difficult. The solution is to remove political ideology so that economic development and conservation are seen as a unified goal. In this way, while some normative principles—such as political ideology, or the idea that humans have divinely bestowed dominion over nature—can fuel the destruction of biodiversity, others can make the conservation of that biodiversity possible.
Establishing a shared moral grounding for the conservation of nature is all the more necessary because capitalism, which has been responsible for the destruction of much of the planet, “will not be stopped” (156). Nor is it ethically defensible for it to be stopped, Wilson writes; as he notes at the end of Chapter 7, his argument in The Future of Life is for a form of economic growth that will lift billions of people out of poverty while conserving the planet’s biodiversity.
This future is possible because of the increasing moral consensus on the importance of conservation, Wilson writes; as illustration, he points to the increased emphasis placed on conservation in many religious denominations, as well as the increasing number of actors devoted to addressing the issue, particularly in civil society. Wilson illustrates how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been particularly effective in this space, outlining the different ways in which they’re tackling biodiversity loss, including debt-for-nature swaps—in which the organization purchases a portion of a country’s commercial debt and the resulting funds are used for conservation purposes—and conservation concessions, in which NGOs lease a portion of tropical forest, thus preserving it for conservation. Wilson notes that there is also potential around the globe for organizations to conserve biodiversity by buying large tracts of land from the relatively small number of wealthy individuals who own much of the world’s private land.
Governments are still important, though, as they have access to the kinds of resources that will be required to make conservation happen at the scale that is required, for instance, by conserving the world’s biodiversity hotspots. Finally, activists have a role to play as well, in drawing attention to the problem and demanding action from corporate and government leaders. By laying out the various actors involved, Wilson is also hinting at the scale of the challenge; addressing a problem as complex and potentially devastating as the loss of biodiversity will not be accomplished by any one actor but by many people working together, sharing an ethic of conservation.
The primacy of such an ethic also serves as a justifying principle for the book itself; as Wilson notes throughout the book, to contemplate the natural world, and the planet’s biodiversity, is to be in awe of other forms of life. By writing The Future of Life, which not only proposes specific solutions but also describes in novelistic, evocative detail some of the ecosystems and life forms that are at risk of disappearing, as well as the future that awaits human beings if we don’t change—Wilson is inviting readers to marvel at the life with which humans share the planet, and he calls on them to act before it’s too late.
Unlock all 43 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By Edward O. Wilson
