In this enlightening interview with Dr. Eileen Crist—a deep, profound, and compassionate systems thinker—we are led through a journey on how to reframe our relationship to the planet for a more harmonious co-existence with all life on earth. We discuss the biodiversity crisis and destruction of wild places, pathways to halt these trends, and ways forward toward creating an ecological civilization. Dr. Crist shines a light on the worldview of human supremacy that foregrounds our relationship of dominion towards non-human animals and all of nature, and the role that human expansionism plays in driving a multitude of ecological crises. She concludes the discussion with a grounded, yet inspiring vision of how to protect this incredible life-giving planet by shifting our language, our identities, and our actions—pulling back and scaling down—so that they are more in alignment with our indigenous-inspired roles as Earthlings.
MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:
-
Eileen Crist 0:00
Everything we are we owe to Earth - our bodies of course, but also our propensity to art, science, craft, medicine, spirituality. All of these human gifts were responses to an extraordinary living world that captivated our senses and imagination. So it's important to see that this planet is not a human colony. It is an oasis in the universe, and Life is a mystery we will never fully comprehend, let alone recreate.
Alan Ware 0:32
Those were the inspiring words of today's guest, Dr. Eileen Crist, a deep, profound and compassionate systems thinker. She challenges us to reframe our relationship to the planet and move toward a truly ecological civilization. We'll hear more gems from Dr. Crist in this episode of the Overpopulation Podcast.
Nandita Bajaj 1:00
Welcome to the Overpopulation Podcast where we tirelessly make overshoot and overpopulation common knowledge. That's the first step in right-sizing the scale of our human footprint so that it is in balance with life on Earth, enabling all species to thrive. I'm Nanda Bajaj co-host and executive director of Population Balance.
Alan Ware 1:23
And I'm Alan Ware, co-host of the podcast and researcher with Population Balance, a nonprofit that collaborates with experts and other organizations to educate about the impacts of human overpopulation and overconsumption on the planet, people, and animals. Before we move on to today's guests, we've got some listener feedback. This one is from Madeline in Chicago who's responding to the Dr. Paul Ehrlich interview. Madeline says, ‘I just finished listening to this interview and I just wanted to let you know I really loved it. You asked some incredible questions and his responses were bold and truly astounding. He gave some really great guidance and advice too.’ Thanks, Madeline. This one is from Rosemary from Toronto right there in Nandita’s neighborhood, Rosemary says, ‘What a fascinating podcast interview with Dr. Paul Ehrlich. Thank you so much. He makes so many compelling arguments. Back when I was in high school, I had done a whole project on Paul's book, The Population Bomb, and our project drew so much interest that it was featured in the local newspaper. Interestingly, a few months ago when my classmates recirculated the news article I looked him up and it was great to learn that he was still so active. And then to hear him being interviewed on the podcast was a real treat.’
Nandita Bajaj 2:38
Well thank you so much for your feedback, Madeline and Rosemary. If you have feedback or guest recommendations to share, write to us using the contact form on our site, or by emailing us at podcast at populationbalance.org. And now on to our guest interview, which is an extra special one. Today's guest is Dr. Eileen Crist, someone who has deeply influenced our work and perspectives at Population Balance. In addition to being so excited about having this opportunity to chat with her today, we are also thrilled to announce that Dr. Crist has joined our board of directors. We really look forward to adding her perspective and expertise on biodiversity, conservation, and rewilding to our work here at Population Balance.
Alan Ware 03:24
Dr. Eileen Crist taught in the department of Science, Technology and Society at Virginia Tech for twenty-two years, retiring in 2020. Her work focuses on the biodiversity crisis and destruction of wild places, pathways to halt those trends, and ways forward toward creating an ecological civilization. She is co-editor of a number of books including Gaia and Turmoil (2011) and Keeping the Wild (2015). She has authored and co-authored numerous academic papers as well as popular writings. She is associate editor of the online journal, The Ecological Citizen, and blogger for Earth Tongues. Her most recent book, Abundant Earth: Toward an Ecological Civilization, was published by University of Chicago Press in 2019. And now on to our discussion.
Nandita Bajaj 04:14
Dr. Eileen Crist it's really wonderful to have you in our studio today. We are huge fans of your work. And your most recent book, Abundant Earth: Toward an Ecological Civilization, resonates with us for so many reasons. Well you've done an excellent job in describing the multitude of ecological crises we face while also offering a grounded yet inspiring vision for a more harmonious relationship with the planet. In fact, your vision of the future also very beautifully illuminates Population Balance's tagline Shrink Toward Abundance. We're thrilled to have you - welcome to the podcast.
Eileen Crist 04:54
Thank you. I'm really happy to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
Nandita Bajaj 04:58
Great. So one of the primary concerns that you talked about and most of your work is with biodiversity. Most people assume it's about the number of species, but you make it clear in your book that it's much more than that. Could you explain to our listeners what a fuller definition of biodiversity entails?
Eileen Crist 05:16
Biodiversity includes the whole tapestry of life, not only species. And biodiversity is also a comprehensive concept in being rigorous in science and intuitively available to a broader audience. People can understand that it's about the variety of life and what this planet is all about. So biodiversity includes the levels of genes, species, and ecosystems. Genetic diversity is about genes, of course, but really, it's about the entities that carry genetic variation, which is populations. So having abundant populations of animals, plants, fungi is so important. Populations are the repositories of genetic diversity and genetic diversity gives life forms resilience, which means evolutionary strength in the face of change. Now, species diversity is an amazing aspect of this planet. Take any nature show, for example, or picture book of tropical species, and we see that species diversity is captivating. It's a feast for the eyes. We don't even know how many species there are on Earth. About two million have been identified, but there could be seven, ten, or thirty. Scientists tend to converge on ten million, but we don't really know. So as an example, roughly 150,000 fungi species have been described, but recent research is indicating that there could be as many as four or five million fungi species. We don't even know the majority of species of fungi, let alone their ecological roles and their relationships. And species diversity also includes sub-species. Sub-species are not less important than species. They are extensions of the genetic diversity of a species. And they are expressions of evolutionary unfolding. So lastly, we have ecosystem diversity. Ecosystems are dynamic communities of plants, animals, and other life forms that are relating with one another, and with a nonliving environment. So the ecosystem concept really foregrounds that the living and nonliving dimensions of Earth are inseparable, and in some cases, these dimensions are even fused. That's the case with soil, which is a hybrid living and nonliving entity, and soil is a phenomenon of a living planet. So there is no soil on lifeless planets. So yes, biodiversity is a comprehensive and robust concept, involving all levels of life.
Nandita Bajaj 07:54
That was such a thorough and beautiful response. And I especially love the piece that you just said that the living and the nonliving are inseparable, and that there's no soil without a living planet. That's such a clear example of how interconnected the biotic and abiotic are. You also speak about the different ways in which biodiversity is currently being imperiled. Can you speak to that a little bit?
Eileen Crist 08:20
Yes, it is imperiled at all these levels: genetic, species, and ecosystem. So at the level of genes, what we are seeing today is huge declines of wild populations. This loss of abundances is eroding genetic diversity, and impoverishing the manifestations of life. At the species level, the extinction rate is a thousand times greater than natural. And it is important to state that humanity is extinguishing perfectly healthy life forms who have every right to be here as much as we do. Now, this extinction crisis is fast turning into a mass extinction event, where fifty or seventy-five percent of Earth's species could be terminated forever. What's more, entire ecosystems are imperiled today. Some examples are coral reefs, coastal seas, continental shelves, continental shelves of seas, rivers, grasslands, wetlands, tropical forests. So something that I fear is often not understood is that Earth's remaining biodiversity is a one time gift. If we destroy it, that's not fixable. It's a permanent impoverishment. And another thing that I fear is that many people think that the biodiversity crisis is happening somewhere else, somewhere remote. It's happening everywhere, including your backyard.
Alan Ware 09:47
Right. As you note, there are multiple drivers of this ongoing extinction of species and the simplification and eradication of different ecosystems and the genetic impoverishment. And agriculture, you highlight, is playing a major role in that around the planet. What are some of those effects that you see with agriculture?
Eileen Crist 10:08
Well, scientists have identified habitat destruction, killing, pollution, and climate change as main drivers of the ecological crisis. But the decisive blow on biodiversity comes from a combination of two or more causes, and this has been called the one-two punch or the one-two-three punch. Amphibians are an example of this. They are among the most imperiled of animals. They have suffered from habitat loss, pollution, a changing climate, and a disease that humans have moved around the globe. But it's not only amphibians - this is the general trend. Biodiversity destruction is happening from the multiple hits that populations, species, and ecologies are experiencing and cannot withstand. So now turning to the agriculture piece of your question, it's a major cause of biodiversity loss, especially industrial agriculture with its monocultures and its chemicals. In fact, recent scientific literature from the last ten years has identified food production as the leading cause of the ecological crisis. Why? Exactly connected to the one-two-three punch - food production has multiple impacts on life. One is the destruction of ecosystems. For example, mangrove habitats are turned over to shrimp production, grasslands are converted to grain monocultures, and wetlands get drained for agriculture. As another highlight, is the freshwater biodiversity crisis, which few people in the mainstream know about. There's been precipitous declines of freshwater populations and species. Where is the water going? Most of the water humans take goes to agriculture. Further down the line, climate change. At least 30% of greenhouse gases comes from food production, and this includes the methane of the livestock and the nitrous oxide from the fertilizers. Both of these are very potent greenhouse gases. Another connection is steep declines of big wild animals. Carnivores are killed around the world because they threaten livestock, and herbivores are killed and pushed off their habitats to convert into agriculture. A further impact of food is the killing of pollinators and the diminishment of soil biodiversity from the pesticides and the fertilizers. So this is why agriculture is so disruptive. Its impact is multifaceted. And while we're on the topic of food production, let's not forget industrial fishing. Marine life is a fraction of what it was even fifty years ago. And the biggest factor of ocean life destruction is commercial fishing. Now as the last point, I want to add that we would be remiss not to mention scale - 40% of Earth's ice free surface is given to agriculture, and some 90% of the ocean is open to fishing. So this is the toll of food production and agriculture.
Alan Ware 13:21
That is quite a list. How do you think we can remedy some of the destructive impact of this global agricultural food production model?
Eileen Crist 13:30
Well, there's a lot that we need to do to reverse biodiversity impoverishment. But in connection to food, we can highlight one game changing action, and that is the benefit for Earth if humanity embraces mostly plant-based eating. Of that 40% of land that goes to agriculture that we were just talking about, 30% goes to livestock, either as crop lands to make animal feed or as range lands for grazing. So if people choose to eat meat, dairy, and fish, either not at all, or as the proverbial Sunday meal, this would allow a lot of land to be returned to wild nature, and the abundance of marine creatures would resurge. So going mostly plant-based is hugely beneficial for biodiversity. And also, of course, for human health and for animal welfare. So that one thing that we could do, and you know, we don't have to wait to do this relatively swiftly, is mostly plant-based eating. It would make a huge difference.
Nandita Bajaj 14:33
I've read some of your work where you've appropriately described the quote unquote, humanization of the planet, and turning it into a human food pantry. It really helps to have that visual to understand what a huge role agriculture plays. Because of course, when you first think about the impact of human encroachment, people often say we don't take up that much space and urban development really only takes up 1% of the land. But what a lot of people don't realize is, it's all of the energy that goes to sustain us that is using up most of the land.
Eileen Crist 15:12
Absolutely. That's the population connection. It's not this sort of trivial argument that sometimes people make that if you were to take the whole population and stand them up, they, you know, fill the state of Texas. That's not the point. It's not the amount of space we take as physical bodies. It's the amount of space we take for food production. And as population continues to grow, and as consumption continues to grow, as people become more wealthy, if that trend continues, things are only going to get worse.
Nandita Bajaj 15:45
Yeah, and along that line, you've appropriately argued that a major driver of the ecological crisis is the worldview of human supremacy. I've heard the term anthropocentrism before but can you first describe what you mean by human supremacy?
Eileen Crist 16:01
Human supremacy is a worldview. And what that means is it's a big, shared idea that humans are superior to all other species, and entitled to do what we want to them. Human supremacy is about seizing the power of life and death over non-humans and assuming the prerogative to own all geographical space. Now human supremacy is not so much an official doctrine. It's not something that people learn in school, so to speak explicitly. It's much more of a background assumption that humans are above the rest of life, and in charge of planetary affairs. Now, the reason that human supremacy is a worldview is because it covers a wide gamut of actions. For example, take factory farms, they're also called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Sadly, this way of making meat, dairy, and eggs is spreading throughout the world. Farm animals in these operations are treated abysmally, they're reduced to objects in an industrial process. So how could we possibly treat animals this way? Human supremacy is the operative assumption - they are beneath us and they are for us. Take another example of overtaking entire biomes. So a biome is a very large ecosystem, such as, for example, grasslands around the globe. They have been turned into what we call bread baskets. Over 95% of the American prairie has been repurposed for corn, soy, wheat, and livestock raising. Now what gives us the right to convert an entire biome, decimating and endangering its native species? It never crosses most people's minds to wonder about such excess of scale - it just looks normal from a conventional perspective. Why? Again, human entitlement is the operative assumption. And so we could multiply examples here. Commercial fishing, which is fishing out the ocean, large-scale fracking of landscapes, killing contests for coyotes and sharks, or filling forests, such as in Southeast Asia with snares, or drowning the world in glyphosate. So the bottom line is that the wide span of destructive actions that it enables is what makes human supremacy a worldview.
Nandita Bajaj 18:36
Very true. But also having been part of a school system for a long time, I do see that indoctrination starting quite early for students in schools. The way we use animals in dissection, for example, as tools. Millions of animals are killed for a one time experiment to learn about their anatomy, which can be very well done through so many other means. The way we bring students to field trips such as zoos and aquariums, to show animals as entertainment or learning tools. There are so many examples where young children who normally would be quite empathetic to these other incredible beings are taught at an early age that it's okay to use animals as tools, entertainment, etc. So I understand what you're saying about it being a background assumption, which then shows up in all of our different systems. How do you think human supremacy is different from anthropocentrism?
Eileen Crist 19:43
Yeah, I would like to say one thing in response to what you just said, and that is that I think a lot of cultures in today's world have been very much influenced by the West, which has kind of led in this ideology of human supremacy. And your example was very very apropos because the way that this worldview gets learned, we might say, is kind of under the radar. Nobody sits down kids and teaches this worldview explicitly. Rather, it gets taught indirectly. It's an indirect form of indoctrination. And you're quite right about that use of animals, whether experimentally or as entertainment, or as objects to learn from. This is one of the most important aspects of human supremacy, because once you get the human-animal divide down, everything else can follow. Right? Because animals obviously are, we are so closely related with them. They have faces, we can see their emotions, we can see their intentionality. So if you can put that dividing line between animals and humans, you have the dividing line between humans and all of nature. One of the things that, for me, comes out in what you were saying, is that exactly because this indoctrination kind of happens under the radar, I think that bringing human supremacy as a worldview to light has a potential to help in that shift away from it, when people become aware of it explicitly. So now in response to your question about anthropocentrism. In the environmental literature, human supremacy and anthropocentrism tend to be used in the same way as concepts, but they carry very different connotations. Anthropocentrism leans into the metaphor of the center, it literally means human-centered, and this fails to communicate the element of unequal power. On the other hand, human supremacy immediately conveys that it's about power over nature, about hierarchy between humans and the rest of life, and therefore, that it's also a matter of injustice. I do want to insert one small comment here, and that is that other thinkers, Derrick Jensen, in particular, and Val Plumwood, the environmental philosopher, have used the term human supremacy. So I think that human supremacy is a better term that way when we recognize how terribly we have treated and treat nonhuman beings, and when we consider the scale of human takeover of Earth.
Alan Ware 22:16
I think some of this divide, it starts at such a young age, especially in Western urban and suburban environments, where school are these sterile indoor spaces that are completely cut off from natural spaces. Natural spaces are visited for very brief periods for certain field trips that might not even be natural spaces. So I think, very early on, we're taught that there's this firm separation between the real things we study in school that have more of this human supremacists bent, and going outside into the natural world and accepting nature on its own terms, learning about it, and learning to love it by learning about it. So it's a shame, and I think there is more outdoor education coming in, but it's still such a minor part of our education starting at the youngest age that builds in this human supremacy view.
Eileen Crist 23:06
Very much so. This separation has become increasingly physical as well, when we consider urban environments. I agree.
Nandita Bajaj 23:15
Yeah. I know we've talked about this being a worldview that shared across cultures. In your work, have you found any cultures in different times and places that have been less human supremacist?
Eileen Crist 23:29
Yes, I would definitely want to talk about that. Indigenous people have had a very different relationship with nature, a more egalitarian and harmonious, cosmological perspective of the connection between humans and the natural world. It's important to qualify that by saying that we don't want to idealize Indigenous cultures, nor do we want to homogenize them across time and space. But still with that caveat, it's fair to say that Native people have been respectful and reverent of nature. In some cases, they lived for millennia, in particular regions without degrading their environments. And we can take on board some recurrent Indigenous motifs that are relevant here. One is that indigenous people regard animals and plants as kin to humans, and as persons. Nonhumans can witness human actions. So for indigenous people, nonhuman beings are awake and aware, and it matters to be respectful of their lives and of their experiences in the world. Another common thread is that Indigenous people do not have a frontier mentality. Nature is not something to be constantly encroached upon and overtaken. Indeed native means a way of life that fits in, that is enveloped by a bigger and sacred world. Additionally, in Indigenous life, ceremony is a means to express relationship and gratitude. For example, ceremonies are often undertaken in connection to fishing and hunting in a variety of of Indigenous cultures. This is a way to honor the lives of the animals who become food. Another shared Indigenous quality is intergenerational awareness - receiving the wisdom of the ancestors with respect to the land and passing down a preserved environment to posterity. So as a last point, I'd like to highlight some key Indigenous values that are recurrent in the literature of Indigenous authors: reciprocity, gratitude, kinship, affection, respect. So considering the question of okay, how do we overcome human supremacy, this dominant story that we are above the rest of of life and entitled to use it as we will, I think it's really vital to see that it is a false story. Human supremacy is a historical inheritance. We don't have to stay saddled with it. We are neither above nor separate from nature. We are dependent on the planet for every breath we take. On average, that's fifteen breaths per minute, from the day we're born to the day we die. We are beholden to life for making this perfect air. What's more, the human species emerged at a high point of biodiversity. That biodiverse world galvanized humans. Everything we are we owe to Earth. Our bodies, of course, but also our propensity to art, science, craft, medicine, spirituality. All of these human gifts were responses to an extraordinary living world that captivated our senses and imagination. So it's important to see that this planet is not a human colony. It is an oasis in the universe, and life is a mystery we will never fully comprehend, let alone recreate. Indigenous people have always understood that life works through diversity and interconnections, and human beings are invited to the table as equal partners not as the planet's aristocracy.
Alan Ware 27:20
So along with human supremacy, you've mentioned human expansionism as another primary driver of the ecological crisis. How would you describe human expansionism?
Eileen Crist 27:30
Well, the two are definitely connected. Expansionism is about the growth of the human enterprise. Now we can call it endless growth. But growth is a biological metaphor, and it often has positive connotations, so expansionism may be preferable. Expansionism really delivers a palpable spatial sense of humans, leaving no stone unturned and no blank spot on the map. Now human supremacy is connected to expansionism. Supremacy gives permission to the human enterprise to keep growing because the underlying assumption is that humans are entitled to sprawl over the face of the Earth. All human systems are expanding and demanding more of the planet. And since the 1950s, expansionism has been accelerating. So specifically, we have continued economic growth, extraction, production, and consumption of stuff and energy, demographic - human numbers continue to grow, and infrastructural expansion - so more roads, cellphone towers, satellites, pipelines, electric grids, and the like. And infrastructure growth is, though it's rarely considered, especially in in the mainstream and conventional society, is very destructive of nature. Especially when we consider highways and roads, which are multiplying without end in sight. That infrastructure gives access for agricultural development, for mining, logging, poaching, settlements - so it enables biodiversity destruction. And of course, we need to add to human expansionism the huge waste flows that Earth cannot absorb: agrochemicals, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, plastic, sewage, garbage, e-waste, and more. So here's another way to think about expansionism is through the idea of the technosphere. The technosphere is defined as the entire human-made mass of stuff. So it includes everything: roads, houses, fishing vessels, dishes, sidewalks, all of it, right? And now, here I'd like to share some stats from a Nature paper that was published in 2020. In 1900, the technosphere was 3% of Earth's total biomass. Biomass is the weight of all living things. So the technosphere was 3% of that. In 2020, the mass of human-made objects exceeds the weight of all living things on Earth. Buildings and infrastructures weigh more than all the world's trees and shrubs. The mass of plastic is double the biomass of animals. So wrapping our minds or trying to wrap our minds around the swell of the technosphere is a good proxy for human expansionism.
Alan Ware 30:32
And capitalism has been a very effective way of of taking inputs in terms of all the natural resources got by human supremacy, turning them into products, so that we can get fleeting emotions and feelings from those products, whether it's security or status or our survival, and then turning it into waste and pollution on the other side. Do you see capitalism as having a unique part of this story of human expansionism?
Eileen Crist 31:01
Yeah, absolutely. Capitalism is inherently expansionist because of the motive, in particular, of wealth accumulation. Capitalism is geared toward overproduction. And like you just said, toward inciting overconsumption. So capitalism keeps the extraction engine going, it keeps extraction going. And it's always looking for new places to extract from. It's also seeking always to expand markets, and to grow its customer base, not only by roping in more people, but by finding new populations, like expanding sales for kids. And for pets. Capitalism is constantly fabricating new desires through advertising. And capitalism makes endless versions of the same things, whether that's cars, or crackers, or lighting fixtures, or pocket books, or shoes, or TVs, you name it. It's a bottomless pit of overproduction. Now, just as an example, here's another stat from that same paper - the amount of new stuff that is made every week is equivalent to the body weight of 7.8 billion people. But I'd like to go a little further on this question of capitalism and ask is capitalism the root problem? So some analysts imply that if only we could change the capitalist system to some kind of other economic system, everything would be fine. But capitalism is not the root problem. It came from somewhere. The drive for wealth accumulation is far older than capitalism. It's as old as civilization and empire states. The wealth that elites have pursued from the dawn of history demanded domination over the natural world. That's the key. Domination over the natural world is the key. Why? Because nature is the source of all wealth. So well before capitalism, empires turned land into human property, and constantly expanded agriculture into wild lands. Empires entrench the enterprises that are still with us: deforestation, mining, draining wetlands, constant road building, and warfare, for loot, and for more land and for resources. Empires also initiated what today is called defaunation, the downfall of wild animals - killing them, or driving them away, especially the big ones who need a lot of space. So the domination of nature and the idea that nature is a collection of resources to turn into wealth preceded capitalism by millennia. Capitalism inherited that view, and has enacted it on a far bigger scale, because of some new historical realities, and especially since the 19th century. Specifically, fossil fuel energy, of course, and machines, machinic technology. A hugely increased human population and its demands. The transportation revolution, which is entirely unprecedented in history. More recently, the growth of the middle class, full-scale globalization of trade, virtual interconnectivity, which has really speeded up economic transactions, and the invention of the credit card, which fuels consumption. So all these things have super-scaled the destructiveness of the system, but to supersede capitalism to create something new, a new way of human life on Earth, we have to go to the root and end the domination of nature on which wealth production depends. If we don't question the domination of nature, then what happens is that the solution to capitalism's problems get restricted basically to two things: regulating industries and redistributing wealth. But this solution package doesn't challenge the fact that wealth comes from plundering the Earth at the expense of countless species and wild places. Instead, this particular solution package of industry regulation and wealth redistribution is all about sharing the plunder more equally among humans.
Nandita Bajaj 35:33
Right. Yeah. Another point I wanted to add is capitalism has not only fabricated desires for things, but one of the key things we look at at Population Balance is pronatalism. Capitalism is also taking a lead in fabricating a desire for babies. All you need to do is take a look at the multibillion dollar baby industry. You know, it's taken one of the most consequential decisions of your life and turned it into a commodity to fuel more consumption.
Eileen Crist 36:07
Absolutely in agreement with you. Of course, pronatalism is also far older than capitalism. It's connected to to patriarchy, so to gender inequality, and also to empires that you know, needed expendable people to do the work that the elites didn't want to do, and to fill the armies. And today in capitalism, to be consumers, which is connected to the growth of the middle class. So yeah, pronatalism is far older than capitalism. And at this moment in history, not only can gender equality confront this trend, but we need a new a newfound attitude about bearing children. So you know, I grew up, as well, with that expectation, right? It's the default expectation, sort of "When the grandchildren coming? When are you going to have children?"
Nandita Bajaj 37:07
Yeah.
Eileen Crist 37:07
And we need to move away from that default expectation and allow for the possibility of women to authentically choose to have no children.
Nandita Bajaj 37:18
Yeah.
Eileen Crist 37:19
And the emphasis here is the authentic choice. But in order for choices to be authentic, we have to have the options be equal, right? That the expectation for having children isn't overloading people's minds so that they automatically go in that direction.
Nandita Bajaj 37:36
Right.
Eileen Crist 37:36
But that there is no expectation, maybe you'll have children? Maybe you won't. That is a choice, and that you can take on board all kinds of things in making that choice so that that choice is authentic.
Nandita Bajaj 37:49
So well captured. Yes. And you just started alluding to the growing middle class issue as tied to capitalism. You've expressed your concern of a growing global middle class that is on track to possibly reach five billion before mid-century. What are some of the main concerns you found in your work?
Eileen Crist 38:09
Well, the global middle class has been growing exponentially since the 1990s. And it's projected to grow toward five billion or more well before 2050. Most of this coming swell of the middle class will occur in emerging economies, in particular in China and India. Now, we have to know that the pandemic has stalled that growth but not stopped it. But what we've learned from the pandemic is that these projections of global middle class growth could be derailed from economic breakdown, or civilizational collapse from climate change, or war, or another pandemic or something else. But with that caveat, let's turn to the impact of the middle class. So how do we define it? Middle class can be defined in terms of income, or usually it's called income parity. But we get a better understanding of middle class and of the ecological costs of the middle class when we look at it as a lifestyle. So entry into middle class means participating in the global economy, which moves massive amounts of stuff around the globe. Being middle class entails being surrounded by commodities - a commodities-saturated life - with computers, tablets, phones, TVs, paper, clothing, imported foods, washing machines, you name it. Also, middle class avails much more of services like travel, entertainment and eating out. And services, of course have a material and energy base - they're not a dematerialized aspect of the economy. Furthermore, a middle class lifestyle and middle class status entails increased energy use, and of course, all these things are tied, right, but we can just highlight them. Increased energy use. Now we can consider one repercussion of that - as long as fossil fuels are society's main energy source, and the global middle class keeps swelling, we will not be able to get a handle on climate change. Furthermore, middle class comes with car ownership, usually. There's about one billion cars globally. And we're heading to three, four, or more billion in this century. Think about the implications of more manufacturing, road building, pollution, traffic, and roadkill. And another middle class trend to mention, at least so far is that it involves increased consumption of meat, dairy, and fish with a huge costs for the global ecosystem. So all these aspects of the middle class lifestyle, in the aggregate, are taking an immense toll. We can say that the impact of the middle class is all about excessive consumption, magnified by a large population size.
Nandita Bajaj 41:03
Yeah, and that meat consumption piece is quite stark, actually, because if you look at the data from just the last fifty years of the increase in meat consumption, since our population has doubled from four billion to approximately eight billion, meat consumption has gone up by a factor of three and a half. Seafood consumption has gone up by a factor of four. And the greatest increase has actually happened in Asia - a tenfold increase in meat consumption, which is where you've mentioned the global middle class rise is happening much faster in the Asian economies. So the population factors simply cannot be dismissed in the growing humanization of the planet. The other related question to this is, you know, how can we balance the rightful striving of billions for the comfort and security that billions of us already take for granted with the fact that the planet cannot withstand several billion more of us middle class consumers?
Eileen Crist 42:11
The rise of the middle class is really a conundrum. On the one hand, what we're seeing, just like you were saying, you're alluding to, people want this way of life, it seems they want this way of life with its computers, and gadgets, its personal mobility, and conveniences. And on the other hand, the middle class lifestyle is rapidly deciding Earth's fate, because of the overwhelming demands on the planet and the overwhelming waste output. At the same time, poverty still exists. Even though in the last three decades, poverty has actually been much reduced, precisely in tandem with the middle class having grown. But still, there are about one billion people who do not have electricity and other modern amenities. And this is changing, as it should, right? Equity demands that if people want modern amenities, and modern opportunities, they should have them - they should not be a privilege only of some. So what's the solution if indeed there is one? What's the solution to allow for human fairness without destroying Earth? There is not one solution. There is no silver bullet here. For starters, we can see that the global population size is crucial. Since human beings are converging toward middle class living, how many of us there are matters enormously. So we should work within a human rights framework to gradually reduce our global numbers. Population, however, is only one factor. We need to downscale economic life as soon as possible. And one way to go into this to the how of this is to note that heeding the catchphrase, "reduce recycle, reuse," still goes a long way. We have to reduce extraction, production, and global trade. And we can do that by creating slower economies. An important way to slow the economy down is to reduce the workweek. So to work a lot less and this will be a blessing right? It will free time for hobbies, relationships, nature, service work, cooking. All these things are important for the good life, and so many people do not have time for them. Also, we have to stop producing luxury and superfluous products, and especially mass producing them. So for example, handmade jewelry from your local artist at the local market is a better way to acquire jewelry than buying it from the big box store or buying it online. Moreover, products need to be made to be durable. The constant production of new lines of products, things like phones, computers and cars, for example, that are so materials intensive and so water and energy intensive. This is unacceptable. Stuff should be made to last, updated in decadal timelines, and made with materials that are recyclable. Reuse is all about valuing what we have, mending our stuff, passing it down, and preferring to buy used rather than new. Now all these solutions could be pursued right away. It's about the political and social will to do so. But what is ultimately needed is a complete transformation of economic life. And this will take more time. That transformation, or the heart of it, is about becoming local. For example, regarding food, we could say, especially regarding food, eating local means that human communities are zoned with farms - people need to live nearby to where most of their food is made. That way, we will know foods ecological contexts, what kind of labor was involved, how the animals were treated. Moreover, that means that the food will not have any food miles or far, far fewer food miles. Also, it will be food that is fresh, more nourishing, and so reducing healthcare budgets and human suffering, and local food will involve much less food waste, because programs can be instituted that returned food residues to the farmers to compost back into soil. Another big piece of the local economy is to see a renaissance of the crafts. Instead of buying the standardized mass produced stuff shipped from who knows where and made who knows how, it means acquiring products from your local craftspeople. And many things that we daily consume or desire can be locally made, just like we were saying about the jewelry, but also things we use, like dishware, pottery, clothing, furniture, prepared foods, art, all these things can be crafted nearby. So to circle back to the question of how do we balance middle class living with a biodiverse Earth? We do so by reducing the global population and by downscaling and transforming economic life.
Alan Ware 47:25
Yeah, so that reminds us of Paul Ehrlich talking about the rectangle of human impact. And one side is the number of people in a population and the other side is the average consumption for each of those people. And you've just included both in that. And like us at Population Balance, you certainly understand the critical role in lowering human numbers will create a necessary reduction in total human impact. And you've mentioned a number of two billion as a possible sustainable population. How did you reach that number?
Eileen Crist 47:55
Population is the factor that scales up consumption. Even the basic aspects of human life can get scaled up unsustainably by human numbers. You know, basic things like food requirements, water, building materials, and sanitation capacity, let alone middle class consumption that we were discussing. So simply common sensically, we can see that two billion is more sustainable than eight billion or more for Earth and for human quality of life. But there's a more rigorous rationale for two billion as a sustainable population. And it's the agronomist David Pimentel who provided a scientific analysis for this. And it involves food production - that's at the heart of the analysis. Two billion is the population that can be nourished with organic and diverse food, and with farm animals living in the farms where they belong. So a population of two billion can be supported by a healthy food system, while also allowing expansive nature protection, and the preservation of biodiversity. Pimentel specifically built into his analysis, a modern standard of living that is modest, so roughly European levels, and also equitable among people, and with reduced animal product consumption. So this is the ecological rationale of two billion. It's good for human health, good for the integrity of the planet, and ethical for animals. And that's what it's all about, that win-win-win alignment, right? So is the optimal number two billion? Is it one billion? Is it three billion? We don't know exactly, but we do know that it's a lot lower than where we are and where we're headed.
Alan Ware 49:49
We would agree.
Nandita Bajaj 49:50
We interviewed Paul Ehrlich recently who mentioned three billion at a Mexican standard of living and he was quoting Sir Partha Dasgupta.
Eileen Crist 49:59
Yeah.
Nandita Bajaj 50:00
And of course, the point is, as you just captured, is not whether it's two or three or one, it's just great to have some kind of a vision to work towards. And, you know, not necessarily strap ourselves into a number, but a number is actually really helpful to know by what factor we have overshot that number.
Eileen Crist 50:22
Right.
Nandita Bajaj 50:22
And in your book you also mentioned, and you sort of alluded to that right now, is two aspects of lowering our consumption. You call it scaling down and pulling back as the most intelligent two sided strategy to address the ecological crisis. How do we do those two things?
Eileen Crist 50:42
So the one involves human systems and the other involves nature. Scaling down means downscaling human systems. Pulling back means pulling back from nature, freeing the natural world to be the lively matrix of biodiversity. These two things need to be pursued together. In order to preserve Earth's biodiversity, both for its own sake and for the sake of future people, we have to protect nature on a large scale. And to be able to achieve this, humanity has to contract its demands from nature, and substantially reduce pollution. So the scaling down is all about what we've been discussing - lowering the human population, transforming economic life - especially ending overproduction, and valuing local living and the conservation of stuff and energy. Scaling down also means minimizing infrastructural growth, and building no infrastructure in natural areas, and in fact, even removing infrastructure from wild places. Now, pulling back is about generously protecting land and seas. Conservation scientists are urging global society to move toward protecting half of Earth's ecosystems. This is known as half-Earth or Nature Needs Half. This scale of nature conservation is required to stop extinctions and to avert a mass extinction. It's also needed to deal with climate change. Scientists are now using the term "natural climate solutions." Protecting and restoring wild places has enormous greenhouse mitigation potential, both in terms of keeping the carbon stored in the natural world and in absorbing the carbon dioxide that we have emitted. And an important last point about pulling back is that large scale nature protection inaugurates a new relationship between humanity and Earth, one of peaceful coexistence, respect, and wonder, and mutual thriving.
Alan Ware 52:58
So in your essay Earthling (we/us), you make the point that socio-cultural identity politics is interfering with the need to see ourselves as Earthlings whose ultimate ground of commonality as Earthlings should supersede these other identities. Could you elaborate on the ideas you wrote about in that essay?
Eileen Crist 53:18
I think that we are all feeling a sense of the fracturing of the human community these days. People are retreating into social identities for a sense of security, of knowing who they are and who they belong with. So this contracting into social identity is a response to the uncertainty and fear that many people are experiencing today. We can say that social identity is playing the role of safe zone. And life on the internet is amplifying this retreat into separate social identities. Instead of being like a collective hive, the internet is more of a collection of separate cells that are sealed off from one another. And the more time people spend in their favorite cells, the more reinforced do their convictions become. So social identities are hardening. Now, to the extent that social identities are antagonistic with other social identities, this means trouble because hostility and disdain and negative emotions have a fertile setup. This condition that we are in is extremely dangerous at so many levels. People cannot work together exactly at the time when we need to come together and work together. And there's distrust, there's violence, and there's war. So to switch gears to a brighter possibility, the identity of Earthling says this: "Look, we have a shared identity. We are Earthlings, among so many other nonhuman Earthlings, and we are all relatives. Even within our inner bodies we are composed of of nonhuman cells of microorganisms that we cannot live without. And the identity of Earthling is not only shared, it is solidly real, it is permanently who we are. As long as we exist in the universe, it is permanently who we are." But other identities they come in they go, there used to be Babylonians, and Etruscans, and many, many others who no one except historians has ever heard of, and do we ever hear about them now? So I'm not arguing that people should give up their heartfelt social identities - that would be presumptuous to argue. But let's not hold on to social identity so tightly that we become indifferent and hostile to others. And that we forget that before all else, we are all Earthlings.
Alan Ware 55:51
Yeah, love that.
Eileen Crist 55:53
So Earthling really invites us to open our hearts to this shared reality, and to attend to the question of what is happening to all Earthlings right now on the planet.
Alan Ware 56:05
Yeah, cultural evolution is so fast. And these social-cultural identities are part of that cultural broth, and it changes so fast, but the ground of our being is as an Earthling human creature. And that will be the ground in the future too, once all these social streams have recombined or extinguished, or new ones have formed.
Eileen Crist 56:27
It's the forever ground.
Alan Ware 56:28
Yeah, it's a forever ground. I love that.
Nandita Bajaj 56:30
Yeah, it's a really beautiful explanation of how to, as an integral thinker, and philosopher coined the phrase, "transcend and include." A philosopher that I know Alan and I both have read and been impacted by, Ken Wilber, came up with this idea that every new level of complexity both transcends the limitations of the earlier level, and includes the less complex structure into itself. And it makes me think of how that level of transcendence is needed, while also including the safe zone that we feel we're in when we're part of our social/cultural identity. But as you said, just -
Eileen Crist 57:11
Yes.
Nandita Bajaj 57:12
Living within that exclusively robs us of the very humanity, the Earthling identity, that you're talking about.
Eileen Crist 57:21
Yeah, absolutely. And when we're only living in these social identities, we become further alienated from the Earth and unaware of what is happening. I mean, there's so much broad ignorance of mass extinction, and people don't really understand climate change. So this sort of, you know, contracting into social identity, closing off into social identity, is really fueling ignorance and our awareness of what is happening right now on the planet - exactly at a time when we really need to open up to it.
Nandita Bajaj 57:54
Definitely. And, you know, it's a great segue into the next question we have for you, which is about language, because so much of what you've just spoken about is also identity through language. And you've noted that the environmental movement has used language like ecosystem services, fisheries, natural resources - terms that limit our worldview. What do you see as the critical role that language plays in discussing the ecological crisis?
Eileen Crist 58:21
Language is incredibly important. Concepts in particular, are very important. Through a concept, what we do is we project a particular meaning on the world. And then we see the world through the lens of the concept. So when a concept becomes conventional, that is to say "widely used," people forget that they're seeing the world through the lens of the concept. Instead, the concept appears to be portraying how things are. So let me walk this home with an example. Think about the word weed, W-E-E-D, right? It seems so straightforward. Everyone knows what a weed is, and what the word means. But if we take a closer look, we see that it's not straightforward. It's loaded. Weed carries a world of meaning and consequences. It means "unwanted plant." Weed also means a commonplace plant. So we say, "It grows like a weed." It's something kind of inherently contemptible. And weed therefore is something that invites, it even deserves, a weed killer. So the next thing you know, everyone has a bottle of herbicide under their kitchen sink.
Nandita Bajaj 59:37
Right.
Eileen Crist 59:38
Or the garage. And the next thing you know, it's all collectively dumping into the estuary. So a simple word like weed has colored your perception, has imbued you with disdain towards certain plants, has condoned herbicides and their consequences. And of course, the word has screened the reality of the plant itself that's been labeled a weed such as, for example, the dandelion, which is not only a pretty plant, it turns out to be a superfood. Now we can go down the line and look at concepts that are so often used, of course, like natural resources, marginal lands, fish stock, vermin, game, trophy. You know, if we look at all these words closely, we notice that they're either derogatory of nature, or of some aspect of nature, or human possessive. So it's really important to be aware of how words color perception and guide action. To give one more example, if we call an animal, a pest, or an invasive, what is that word saying? Effectively, it's saying that it is an animal beneath contempt, and killable. Now, I do want to address the concept you brought up of the ecosystem services, because scientists and others who use this concept, use it with the best intentions. And it's true, we get all kinds of free services from nature, we get the air, soil, food, medicine, pollination, water filtration, storm breaks and spongy forests trickling down the freshwater at nice speeds, right? But why do we need to call these amazing things services?
Nandita Bajaj 1:01:25
Right.
Eileen Crist 1:01:26
Even though it is a dead metaphor, right? No one thinks that nature is actually serving us. But still, it's the word of choice and it comes with a ring. It echoes human entitlement that we are here to be served. So why not call ecosystem services, ecosystem gifts? You know, that's a metaphor as well, but it's a more beautiful one, and it invites gratitude.
Nandita Bajaj 1:01:50
That's beautiful.
Alan Ware 1:01:51
So in general, how would you describe what an ecological civilization might look like?
Eileen Crist 1:01:57
Well, we have touched on this question indirectly, in many ways, but we can delve into it more. Between human communities of an ecological civilization, there will extend vast areas of protected land and seas that belong only to themselves. Earth's freedom will enable the resurgence and flourishing of biodiversity. And by the same token, a wild planet is the preserve of humanity's wilderness skills. So let me elaborate. Human beings have profound capacities of subtle perception. It's in our genome in our genetic inheritance that we have lost. We have lost these capacities with modern life. And again, Indigenous people show the way. They exhibit extraordinary capacities of perception, of tracking wild animals, communicating with non-humans, navigating in the world and spiritual questing. So within the free expanse of nature of an ecological civilization, human beings can be visitors, guided by skilled leaders coming to wild nature to learn, contemplate, commune, perceive in expansive ways, heal, and preserve the arts of survival. We can add here also the practices of snorkeling and scuba diving that are modern gifts to the world. In an ecological civilization, the ocean is not primarily for eating. It's for witnessing a world of exquisite beauty, restored beauty, and expanding our minds through that experience. Ecological civilization also means, like we have been discussing, that human communities will be place-based with slow economies, a new culture of consumption that values conserving stuff and energy, with a renaissance of local crafts, and mostly local good food - plant-based for the most part, and diverse. I think that it's also important to transform our concept of work. People need meaningful work for fulfillment as opposed to a job for a paycheck, right? And we also need time for the equally important parts of human life, like relationship and hobbies, nature, food preparation, meditation, physical activity. These are very important for meaningful life. On that note, I would like to add about children that children will be raised close to nature, to sustain their spontaneous wonder for the natural world and children should be educated to find their gift or their calling in life. In an ecological civilization, sustainable populations will be able to persist because the institutions underlying sustainable population will be in place, namely, full gender equity, children's rights, high quality family planning, comprehensive sexuality education. And let's add the elevation of adoption as a common and valued norm for creating larger families. Last point, but far from least, an ecological civilization means a fully demilitarized world, all the weapons have to go. And ecological civilization is about creating a safe world. It's not about having security, quote, unquote. A world of peace is a safe world, with human communities united through ties of modest training, and the lively exchange of ideas. So an ecological civilization means local in terms of living, and global in terms of sustaining human connectivity, so that the human mind stays open and receptive to other ways and cultures. So I want to finish by saying that I don't offer these thoughts as a program, but rather as ideas to think with in moving toward an ecological civilization toward a new way of human life. Many people might think that all this sounds hopelessly utopian, but it's not so. Imagination is a great human strength. And dreaming underpins all social movements. We are today on the verge of catastrophic decline - it's time to dream. Reforms here and there will not be enough. We need to reimagine human life on Earth.
Alan Ware 1:06:36
That's a beautiful vision. And to get humanity more in touch with what I think is our ultimate future, we are going to have to live long-term in balance. So we might as well start looking at that now, seriously. That was amazing.
Eileen Crist 1:06:52
Thank you, thank you.
Nandita Bajaj 1:06:54
You have this incredible ability to take on really large systems, and you've done such a comprehensive and thorough review of all those systems. And then you've got this really poetic and evocative way of explaining these through a really visionary lens that does offer realistic optimism to create such a future. Thank you so much. That was an incredible, incredible discussion.
Alan Ware 1:07:23
Yeah.
Eileen Crist 1:07:24
Thank you for having me.
Alan Ware 1:07:25
Yeah, we need to have you on many times.
Eileen Crist 1:07:28
Yeah. And I have to say I'm very excited to be on the board, and that we'll be working closely together in the next few years. Really excited.
Nandita Bajaj 1:07:36
Us too.
Alan Ware 1:07:38
Excited to have you. Well, that's it for this edition of the Overpopulation Podcast. Visit population balance.org to learn more. And to share feedback or guest recommendations, write to us using the contact form on our site, or by emailing us at podcast@ population balance.org. You might also be interested in joining our virtual podcast club, which meets monthly on Saturday over zoom to discuss the ideas in a previous podcast episode. Learn more by visiting our website and if you feel inspired by our work, please consider supporting us using the donate button. Also to expand our listenership, please consider rating us on whichever podcast platform you use.
Nandita Bajaj: Until next time, I'm Nandita Bajaj, thanking you for your interest in our work and for all your efforts in helping us all shrink toward abundance.
