When looking at issues involving nature and the environment, one cannot consider different aspects in isolation. Rather, a holistic approach is required, one that takes into account the flow of energy and material between the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere, and how information is fed back between these. Added to this is the sphere of human culture, which interacts with all of the other four.
This holistic evaluation is informed by three important considerations: the continuation of the human species, the ability of life to adapt and the effects of global climate change. When we are considering the first of these, the continuation of the human species, we are talking about issues such as food, people and security. In terms of the adaptability of life, we are focusing on the need to understand how life works. If these discussions are reduced to purely economic terms — to hard cash — we lose sight of the fundamental core of the issues and how they behave.
When the human factor is added, two additional elements are introduced: money and votes. These additions in turn inform the way human creativity is brought to bear. However, we also need to be aware that when conflict arises between the way mankind has done things and laws of nature, the latter should take precedence.
Faced with the ever-increasing urgency of the threat from global climate change, complicated by cumbersome legislative processes ill-equipped to devise an efficient response, more flexibility is called for.
How is global climate change actually going to affect us? How will the presence of greenhouse gases change the nature of our coastlines and our wetlands? These are important questions, very much deserving of debate.
For example, when seawater hits freshwater tidal zones, aquatic plants living in the coastal shallows die. Sea water would, however, provide plentiful sulfur, meaning coastal wetlands would produce less methane — a greenhouse gas — than freshwater wetlands do at the moment.
There is therefore a cost/benefit situation involved here, although we cannot be sure exactly at which point equilibrium will be established. All we can do for now is to study changes to the natural world as they happen. We need to know when to stop cutting down trees or plundering the resources of nature if we want to secure a sustainable future for the world and all life on it.
At the moment, we are calculating these issues in terms of money and continuing the plunder, unchecked by reason. If we carry on in this way, more and more of our resources will be exhausted. If Mother Nature brings creative force and vitality to the table, we must bring human ingenuity and strength of will.
We have a variety of tools at our disposal: conservation, restoration, formal education, mass education and awareness through the arts. With these, we can explore ways to work with nature and ensure the continued existence of the human species.
Chen Chang-po is a former research fellow in the Academia Sinica’s Biodiversity Center.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
An article on the Nature magazine Web site reports that 22 scientists last month wrote to the daily Dagens Nyheter criticizing Sweden’s no-lockdown response to COVID-19. However, evidence-based analysis shows that a lockdown is not a one-size-fits-all strategy and Sweden is showing the world a sustainable way for everybody to fearlessly live with the virus, which is an inevitable situation that everyone must face and accept for a while. The biggest myth about lockdowns is that they are the only solution when an epidemic worsens. A lockdown is a measure to cordon off a seriously affected area so that people in
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke during the opening ceremony of this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). For the first time in the assembly’s history, attendees, including Xi, had to dial in virtually. Xi made no acknowledgement of the Chinese government’s role in causing the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was there any meaningful apology. Instead, he painted China as a benign force for good and a friend to all nations. Except Taiwan, of course. The address was a reheated version of the speech Xi gave at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Xi again attempted to step into the
China’s prevention of Taiwan’s participation as an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO and other UN specialized institutions is misleading the world. China always asserts that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 established the so-called “one China principle,” in which Taiwan is a province of China. This is fake information that is part of China’s grand external propaganda strategy. Resolution 2758 made clear that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate representative of China at the UN and its specialized institutions. However, there is not a single word related to Taiwan in the resolution, no mention of the