A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future

“We are all culpable but, it has to be said, through no fault of our own. It is only in the last few decades that we have come to understand that every one of us has been born into a human world that was always inherently unsustainable. But now that we do know this, we have a choice to make.”

Attenborough implicates his readers in the ongoing ecological crisis that he confronts, even if he avoids placing blame (“through no fault of our own”). It is a purposeful rhetorical strategy for garnering the support of readers without alienating them. It is also clearly a call to action, not merely a statement of philosophy.

“Such mass extinctions have happened five times in life’s four-billion-year history. Each time, nature has collapsed, leaving just enough survivors to start the process once more.”

Specifically, there have been five mass extinction events in Earth’s history, according to geologists and other scientists. The most recent was the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, who dominated the planet for 165 million years (in contrast, humans have only been around 300,000 years). All of these mass extinctions show evidence that a “radical change in the level of atmospheric carbon was a feature” in the demise of multiple species (88). The difference, this time, is that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere today is directly caused by human activity—activity over which humanity has control. Thus, a sixth mass extinction can, through political will and long-term commitment, presumably be avoided.

“So the flourishing biodiversity of the Holocene helped to moderate the global temperatures of Earth, and the living world settled into a gentle, reliable annual rhythm—the seasons.”

After the extinction of the dinosaurs, the atmosphere of the Earth adjusted, creating the ideal conditions for warm-blooded mammals like humans. This cyclical natural rhythm is what Attenborough’s proposals intend to return Earth to; mimicking nature helps to create a natural balance. Attenborough goes on to suggest that the Holocene was “our Garden of Eden” (21). This metaphor reveals overtones of religious idyll and/or utopian fantasy, an ideal place that exists only in the imagination, perhaps undercutting Attenborough’s scientific credibility.

“The 1950s were a time of great optimism. The Second World War that had left Europe in ruin was beginning to fade in the memory. The whole world wanted to move on. Technological innovation was booming, making our lives easier, introducing us to new experiences. It felt that nothing would limit our progress. The future was going to be exciting and bring everything we had ever dreamed of. Who was I, travelling the globe with the task of exploring nature, to disagree.”

Attenborough paints an optimistic picture of the 1950s, revealing a particular subject position (there are others who frame the 1950s very differently). Attenborough speaks to the scientific community’s view of that historical moment as an optimistic time of innovation. Shortly after making the above statement, however, Attenborough also acknowledges the naivete harbored by scientists and naturalists of the time: “That was before any of us were aware that there were problems” (30). Thus, the optimism of the time is immediately undercut by the realities of the present day—that this innovation had come at a cost.

“I had had a vision of how all human beings had once lived—in small groups that found all they needed in the natural world around them. The resources they relied on were self-renewing. They produced little to no waste. They lived sustainably, in balance with their environment in a way that could continue effectively, for ever.”

While Attenborough’s intention here is to showcase the sustainability of hunter-gatherer groups of indigenous peoples in New Guinea, it also clearly romanticizes indigenous life with a potentially colonizing eye. That is, the food insecurity inherent to any peoples who rely on subsistence styles of living should not be overlooked. These groups often have little access to education or to the technologies that Attenborough praises elsewhere (like advanced medical treatments) and are frequently exploited politically. Again, his vision supports his ideas about living sustainably, but its tone glosses over lived realities.

“The awful truth was that the process of extinction that I had seen as a boy in the rocks was happening right here around me, to animals with which I was familiar—our closest relatives. And we were responsible.”

Attenborough’s encounter with the gorillas in Rwanda brings home the very real fact of their threatened existence. Not only does he realize that human activity—poaching, the encroaching of humans into wild areas, the effects of climate change—is responsible for the decline in gorilla populations, but he also begins to understand the connection to all species. That is, the extinction of those mammals most closely related to humans also portends the extinction of humans themselves.

“We have become too skilled at fishing. And we have done so, not gradually, but—as with whaling and the destruction of rainforests—suddenly. Exponential gains are characteristic of cultural evolution. Invention accumulates. If you combine the diesel engine, GPS, and the echo sounder, the opportunities they create are not just added to one another, they are multiplied. But the ability of fish to reproduce is limited. As a consequence, we have now overfished many of our coastal waters.”

Attenborough cites this as an example of the downside of technological development. Humanity’s ability to innovate new technologies to feed their own desires inevitably reverberates down the food chain. Not only do practices such as whaling deplete the oceans but also do technological advantages that lead to overfishing.

“Even more startling is the fact that 96 per cent of the mass of all the mammals on Earth is made up of our bodies and those of the animals that we raise to eat. Our own mass accounts for one third of the total. Our domestic mammals—chiefly cows, pigs and sheep—make up just over 60 per cent. The remainder—all the wild mammals, from mice to elephants and whales—account for just 4 per cent.”

This startling statistic supports Attenborough’s argument that wild areas, and the biodiversity that these areas contain, is being lost at an exponential rate. This clash of interests (see Theme: Competing Clash of Interests) pits humanity’s demand for meat against the ecological stability of wild areas and wildlife. It is not merely that there are far more domesticated animals than wild animals; it is also that the area of land needed to cultivate the feed for such domesticated livestock is vast, and the spread of industrialized farming inevitably shrinks that available habitat for wildlife.

“Earth may be a sealed dish, but we don’t live in it alone! We share it with the living world—the most remarkable life-support system imaginable, constructed over billions of years to refresh and renew food supplies, to absorb and reuse waste, to dampen damage and bring balance at the planetary scale.”

At the conclusion to Part 2, which outlines the most potentially devastating impacts of climate change and loss of biodiversity, Attenborough sounds a hopeful note. If humanity looks to nature for answers—this remarkable self-sustaining system that continually renews with wasting materials—then the problems that are now faced can be solved. This again emphasizes the fact that humanity relies on nature for its continued existence; thus, humanity has both a moral imperative and a vested interest in salvaging the natural world.

“The species loss caused by deforestation to grow the soy we need to feed the chicken we eat is not accounted for. The impact on marine ecosystems of the plastic water bottle that we buy and discard is not accounted for. The greenhouse gases produced when making the concrete for the breezeblocks of the extension we build are not accounted for. Little wonder that all of the damage we have done to Earth has crept up on us so quickly.”

Attenborough points out that, when taking stock of the environmental impact caused by humans, many links in the chain of industry are often ignored. Much discussion is made of the impact of eating meat—such as the impact on human health or the waste generated by livestock farms—but not a lot of discussion links the loss of rainforest to the rise of chicken consumption. There are many places within various industries where greenhouse gases are produced but effectively hidden from public view. This makes the project of confronting the extent of the damage caused by human-generated activity even more daunting.

“The Happy Planet Index, created by the New Economics Foundation in 2006, attempts to do just that, combing a nation’s ecological footprint with elements of human well-being, such as life expectancy, average levels of happiness and a measure of equality.”

Instead of measuring success by financial numbers, as is the habit with using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to rank a nation’s achievement, Attenborough—and others, as mentioned above—encourages a more humane take. This is often called “the three Ps” in environmental economics, which emphasizes the importance of development in terms of people and the planet, rather than solely on profit. This argument paves the way for a sustainable future, dominated by green growth rather than traditional industry.

“But, according to the environmental economists, we must now curb our passion for growth, distribute resources more evenly and start to prepare for life as a mature canopy tree. Only then will we be able to bask in the sunlight that our speedy development won for us, and enjoy an enduring, meaningful life.”

In this extended metaphor, Attenborough compares humanity to the largest trees in the Amazon rainforest: the saplings shaded by the canopy are quick to grow, competing constantly for resources. However, the largest trees have completed their growth, have outlived the usefulness of competition; they are content to exist in harmony with their environment, mature and serene.

“This is where all of our offsets should go—a globally funded and internationally supported drive to revive the wild world. It would work vigorously in every habitat on Earth, halting climate change and the sixth mass extinction at the same time.”

Like an ecosystem, funding an international program to “revive the wild world” with the money secured through carbon offsets would encourage the investment of money into environmental projects while discouraging the use of fossil fuels that create carbon emissions. Essentially, the problem—carbon emissions—would fund the solution, rewilding which, in turn, creates areas of carbon storage and capture.

“After only 15 years, the amount of marine life in the no-fish zone had increased by more than 400 per cent to a level similar to reefs that had never been fished at all, and the fish shoals began to spread into the neighboring waters.”

In the Marine Protected Area of Cabo Pulmo, Mexico, a no-fishing zone not only revitalized the natural area, bringing back biodiversity and refreshing the reefs, but also helped to regenerate an industry in neighboring areas. That is, protecting one space allows biodiversity to flourish in neighboring spaces, creating both the conditions for carbon capture and storage and replenished fish stocks for local fisheries.

“Better-managed fisheries, a well-designed network of MPAs [Marine Protected Areas], support for local communities that wish to sustainably manage their coastal waters and the restoration of mangroves, seagrass meadows, saltmarshes and kelp forests around the world are the keys to achieving [stabilization of the planet].”

The oceans are the largest ecosystems on the planet, as well as ecosystems that are well-suited to absorbing and capturing carbon when wild areas are allowed to flourish. As in the previous example, preserving or restoring these specialized ecosystems will, in turn, regenerate biodiversity which will itself, in turn, allow for the capture of more carbon. Eventually, this will lead to the stabilizing of rising temperatures that lead to biodiversity loss and ocean acidification.

“It is simply not going to be possible for every person in the future to expect to eat the amount of beef now consumed by people in the wealthiest nations today. We don’t have enough land on Earth to do so.”

Human demand for meat has led to the creation of artificial ecosystems (industrial farms, CAFOs) that crowd out natural resources and wild animal habitats. Attenborough is not only talking about the amount of land mass that would be required to raise enough beef to feed human populations across the world with regularity; he is also talking about the amount of wildland that would need to be converted to farmed land to produce enough feed for the livestock. In this way, beef is not the only culprit in encroaching on wild habitats, but all livestock is responsible.

“At present the cost of producing these alt-proteins is still very high since the technology is yet to be refined, and not all are yet proven to be fit for human consumption. Others have been criticised for being overly processed. But some suggest that as soon as they become as cheap to produce as beef, chicken, pork, dairy, and, indeed, fish, there will be a revolution in our food supply chains.”

Here, Attenborough points to emerging technology that might assist in confronting rather than contributing to the climate crisis. While this technology is not yet inexpensive enough to be feasible at a large scale, Attenborough predicts, with evidence from historical innovations in technology, alt-proteins will be affordable in the near future. This is an example of how technological development, fueled by a desire to promote green growth, can reverse the impacts of older technologies and attitudes. The revolution of which he speaks must also be accompanied by changing attitudes and individual choice.

“To create a stable and healthy world, it is biodiversity that we ought to be cherishing. After all, if we increase biodiversity, we will, by default, maximise carbon capture and storage, since the more biodiverse a habitat, the better it does that job.”

Again, Attenborough points to the cyclical, intertwined ways in which nature can be brought back into balance. Rewilding the land (and the seas) will create the conditions for more biodiversity. More biodiversity will be able to capture and store more carbon, thus creating further conditions for more biodiversity. The cycle continues until carbon emissions and the atmosphere stabilize.

“Conceivably, with the right motivation, the wildland farm approach could scale up to change whole landscapes. With biodiversity, it is almost always the case that a greater area brings even greater rewards.”

In contrast to industrial farms and monocultures, wherein only one kind of crop is grown or one variety of livestock is raised, wildland farms retain the natural resources of the area in which they exist. That is, instead of creating an artificial landscape for domesticated commodity crops or livestock, wildland farms rely on the local flora and fauna for its products and profitability. This is a case in which humans foster and protect the wildlands instead of eliminating the wildlands in favor of farmland. Attenborough admits that the yields would be lower, and prices would, in turn, be higher, for products obtained through this method; however, this way of farming reflects a concern for the environment that would attract many consumers who share these concerns, Attenborough suggests.

“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 carrying capacity for humanity.”

Attenborough argues that, after centuries of philosophers and others wrongly predicting the decline of humanity due to overpopulation, the time may actually have come to reconsider the facts. It is possible that, in terms of human population, the Earth is fast reaching a tipping point. If that threshold is crossed, then the planet would no longer be able to sustain the human population (food security, arable land, inhabitable space). Thus, Attenborough advocates for a stabilization of the human population.

“Raising people out of poverty and empowering women is the fastest way to bring this period of rapid population growth to an end. And why wouldn’t we want to do these things? This is not just about the numbers of people on the planet. This is about committing to a fair and just future for all.”

Attenborough points to the two main factors in stabilizing human populations: poverty and the oppression of women are connected to higher populations. Wealthier nations have lower birth rates, for many complex reasons (greater access to birth control, more economic opportunities, attitudes of providing more for fewer children). In places where women are allowed access to education and employment opportunities, they have fewer children, as well.

“By changing our approach to the use of our resources, a growing number of people believe that humanity could eradicate waste and come to mimic nature’s cyclical approach.”

Attenborough’s suggestion that humankind could create a zero-waste future at first appears radical. However, when viewed through the lens of the self-sustaining natural world—while also acknowledging that humans are merely one of many animal species, thus a part of that natural world—it seems possible. The planet has supported itself on its own resources for eons before humans even appeared. Looking to nature for solutions—such as rewilding—to climate change and biodiversity loss inherently involves sustainability.

“Everything is set for us to win this future. We have a plan. We know what to do. There is a path to sustainability. It is a path that could lead to a better future for all life on Earth. We must let our politicians and business leaders know that we understand this, that this vision for the future is not just something we need, it is something, above all, that we want.”

Again, Attenborough calls his readers to action—even mere individuals without positions of power can engender change. This implicates his readers in the problem, while empowering them to be part of the solution. It will take a combination of political will and personal choice to bring about the changes necessary to create a sustainable future for all of humanity and the natural world.