There is much,
understandable, concern about the possible reduction of species on the planet at
an unprecedented rate. Indeed, in a report by the conservation group WWF
(formerly the World Wildlife Fund), it is estimated that wildlife groups are
predicted to fall by more than two-thirds in the next fifty years or less.
Tanya West, the
chief executive at the WWF, has described the situation as being ‘in freefall.’
The three key problems were identified in their report as being 1.9 million
square kilometres of land for wildlife has been lost since 2000 (which is eight
times the size of the United Kingdom), one million wildlife species are
threated with extinction, and 1.3 billion tonnes of foods being wasted annually
(which equates to $1 trillion loss to the economy).
There are other
contributing factors such as, in the marine environments, overfishing; the
260,000 tonnes of plastic waste in our oceans; acidification; electronics
pollution; and destruction of the coral reefs through shipping and other
causes. It has been estimated that 60 per cent of the world’s coral reefs are
threatened with the resulting consequences for fish species and other aquatic
life.
The steepest
declines in wildlife populations have occurred in the planet’s rivers and lakes
where freshwater wildlife has plummeted by 84 per cent since 1970, which
equates to approximately 4 per cent a year.
There has also
been enormous declines in tropical regions. Indeed, the drop of 94 per cent of
losses in Latin America and the Caribbean are the largest anywhere in the
world, with the threefold threat to reptiles, amphibians and birds. The only continent that was not adversely
affected was Antarctica.
On average,
there has been a 68 per cent in more than 20,000 populations of mammals, birds,
amphibians and fish since 1970.
The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has evaluated more than
100,000 species of plants and animals, and has calculated that in excess of
32,000 species are threatened wit6h extinction. The Red List of IUCN had
identified at least 515 species that are now on the brink of extinction, with
fewer than a thousand individuals left.
The species
included the Golden Lion Tamarin, Ethiopian Wolf, Javan Rhinoceros, Spanish
Imperial Eagle, Yellow-eared Parrot, Gharial, and Green Poison Frog.
Professor Chris
Johnson of the University of Tasmania stated that the current rate of
extinction of species was greater than at any time since [his calculation] 65
million years ago when the dinosaurs and other species were obliterated. His
words of alarm were: ‘Threats to species in today’s world – things like habitat
destruction and climate change – are growing rapidly.’
To collaborate
these findings, an intergovernmental panel of scientists concluded in 2019 that
one million species (500,000 animals and plants, and 500,000 insects) are
threatened with extinction, some within decades of the writing of the report.
The BBC
programme ‘Extinction: The Facts’ was giving the facts of the ongoing demise of
many species, whilst giving a more personal approach. In a bleak interview with
the keeper of the world’s last two Northern White Rhinos (a mother and her
daughter), the keeper said: ‘When Najin [the mother] passes away, she will
leave the daughter alone forever…Their plight awaits one million more species.’
It is not only
the big profile mammals that is affected but also the smaller creatures and,
indeed, the environment as a whole. Kathy Willis, the Professor of Biodiversity
at the University of Oxford, commented: ‘Everything is joined up, from a single
pond to a whole tropical rainforest.’ She continued: ‘We tend to think we are
somehow outside of that system. But we are part of it, and totally reliant on
it.’
Her
observations were echoed by the words of Professor Gerardo Cebellos of the
National University of Mexico in Mexico City, who said: ‘We have entered the
sixth mass extinction. Based on our research and what we’re seeing, the
extinction crisis is so bad that whatever we do in the next ten to fifty years
is what will define the future of humanity.’
Elizabeth
Maruma Mrema, the head of biodiversity at the United Nations, has declared that
humanity was at a crossroads: ‘Earth’s living systems as a whole are being
compromised. And the more humanity exploits nature in unsustainable ways and
undermines its contributions to people, the more we undermine our own
wellbeing, security and prosperity.’
The programme
then showed how the loss of biodiversity in the soil (such as the removal of
insects breaking down leaf litter) and the creatures who pollinate the crops
impacts up us. The loss of trees and wetlands not only affects adversely the
creatures who depend upon it but also contributes to landslides and floods.
Andrew Terry,
the director of conservation at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), sounded
the alarm bells: ‘If nothing changes, populations [of wildlife] will
undoubtedly continue to fall, driving wildlife to extinction and threatening
the integrity of the ecosystems on which we depend.’
David
Attenborough has described this time as the moment that we can halt the
decline, achieve a balance with the natural world and become stewards of our
planet. He observed: ‘Doing so will require systematic shifts in how we produce
food, create energy, manage our oceans and use materials.’
He added: ‘But
above all it will require a change in perspective. A change in viewing nature
as something that’s optional or ‘nice to have’ to the single greatest ally we
have in restoring balance to our world.’
The removal of
predatory animals will see an increase in rodents and bats which are more
likely to transmit dangerous viruses (such as coronavirus). It is this
phenomenon that has caused Peter Daszak of the Ecohealth Alliance to say:
‘We’ve been changing biodiversity in critical ways which made [the COVID-19
pandemic] more likely to happen.’
The framework
that has been termed a ‘Paris climate agreement for nature’ calls on 196
nations to enact the following eight major transitions:
·
Land
and forests: Protecting
habitats and reducing the degradation of soil;
·
Sustainable
agriculture:
redesigning the way we farm to minimise the negative impact on nature through
things like forest clearance and intensive use of fertilisers and pesticides;
·
Food: Eating a more sustainable diet with,
primarily, more moderate consumption of meat and fish and ‘dramatic cuts’ in
waste;
·
Oceans
and fisheries:
Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems and fishing sustainably – allowing
stocks to recover and important marine habitats to be protected;
·
Urban
greening: Making more
space for nature in towns and cities, where almost three-quarters of us live;
·
Freshwater: Protecting lakes and river habitats,
reducing pollution and improving water quality;
·
Urgent
climate change: Taking action
on climate change with a ‘rapid phasing out’ of fossil fuels;
·
A
‘One Health’ approach:
This encompasses all of the above. It essentially means managing our
environment – whether it is urban, agricultural, forests or fisheries – with a
view to promoting ‘a healthy environment.’
There have been
various solutions put forward such as large-scale conservation areas, placed in
the hotspots for worldwide diversity, for example, on small islands with
species that are unique to that environment. It is envisaged that these
reserves, in which the wildlife will live unfettered, would need to cover at
least 40 per cent of the world’s land mass in order to enable recovery for
species and entire ecosystems from inevitable decline.
There is much
to do because, whilst governments did not manage to protect 17 per cent of
terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of marine habitats, 44 per
cent of vital biodiverse areas are now under protection, which is an increase
from 29 per cent in 2000.
These points
are all good and worthy aims, but the question has to be asked as to what the
philosophy is behind these intentions. The problem with neo-Darwinian evolution
is that it depends on the death of creatures in order that the next stages
could be reached, for (according to the theory) the older orders had to die so
that the new species could be pre-eminent . It is a flipped approach to then
care for the preservation of species, because (according to macroevolution) it
would be preventing new species to rise up.
For the
Christian, it is matter of obedience to be concerned about the diminishing numbers
within species as we were commanded as God’s first assignment to look after
God’s world by caring for His creatures (Genesis chapter 1) and by tending to
all creation (Genesis chapter 2). Lausanne’s Cape Town Commitment describes
caring for God’s world ‘a gospel issue under the lordship of Christ.’ There are
Christian organisations, such as Tearfund, who are taking this call seriously
to show that our obligations to the planet stem from our greater obligation to
the Creator.
Our caring for
the planet is included in the command to ‘act justly and to love mercy and to
walk humbly with your God.’ (Micah 6: 8) It is so reminiscent of Adam tending
the Garden of Eden and also walking in relationship with God in the cool of the
evening. We are reminded that we are only stewards as we look after it for
Almighty God: ‘The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the
earth.’ (Isaiah 40: 28)
The Bible is
honest that we have not looked after the creatures as we should have. Paul
writes of ‘The creation waits in eager anticipation for the sons of God to be
revealed.’ (Romans 8: 19) The letter tells us why: ‘We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the
present time.’ (v. 22) The sin of man has affected adversely the natural world
for many years -it is not a problem that is modern in its making. It can be
traced down to greed, but there are other sins that have impacted the world
around us.
The observation
of Gus Speth, who assisted in the founding of the Natural Resources Defence
Council and was formerly dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, told to a British radio presenter in 2013 (as recounted in ‘Why
conservation is a gospel issue,’ by Peter Harris, Christianity Today, 8
September 2016): ‘I used to think that
top ten global problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate
change. I thought that with thirty years of good science we could address these
problems, but I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness,
greed, and apathy, and to deal with these we need a spiritual and cultural
transformation. And we scientists don’t know to do that.’
We can see
these sentiments in Psalm 104, the great creation psalm. God had created all
creatures in abundance: ‘How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made
them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and
spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number – living things both large and
small.’ (vv. 24 – 25)
The psalmist
realised something that many modern conservationist have not because they are
so concerned about the creatures, they forget to look up beyond creation. The
psalm declares the truth: ‘May the glory of the Lord endure for ever; may the
Lord rejoice in his works – he who looks at the earth, and it trembles, who
touches the mountains and they smoke.’ (vv. 31 – 32) The passage finishes with
‘Praise the Lord, O my soul. Praise the Lord.’ (v. 35) When we realise who we
are accountable to and who gave us the responsibility, we will treat the wildlife
species as we should do so.
At the
conclusion of the programme, David Attenborough comments: ‘What happens next is
up to every one of us.’ As Christians,
we need to look up to the Creator and forward to the end of time so that we can
look after the wildlife in the present and in the here and now.
The statistics and references can be found in:
‘Extinction
crisis ‘poses existential threat to civilisation’’ by Helen Briggs, 2 June
2020, www.bbc.co.uk
‘Wildlife in ‘catastrophic
decline’ due to human destruction, scientist warn’ by Helen Briggs, 10
September 2020, www.bbc.co.uk
‘Extinction: The Facts’ presented by David
Attenborough, broadcast on BBC1 on Sunday 13 September 2020 at 8 p.m.
Comments