Our Bequest

What will we to bequeath future generations? Our bequest is determined by our decisions today—not yesterday, not tomorrow. Yesterday is an illusion of what has already happened, something we call the past or history. Tomorrow is an illusion of that which is yet to come, something we call the future. Both past and future are but illusions of the present and, therefore, are inescapable as continuing cycles in our ever-changing universe. History, therefore, is but a glimpse into the eternal cycle of Creation, a perceived reflection of what is, a ghost of what might have been, a dream of what might yet be. And yet, for all this musing, the present—the here and now—is all there is. Thus, the options of the present, the offspring of our immediate decisions, are all we can bequeath to the unknown generations in a distant time we shall not see; so it is our present decisions that I shall address. Although I use forests as my platform, what I say applies equally to grasslands, or oceans, or even to human society itself.

A Biologically Sustainable Forest

We must have biologically sustainable forest before we can have an economically sustainable yield (harvest) of any forest product, be it wood fiber, water soil fertility, or wildlife. Said in reverse, we cannot have an economically sustainable yield of anything until we first have a biologically sustainable forest. Sustainability is therefore additive. For example, we must have a sustainable forest to have sustainable yield, and we must have sustainable yield before we can have sustainable industry, and we must have sustainable industry to have a sustainable economy, and we must have a sustainable economy to have a sustainable society. When sustainability is put in terms of economics, the additive economic relationship of the biological yield also becomes clear; we must first practice sound "bio-economics" (the economics of maintaining a healthy forest), before we can practice sound "industrio-economics" (the economics of maintaining a healthy forest industry), before we can practice sound "socioeconomics" (the economics of maintaining a healthy society). It all begins with a solid foundation—in this case, a biologically sustainable forest.

Plantations v. Forests

Today's forest practices are counter to sustainable forestry because, instead of training foresters to manage forests, we train plantation managers to manage the short-rotation, "economic" plantations with which we are replacing our native forests. Native forests have evolved through the cumulative addition of structural diversity that initiates and maintains process diversity, complexity, and stability through time. We all too often are reversing the rich building process of that diversity, complexity, and stability by replacing native forests with plantations designed only with narrow, short-term economic considerations.

We must understand that "sustainable" does not mean continual economic expansion. It means producing industrio-economic outputs as the land gives us the ecological capability to do so on a sustainable basis. This in turn necessitates balancing product withdrawals with bio-economic reinvestment in the health of the forest. It means maximizing the health of the forest and optimizing the harvest of all forest products and amenities. To accomplish this, we must shift our historical paradigm from that of the exploitative, colonial mentality-"use it until it collapses then someone else can deal with it"—to the paradigm of trusteeship. Trusteeship means to assign legal title of property to a specified person or agency (the trustee in whom one has placed his or her trust) with the understanding that the property is to be nurtured for the long-term benefit of the owner (the beneficiary).

The Earth Has Strength

Whatever we do to move toward sustainability of forest resources will take the utmost in courage. With the right attitude, any mistakes we make may become the future's strength. But we must act while the Earth still has the strength and the resources to survive in the face of ongoing errors and while there still is ecological margin to allow a few more mistakes from which to learn. To assure the future's potential to correct our errors and its ability to learn from them, we always must remember that all we have to give the future is options. Therefore, we must ask each time we make a decision that deals with natural resources, "How will our decision either maintain or enhance the options for the future?" That is our moral responsibility as human beings because all we have to bequeath the future is options, and each option represents the future's limitations. Future generations must respond to our decisions, which have become their circumstances. In this sense, the future is today.

Nature's Endowment

We can examine our present choices with respect to natural resources by looking at our relationships with Earth. For example, before we decide that our technology is better than our endowment from Nature, we must determine that nature's endowment is not adequate to fulfill our needs. And before we decide that Nature's endowment is not adequate to fulfill our needs, we must decide what our perceived needs are. Once we have decided what we think our needs are, both locally and globally, we must translate them into clearly stated objectives or we will probably never achieve them. Without objectives we can not establish priorities. Then we must decide if the end justifies the means, particularly if the cost inherent in the means is the degradation of Earth, or human dignity, or both. In addition, we must define such terms as "sustainable" and then ask intelligent questions, such as "Is the concept of sustainable development really sustainable?" We must recognize that cooperation without coordination is an empty cup. We must accept that there are no "cookbook" answers, and that conflicts, which surely will arise, cannot be "solved" but only "resolved and transcended." And we must understand that the greatest barrier to change in the world today are a global lack of the recognition of human dignity, a lack of understanding and acceptance that we humans are only a part of Nature—no better and no worse than any other part; and a lack of understanding that life is a process through which all living things must pass.

What a Forest Is and Is Not

A living organism, such as a forest, is not a product which a linear, economic value can be assigned without killing it in the end, as corporate politics is demonstrating with its insistence on a short-term, economically sustained yield of wood fiber at the expense of a long-term biologically sustainable forest. In sum, we must recognize, understand, and accept that bioeconomics is Nature's mandatory prerequisite for the sustainability of any and all of humanity's desired industrio- and socio-economic endeavors.

...Chris Maser...
Taos, NM
December 20, 1989

Saving Elephants

The Ecology of Ivory

What the poachers want is ivory. What the world wants is ivory. Almost no one wants elephants. We want elephants in the wild, we want elephants in zoos. Some people may want to eat elephants, but those people are not causing the extinction of the species. Localizing the problem to ivory and not the elephant simplifies the elephant problem to manageable terms and holds promise for a lasting solution to the problem. The trick was to separate the ecology of the elephant from the ecology of ivory and concentrate on saving the elephant.

A Two-eyed Woman in a Land of Blind Men

Joan Byron-Marasek representing Tigers Only Preservation Society of New York made a splendid suggestion taking into account the difference of the ecology of the elephant from the ecology of ivory, which was heard with great indifference at the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora at Ottawa, Canada, from 12 to 24 July, 1987. I am indebted to IdT Correspondent Earl Baysinger for the account of her suggestion to the conference.

In New Zealand, the European red deer was introduced as a game species. Without natural controls the red deer population exploded. At one time the New Zealand government was paying professional hunters to indiscriminately kill the red deer—by fair means or foul. Some of the killing got pretty bad, but without solving the problem. Then someone discovered the red deer antlers had a high price as a medicinal in China. New attention was given to the deer and now the deer is ranched, its antlers harvested for the Chinese aphrodisiac trade and the venison sold in the European market.

Harvesting Tusks

The problem with the elephant is not the same but very similar. The item of interest is ivory—a tusk—a tooth made of enamel and dentine just like yours and mine and with a nerve just like yours and mine. Ms. Byron-Marasek had a simple idea: Since the elephants are being killed for their ivory and not for the carcass, which in most cases is left to rot, harvest the tusks. Tranquilize the beasts. Using a portable fluoroscope determine the extent of penetration of the nerve into the tusk, cut ahead of the nerve, smooth the cut edge and go on your merry way. The elephant recovers from the tranquilizer and goes about its merry way. With a legal harvest the procedure produces ivory for the trade, but with a living elephant which could be de-tusked in another 20 or 30 years. If the poachers would adopt similar tactics, illegal ivory would enter trade, but again with the living elephant that could have its ivory poached in another 20 or 30 years. In any case, it is a win/win proposition for the elephant.

Elephants Without Tusks

Earl Baysinger tells me there is a mutant elephant in South Africa that is tuskless. The mutant is surviving very well. Elephants detusked for their ivory should survive very well; they just won't look the same until man can learn to harvest ivory from elephants who have lived long lives and died natural deaths. In the long run, it's the old elephants that will yield the most ivory. In this impatient world, if the ivory is going to be harvested at the expense of the elephant, the world must take Joan Byron-Marasek's proposal seriously. It may be the only chance the species has in the short run. I believe in the long run, perhaps only the urbanization of Africa will make for an equitable division of the environment between humankind and wildkind.

...Ted Sudia...

© Copyright 1990
Institute for domestic Tranquility