61 pages • 2 hours read
A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future
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.
Part 3, Chapters 15-18Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Summary: “Taking Up Less Space”
Attenborough begins the chapter by discussing the fundamental differences between industrial farmland and wild habitats: “Farmland and wild habitats function in completely different ways. Wild habitats have evolved to sustain themselves,” while we have to work to sustain industrial farmland (160). The impact of the growing landscape of industrial agriculture is a loss of biodiversity, and Attenborough concludes that “we cease the expansion of our industrial farmland” (161). This means, in effect, to rethink how land is developed and utilized for the needs of humanity. As Attenborough points out, farmers will need to produce unprecedented amounts of food in order to feed the continually growing human population over the next decades.
He provides examples of what more sustainable farming might look like. For one, in the Netherlands, farmers were forced to rethink their methods, in part due to the repercussions of World War II. Thus, their farms are largely wind-powered or run by geothermal sources; they rely on “automated climate-control systems” in greenhouses and the like; they make use of rainwater collection; their crops are planted “not in soil, but in gutters filled with nutrient-rich water”; and they ceased the use of pesticides in favor of “natural predators” (162). This model is one that large industrial farms across the globe might follow.
For smaller-scale farmers, Attenborough admits that the above solutions might not be feasible. Instead, these farms should focus on regenerative farming (see Index of Terms). This will assist in boosting the health of local soil, as well as in capturing carbon from the atmosphere. Attenborough also talks about the benefits of urban farming (see Index of Terms), with rooftops (and other unlikely areas) used for growing food, employing hydroponics and vertical farming to increase yields in smaller spaces.
Attenborough ultimately turns his attention to what humans can do to reduce the pressure on farmland: eliminate, or mostly eliminate, meat from diets. Most of the industrial farmland cultivated today is to grow food for feeding livestock or to provide land for grazing. Thus, Attenborough calls for a “great social change” in humanity’s dietary habits, shifting away from beef and other domesticated farm animals for protein and towards plant-based diets and alt-proteins (171) (see Themes: Clash of Competing Interests). These alternative proteins include plant-based meat substitutes as well as (in future) so-called “clean meats” which are proteins grown from cultured cells (172). Attenborough sums up his arguments: “But by radically increasing yields in sustainable ways, regenerating degraded land, farming in new spaces, reducing the meat in our diet, and benefitting from the efficiencies of alt-proteins we may be able [. . .] to reverse the land grab” (173). Thus, the land could be rewilded; biodiversity can be restored; and humanity will still be able to sustain its population.
Summary: “Rewilding the Land”
Attenborough discusses the tendency throughout human history to position the relationship with forests and wildlands in terms of domination. Humans deforest the woods and tame the wildlands; this is the historical inheritance of humanity. However, such practices have come to their unsustainable end, as a tipping point has been reached: “We must halt all deforestation across the world now and, with our investment and trade, support those nations who have not yet chopped down their forests to reap the benefits of those resources without losing them” (176). To implement these kinds of changes, he admits, is more difficult than in the seas: while the open ocean belongs to no single nation, the forests and wildlands are very much under particular national sovereignty. Thus, incentives are necessary to preserve what forested land is left. Attenborough argues for encouraging developing nations to see their “last forests, rainforests, wetlands, grasslands and woodlands” as nothing short of “priceless” (178). Their ability to capture carbon and restore biodiversity is unmatched.
To that end, encouraging sustainable forest management (including logging) will protect these areas, while promoting such ventures as ecotourism will give human populations an economic incentive to preserve these areas. Attenborough uses Kenya as a successful example of conservancy tourism, led by the locals who know the land and its animals best.
He also points to examples in Europe wherein “silvopasture” practices have been implemented. This is, essentially, farming without fences or industry; it allows animals to graze in open forest or woodlands to be harvested sustainably. Attenborough admits: “The volume of production is much lower than intensive farming, but the planet-friendly product could carry a premium” (183). In addition, he discusses the wildland farms being pioneered by some farmers, wherein farmland remains wildland, managed (lightly, sustainably) by humans: The humans “are, in effect, doing the job of a top predator” (185). Bringing back natural predators to other wildlands will also bring back balance, according to Attenborough; he cites the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone as an example. His larger point is always that the increase in biodiversity is the pathway toward stabilizing a planet that has been knocked out of balance.
Summary: “Planning for Peak Human”
Attenborough then dives into one of the more controversial areas of the discussion surrounding climate change and its effects: human overpopulation. He argues that “we must take into account the level of our own population” (190). He concedes that previous predictions about overpopulation have not come to pass; philosophers and others have sounded the alarm that humans would overrun the Earth’s resources for centuries, and this has not turned out to be true. But Attenborough suggests that it is coming much closer to reality: “The loss of biodiversity, the changing climate, the pressure on the planetary boundaries, everything points to the conclusion that we are finally fast approaching the Earth’s capacity for humanity” (191). He then goes on to describe the four stages of demographic transition: low birth rates with high death rates; an increase in birth rates and a decrease in death rates; a spike in birth rates with rapidly falling death rates (where most industrialized nations are now at); and finally, a leveling out of birth rates and death rates to create stabilization (192-93). This final stage is where Japan is currently.
Attenborough discusses how to shepherd developing nations—which are just now heading into Stage 3, population boom coupled with falling death rates—into Stage 4, a stage of stabilization. He argues that two issues have been shown to be most effective in lowering birth rates: alleviating poverty and empowering women. Still, these efforts are not without their problems, Attenborough. If humanity remains committed to ever-increasing GDPs (see Index of Terms), then incentives to continually increase human populations will remain. Instead, he argues for balance.
Summary: “Achieving More Balanced Lives”
Attenborough argues for a shift toward circular economies, with a zero-waste mentality. Everything produced would be biodegradable and/or reusable. He posits that there are two basic cycles, biological and technical. In the biological cycle, “food waste is the key component” (205). He offers suggestions as to how to eliminate this: the improvement of storage and the infrastructure needed to transport food in a timely manner; using waste as food for livestock or insects who could, in turn, feed fish; to innovate biofuels, or even building material, from waste. In the technical cycle, the ways in which products and components are designed could address the problems of future waste. One key element here would be to eliminate dangerous or unrecyclable materials out of the economy altogether, over time.
He argues that humanity could begin to “mimic nature’s cyclical approach” (207). He is enthusiastic about the “great potential for sustainability” he sees in urban environments (207). These places could become more welcoming toward sustainable transportation, like walking and cycling; could create “centralised district heating”; and turn toward sustainable, eco-friendly building practices. In addition, green spaces could be expanded (such as parks and the like), while urban farming practices are implemented throughout urban centers. He posits Singapore as an example of a city that has already started to achieve success with these kinds of ecologically sound urban development projects. In the end, Attenborough suggests, sustainability is all about what humanity can gain, from biodiversity to balance to equality.
Chapters 18-21 Analysis
Attenborough directs his readers attention to how nature can serve as the model for humanity. In mimicking its natural cycles, humans can create a more sustainable and more balanced world. For example, he details the ecological conditions of the African savannah: gazelles must graze almost constantly in order to get enough food energy, while cheetahs must expend a great deal of energy in bringing down a gazelle. He explains: "For every single predator on the Serengeti there are more than 100 prey animals. The realities of nature mean that it isn’t possible for large carnivores to be common” (167). This “loss in energy as we rise up in the food chain” explains the unsustainability in the current habits of humans (167). Basically, meat-eating in humans—the top predator of all—must be eliminated or scaled way back in order to preserve wildlands, to stop the practice of deforestation, and to recreate the conditions for biodiversity. This engenders balance in the ecosystem.
He revisits this in his discussion of Yellowstone National Park. Once the wolves are reintroduced, the population of deer and elk are more effectively managed, meaning that grasslands can recover. This, in turn, ensures that bear populations bounce back, feeding on the berries of the plants finally allowed to bloom. In short, when a food chain is balanced, biodiversity flourishes. Top predators have their role to play as long as they are in harmony with the rest of the ecosystem.
However, in introducing this idea—the elimination (or drastic reduction) of meat-eating in humanity—Attenborough wades into controversial territory, as he does again later in this section by positing that human population control is also necessary for a balanced future. Some of his suggestions ignore or gloss over their controversial nature. The suggestion that humans should eat less (or no) meat, for example, might seem eco-friendly in the context of wealthy industrialized nations, but it can smack of imperialist intervention in the context of the developing world. The wealthy, technologically advanced outsider presuming to know what is best for all of humanity has reached the end of its ideological tether, so to speak. Denying other cultures what has been afforded to the wealthiest countries of the world can become a form of paternalism or oppression.
This rings even truer, perhaps, when discussing how land should be managed. As Attenborough admits in his discussion of incentivizing the protection of wildlands in developing nations, not everyone sees the benefits: “Indigenous peoples have protested that [the UN’s incentive program] strips the value of the forest down to nothing more than a dollar sign and encourages a new form of colonialism” (177). The human impact of these kinds of externally imposed projects cannot simply be ignored or argued away with appeals to biodiversity. Attenborough’s insistence that wildlands, such as rainforests and wetlands, are “priceless” (178) does not always resonate with local populations who lack resources, education, and/or access to other economic pathways for their survival. His support of ecotourist projects, as in his example of Costa Rica (188), also overlooks the ways in which tourism of any sort is intricately bound up with the past project of imperialism. When national economies are almost entirely reliant on tourism, it creates an unequal dynamic between local inhabitants and visitors; workers are beholden to foreign tourists, a neo-colonial scenario. The vast amounts of wealth generated by most tourism returns to the investors, shareholders, and corporations—often multinational outfits with no stakes in the local culture—rather than ending up in the pockets of the local government or the citizens. Again, an argument in favor of biodiversity, while absolutely worthy, has its limits.
Even the example about reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone is not without its controversy: ranchers in the area, in particular, have been quite vocal in their opposition to such programs—their livelihood is at stake, as wolves do not respect park boundaries—which, they feel, privileges wild animals over human needs. The ranchers’ livelihoods are threatened, as is the food supply, when livestock is threatened or when farmland is returned to wildland—when priorities shift from humanity to wildlife. As Attenborough acknowledges, “food industry experts have calculated that we will need to produce more food in the next four decades than all the farmers in history harvested over the entire Holocene” (161). Later, he returns to this point to argue about the problems associated with unchecked human population growth. This, again, is controversial for many reasons, not least because projects of controlling indigenous populations were often carried out in the name of colonial domination. Even in the industrialized context, the notion of slowing or stalling population growth is controversial: Japan’s economy has become less competitive as a result of its stabilized population. There are not enough citizens of working age to support industry or the growing population of retired workers.
Still, as Attenborough reminds his reader, this problem is only the result of short-term thinking that emphasizes economic growth over ecosystem health. If humanity heeds his advice, a more balanced and equitable world will come to be: “In truth, it would be easier for us, in this potential future, to live a life in balance with the natural world” (203). Not only that, but such a world would have “no pollution—no plastics floating in the sea, no toxic gases emitted from industrial chimneys, no burning rubber tyres, no oil slicks” (206). It would also be a world that is more humane, with equitable resources for all of humanity, rather than an imbalanced world of haves and have-nots. It would ensure that humanity, indeed, has a future: “In losing our dominance over nature, we gain an enduring stability within it for all the generations that will follow” (211).
Unlock all 61 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: