Material happiness

Uncoupling a meaningful life from the destruction of nature Copyright c 2018 Falko Buschke

PUBLISHEDBYTHE UNIVERSITYOFTHE FREE STATE AND THE VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License (the “License”). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an “ASIS” BASIS, WITHOUTWARRANTIESORCONDITIONSOFANYKIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.

First printing, October 2018 Contents

I Part One

1 An unprecedented problem ...... 7 1.1 If you care about nature, then why are you destroying it?7 1.2 The purpose of this document8 1.3 The state of nature8 1.3.1 The Living Planet Index...... 8 1.3.2 The Red List Index...... 9 1.3.3 Other studies...... 10 1.3.4 The sixth extinction?...... 11 1.3.5 Planetary boundaries...... 12 1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of nature? 13 1.4.1 Economic reasons to avoid losing nature...... 13 1.4.2 Ethical reasons to conserve nature...... 14

2 Why do we harm nature? ...... 17 2.1 The real reasons for harming nature 17 2.1.1 Information: do we know what we are doing to the environment?...... 17 2.1.2 Indifference: when we know that we are harming nature, but do we care?.. 18 2.1.3 Institutions: do we have the right incentives to change our behaviour?..... 19 2.1.4 Infrastructure: do we have the tools to act more sustainably?...... 20 II Part Two

3 Meaningful lives without harming nature ...... 23 3.1 What is a meaningful life? 23 3.2 How is your life connected with nature? 25 3.3 What is your ecological footprint? 25 3.4 Bringing it all together 27

Bibliography ...... 28

Index ...... 31 I Part One

1 An unprecedented problem ...... 7 1.1 If you care about nature, then why are you destroy- ing it? 1.2 The purpose of this document 1.3 The state of nature 1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of na- ture?

2 Why do we harm nature? ...... 17 2.1 The real reasons for harming nature

1. An unprecedented problem

1.1 If you care about nature, then why are you destroying it? You care about nature, don’t you? If you didn’t, you probably wouldn’t be reading this. In fact, most people care about nature. Think about it, have you ever heard your friends and family say they preferred a damaged environ- ment? Do you know anyone who takes pleasure from pollution and is happy about of habitat loss? This seems unlikely. If most people care about nature, then why are we seeing the unprecedented destruction of ecosystems and species? Over the last few decades, humans have slashed, burned, ploughed and paved over natural habitats in a way that is driving species to extinction faster than ever before in human history [1, 2, 3]. If no one wants to destroy nature on purpose, but we are doing it anyway, then we need to ask ourselves if ecological destruction has become the default setting for modern society? Could it be that our everyday way of life inevitably destroys nature? Most of us today own more material goods than could be imagined just three generations ago. When our great-grandparents were as old as we are now, they didn’t have iPhones, laptops and designer jeans. But were their lives less meaningful than ours? We have access to these things because of a remarkable global system of extraction, manufacturing and distribution. This system has provided us with unprecedented material wealth. Unfortunately, we pay for this by trading in wilderness for farms, factories, roads and railways.

Exercise 1.1 What is the oldest item of clothing you are wearing right now? Cast your mind back to when you first bought it. How much did you pay for it? Were you excited when you found it in the store? Did you feel that same sense of excitement this morning when you pulled it out of your wardrobe? A Norwegian study [4] indicated that, on average, clothes are disposed of after 5.4 years (although they are generally only worn for approximately 4 years). Is your

item of clothing older than 5.4 years? 

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a multinational body established in 2012. Its purpose is to allow members from 8 Chapter 1. An unprecedented problem

128 countries to assess the current scientific consensus on biodiversity in order to develop evidence- based policies. A key theme throughout the work of IPBES is that a sustainable future will require that society radically changes the way in which we define quality of life and social status on the basis of material consumption. Material consumption is, of course, related to quality of life and social status. For example, the life of someone living in abject poverty will indeed be improved by a clean blanket and a warm meal. However, this is only true up to a point. Poverty is relative [5]. In a country like Vietnam, poverty would mean walking barefoot, but in China it would mean lacking a bicycle. Poverty in France would entail lacking a car and in the USA it could be that you only own an old car. In other words, there isn’t a simple equation that links how much stuff you have with how good your life is.

1.2 The purpose of this document The purpose of this booklet is twofold. First, it intends to explore reasons why society’s default behaviour is one of ecological destruction. Second, it hopes to demonstrate that happy and meaningful lives do not necessarily require increased material consumption. It is not the intention to make you feel guilty for your lifestyle, or to turn you into a soldier in a hippie-army. Instead, if you understand the obstacles to sustainable behaviour, then you can begin making informed decisions to overcome those obstacles. This booklet will help you answer the following questions: • How meaningful do you consider you own life? • Do you see yourself as separate from or a part of nature? • How much does your lifestyle impact on nature? By answering these three questions, you will develop a personal understanding of how living a good life relates to natural resource consumption. It is essential that you realise that there are no single right answers to any of these questions. We all differ as humans. That said, there is an answer that applies to you specifically. So, be sure to answer all these questions truthfully, because it is the only way you will uncover deeper insights into your own lifestyle. Before we get to this, it is necessary to first consider some data on the current state of the world’s plants and animals. Are things as bad as they sound, or are the tree-huggers just over-reacting?

1.3 The state of nature The planet is in a sorry state. But don’t take our word for it. We can look at the data from some of the most reputable organisations in the world. We’ll focus specifically on biodiversity because we believe that people understand the plight of plants and animals much more intuitively than other forms of environmental degradation (hands up if you know how much NO2 is currently in our atmosphere, for example). This does mean that we will skip mountains of information on climate change, water pollution and ocean acidification. These are all serious issues that deserve our attention, but we will put them aside for the time being. Unfortunately, the state of biodiversity is dismal enough on its own.

1.3.1 The Living Planet Index To many people, the black and white panda logo of the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) typifies conservation. When the WWF tells us that nature is being damaged, we should believe them. They have the data to back it up. Since 1970, the WWF has been monitoring the sizes of approximately 10 000 populations from more than 3000 carefully-selected fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal 1.3 The state of nature 9

species. Trends for these populations are combined into the Living Planet Index, the results of which are summarised into their Living Planet Report [6]. The numbers from the Living Planet Report make for depressing reading: compared to a benchmark in 1970, the Living Planet Index shows an average 52% decrease in sizes of animal populations (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: A 52% global decline in the Living Planet Index between 1970 and 2012.

While this alone makes for startling reading, the global trend only tells part of the nightmarish story: • Numbers of freshwater fish have declined by a staggering 76% over the last four decades, compared to 39% for marine fish and 39% for terrestrial species. • Temperate regions (e.g. North America and Europe) showed a 36% decline in the Living Planet Index compared to a 56% decline in tropical regions. This is significant because most developing countries occur in tropical regions (e.g. Africa, South America, south-east Asia). • The main threats to animal populations are direct exploitation and harvesting (37%), habitat degradation and transformation (31.4%) and habitat loss (13.4%). Less significant culprits include climate change (7.1%), invasive species (5.1%), pollution (4%) and disease (2%).

1.3.2 The Red List Index Along with the WWF, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has a reputation as one of the most reliable conservation agencies on the planet. The IUCN also collects data on the state of nature, which is summarised by the Red List Index. Unlike the Living Planet Index, which is based on changes in population sizes of species, the Red List Index is based on how at risk species are of extinction [7]. The IUCN developed the global Red List, which categorises species into the following categories (from least to most likely to go extinct): Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct. There is also a category for species that have been assessed by the IUCN, but for which there is not yet sufficient information to make an accurate assessment: Data Deficient species. The Red List Index is a composite metric of the extinction risk for more than 25 000 species of 10 Chapter 1. An unprecedented problem

birds, mammals and amphibians. The index is scaled between 0 and 1, so that a score of 1 indicates that all species are categorised as Least Concern and a score of 0 indicates that all the species are Extinct. The IUCN then tracks these values through time (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: (A) Trends in the Red List Index (RLI) for the world’s birds, mammals, and amphibians. (B to D) Observed change in the RLI for each group (black) compared with RLI trends that would be expected if species that underwent an improvement in status due to conservation action had undergone no change (red). The difference is attributable to conservation. An RLI value of 1 equates to all species being Least Concern; an RLI value of 0 equates to all species being Extinct. Improvements in species conservation status lead to increases in the RLI; deteriorations lead to declines. A downward trend in the RLI value means that the net expected rate of species extinctions is increasing. Shading shows 95% confidence intervals. Note: RLI scales for (B), (C), and (D) vary. (From Hoffmann et al. 2010)

From Figure 1.2 it is clear that mammals are generally more threatened by extinction than birds and that amphibians are the most threatened of the three classes. There is also a clear downward trend, which shows that the risk of extinction has generally increased over the last 30 years.

1.3.3 Other studies So far, we have seen that the populations of species are generally declining (Living Planet Index) and that this has resulted in an increased risk of extinction (Red List Index). But has this actually resulted in there being fewer kinds of plants and animals? A recent global assessment by a network of university scientists [8] examined how changes to land-use have reduced the numbers of plants and animals on earth. This is significant because it is directly linked to human activities like ploughing habitat for agriculture or slashing forests for timber. This assessment found that land-use change has considerable negative impacts on biodiversity: the worst-affected areas have already experienced reductions of approximately 75% in number of species (global average of 14%) and 40% declines in the numbers of individuals of each species (global average of 11%). Cultivated land, pastoral land and urban areas had especially negative impacts on biodiversity. This study even modelled and mapped where most of the species have been lost during the last 1.3 The state of nature 11

500 years (Figure 1.3); although it also showed that most of these declines only occurred during the last 150 years (since the Industrial Revolution).

Figure 1.3: Estimated net change in local richness caused by land-use and related pressures between 1500 and 2000. (From Newbold et al. 2015)

1.3.4 The sixth extinction?

Given these depressing statistics on the losses of biodiversity, a sceptic might ask whether these losses can be considered natural? Extinction is, after all, a natural phenomenon because the dinosaurs died out long before humans even walked the planet. Extinction is indeed natural and we can expect a background extinction rate of approximately 0.1 extinction per million species years (E/MSY) [9]. This implies that there if there are 10 million species on the planet, one would be expected to go extinct each year. This number is based on best estimates from the fossil record and could be out by 1 order of magnitude (0.01 – 1 E/MSY). Compared to current extinction levels, however, the background extinction rate is tiny (Figure 1.4) [9, 10]. The average extinction rate for all species has been estimated at approximately 100 E/MSY [9]. It is even higher if we only consider the extinction rates since 1900: 107 E/MSY for amphibians, 132 E/MSY for birds and 243 E/MSY for mammals. Even with very conservative estimates about the accuracy of these estimates, it can be stated with confidence that current extinction rates are between 100 and 1 000 times higher than background extinctions rates. Current extinction rates are definitely not natural. Palaeontologists know that the world has experienced five previous mass extinctions during its history. The most recent of these is the Cretaceous-Paleogene Mass Extinction that wiped out the last of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But how do current downward trends in biodiversity compare to those of the other five mass extinctions? Turns out, the answer to this question depends on whether you prefer seeing the glass as half full or half empty [1]. On the bright side, even though current extinction rates are dramatic and serious, they are not yet high enough to be considered the sixth mass extinction. Previous mass extinctions were much worse. However, if we are to lose those species that are currently listed as Critically endangered by the IUCN, then the current state of species loss could be considered as the sixth mass extinction. Moreover, if we also lose those species listed as Vulnerable and Endangered then we would reach mass extinction status in just a few centuries. It is alarming to think that our grandchildren might witness an extinction event only seen five times previously during the last 540 million years! 12 Chapter 1. An unprecedented problem

Figure 1.4: Extinctions per thousand species per millennium, which shows the estimated average lifetime of species in particular groups of animals, at different periods. ‘Distant past’ refers to average extinction rates as estimated from the fossil record. ‘Recent past’ is for extinction rates calculated from known extinctions of species (the lower estimate) or known extinctions plus ‘possibly extinct’ species (upper bound) over the past century or so. ‘Future’ extinctions are derived from a variety of models, all based on current trends, but considerably uncertain (as indicated by the wider range). (From May 2012)

1.3.5 Planetary boundaries

The last 10 000 years of the Holocene epoch have been characterised by incredibly stable conditions. It is not a coincidence that human civilisation established itself during this period by developing large-scale agriculture and building cities around predictable climate patterns and the associated supply of natural resources. This specific set of conditions that support human societies is called the safe operating space for humanity. This space is characterised by planetary boundaries that, once crossed, risk flipping the current set of conditions into an alternative stable state. The alternative stable state might not be as conducive to modern society as the Holocene was and could jeopardise human survival.

One of the thresholds that define the planetary boundaries is biodiversity. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that biodiversity loss has already exceeded those considered sustainable for maintaining a safe-operating space for humanity [11]. This means that unless we urgently do something about the dismal state of biodiversity, we risk losing the very conditions necessary to maintain human civilisation in its current form. 1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of nature? 13

1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of nature? Up until now, we just assumed that the loss of ecosystems and species is bad. But is this necessarily so? It is common for humans to demand more to avoid giving up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it. This is known as the endowment effect [12]. Could it be that once we lose nature, we’ll come to realise that we don’t actually miss it that much? In the next few paragraphs, we will show that our gut feeling to avoid the loss of nature is not caused by the cognitive bias of endowment effects. Instead, there are tangible reasons why we should want to avoid losing plants and animals. We first begin by outlining economic reasons why we should care about the destruction of nature. Then, we describe the ethical reasons why we should care about the loss of species and ecosystems.

1.4.1 Economic reasons to avoid losing nature Nature supplies humans with many benefits. Collectively, these benefits are called ecosystem services. Some of these benefits - like timber from trees - are very obvious to us. Other benefits - such as soil micro-organisms that allow for healthy cultivated crops - are less apparent. The value of ecosystem services to humans started becoming a major international talking-point during the end of the 20th century. At the turn of the century, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [13] formalised the concept of ecosystem services in the public conciousness. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defined four categories of services (Figure 1.5): Provi- sioning, Regulating, Supporting and Cultural services. Provisioning services are those that provide some sort of product, resource or raw material from ecosystems. These tangible services are often associated with formal economic markets, such as marine fisheries and timber industries, where nature’s goods can be bought and sold. By contrast, regulating services are services obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These services are not associated with tangible goods, but they can have considerable economic value nonetheless. For example, healthy wetlands and stream catchments can dampen the effects of heavy rainfall events and avoid the loss of infrastructure due to flooding. Cultural services involve the intangible ways nature affects the moods and mental well-being of humans. A typical example is they way tourists travel from all around the world to go on African safaris. Lastly, Supporting services are the services necessary for the continued production and supply of the other provisioning, regulating and cultural services. These indirect services include the formation of soil, the cycling of nutrients and primary production through photosynthesis. Whenever a natural habitat is lost, so are the ecosystem services that it used to supply. Even though counting ecosystem services is a complex task, scientists have been developing new tools and tricks to do it. They can also use these tools and tricks to tally up the value of ecosystem services being lost due to habitat destruction. While these estimates are imperfect, they do give us a sense of the value of nature to humans. The most comprehensive global estimates from 2011 suggest that nature provides humans with approximately US$145 trillion of value each year [14]. This staggeringly large amount is nearly twice as much as global gross domestic product at the same time period. However, a more important estimate is the value of ecosystem services that were lost between 1997 and 2011 due to habitat destruction. Overall, land-use change between 1997 and 2011 may have lost US$20.2 trillion worth of ecosystem services each year [14]. These losses are largely due to the destruction of swamps, tidal marshes, tropical forests and coral reefs (Figure 1.6). Nature will continue supplying us with goods and services as long as it is in a healthy enough condition. Unfortunately, by damaging our ecosystems, we are cutting off the free supply of nature’s gifts. Therefore, it would definitely be to our own benefit if we can carry on pursuing better lives without causing more harm to nature. 14 Chapter 1. An unprecedented problem

Figure 1.5: The four categories of ecosystem services (From the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- ment)

1.4.2 Ethical reasons to conserve nature There are many real, measurable benefits to many parts of nature. However, there are also parts of nature that don’t seem to provide us with any tangible benefits. Would it be okay to lose these plants and animals, considering that we won’t actually notice their absence? This section makes the argument that it would not be okay to lose these species because (a) they have a moral right to exist and (b) we have an ethical obligation to promote those rights. In environmental ethics, we distinguish between moral standing, moral rights and moral significance [15]: 1. Moral standing is granted to anything with moral autonomy or the ability to experience pain (i.e. sentience). It is considered amoral to harm or inhibit anything with moral standing [16]. Using this argument, only higher animals have the right to existence because lower animal and plants cannot experience pain. 2. When Moral rights are assigned to an object, it implies that we are obligated to ensure the basic capabilities of that object. For example, an ecosystem can have moral rights, as is the case in Ecuador where law-makers have granted nature the same right to existence as humans [17]. 3. Moral significance implies that it is morally more acceptable to harm an entity with low significance compared to one of high significance. For instance, it is deemed less moral to harm the last individual of a species and cause the extinction of the species as a whole, than it is to harm one individual in a large herd of a common species. Since different parts of nature have moral standing, rights and significance, it would be amoral for us to damage them, in the same way that it would be amoral for us to harm another person. In other words, nature deserves to be preserved from an ethical standpoint. A different way of thinking about it is not from the perspective of nature, but from our own point of view as humans. What does it mean to be a ’good’ person? Turns out, many philosophers have thought about this (e.g. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Elizabeth Anscombe) and have come up with the framework of virtue ethics [15]. Virtue ethics asks "what would a virtuous person do?" when trying to assess the morality of an action. Positive traits like compassion, honesty, hard 1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of nature? 15

Figure 1.6: Changes to the economic value of ecosystem services from global habitats between 1997 and 2011. (Data from Costanza et al. 2014) work, reliability and empathy are called virtues. These virtues are in contrast to vices like greed, selfishness, dishonesty and deceit. Caring for nature is considered a virtue and something a good person ought to do. To summarise this section, in addition to maintaining the ecosystem services we get from nature, we also have a moral obligation to prevent ecological destruction. This is not only because nature has a moral right to exist, but also because preserving nature is what virtuous and moral people should be doing.

2. Why do we harm nature?

2.1 The real reasons for harming nature The title of this chapter might seem superficial at first. Scientists already know which activities are harmful to nature [18]. We are transforming landscapes for agriculture, mining, roads and cities. We pollute waterways when excess fertilisers and pesticides flow from our farmlands. Greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere because we need electricity to power our homes and factories. These are the proximal reasons for harming nature, but they do not answer the fundamental question of why we harm nature. The underlying reasons for ecological destruction become important when we try to change our behaviour. Perhaps more importantly, the underlying reasons for ecological destruction become major obstacles when we try to be more environmentally sustainable.

Exercise 2.1 Why do you think humans transform natural habitats for farms, factories, cities and mines? Do you think it is because we need all these things (i.e. necessity) or do we just want more stuff (i.e. greed)? Now consider what it will take to actually stop these actions? Which obstacles need to be overcome in order to change the status quo? Is it as simple as meeting the

needs or the desires?  In the next sections, we propose a hierarchy of obstacles that need to be overcome to act in a more environmentally friendly way. This hierarchy is made of four levels: information, indifference, institutions and infrastructure (Figure 2.1). Each of these four hurdles need to be passed in order to change behaviour and act in a way that is more kind to the environment.

2.1.1 Information: do we know what we are doing to the environment? People cannot initiate a pro-environmental behaviour unless they are aware and understand the issues at hand. In these cases, information can be a valuable tool to modify behaviour. Information can contribute at different levels. At the lowest level, information can draw attention to environmental issues. A recent example of this is the increased attention on plastic pollution in our oceans. Most of us will never visit remote islands or embark on deep ocean cruises, so we remain unaware of the high levels of plastic pollution in these ecosystems. Raising awareness by 18 Chapter 2. Why do we harm nature?

Figure 2.1: A hierarchy of obstacles that need to be overcome before we can act in a more ecologically responsible way.

disseminating information can serve as a precursor to positive ecological actions. Much scientific research aims to generate data on enigmatic ecological problems and, by doing so, overcoming the obstacle of lack of information. At a higher level, information can help us identify effective actions for solving well known ecological problems. Many environmental problems are so prevalent that even school children know about them. For example, littering (i.e. solid waste pollution) is a major issue in large parts of the world. On a windy day, people can see the plastic bags floating across the landscape in synthetic mass migrations. For problems like these, we don’t need more information about their existence. Instead, we need information on how we can improve things through technologies, policies and strategies. The general outcome in the absence of this information is usually inaction. By informing members of the public about environmental issues – through, for example, environmental education initiatives or conservation mainstreaming – they gain an awareness of the dismal decline of nature. In some cases, this is enough to encourage action. Unfortunately, it is not always enough. We live during a time of incomparable access to information, which happens to coincide with the rapid destruction of nature. This very document you are reading right now is a form of information, but unless it changes readers’ actions and behaviours, it will not lead to better outcomes for nature. While overcoming information barriers is an important step to acting in a more ecologically-friendly way, it is only the first step.

2.1.2 Indifference: when we know that we are harming nature, but do we care? Even when we have a lot of information, some of us will just shrug our shoulders and carry on acting the same way we always have. Sometimes, people just don’t care enough to change. So why are some people so reluctant to change? One reason may be that people start to feel so helpless about the state of nature that, as a coping mechanism, they forego all responsibility to do anything about it [19]. To these people, it is emotionally easier to assign responsibility and blame to others (e.g. government, politicians, poor people, foreigners). Another reason is that people become alienated by constant reminders that their actions are harmful to the environment. This may be because environmental issues, and the associated calls for action, can be incompatible with these people’s deeply-held political beliefs [20]. In such instances, people do not disbelieve information, they choose instead to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their world-view. The final reason that people 2.1 The real reasons for harming nature 19

ignore information is that they simply don’t care. As difficult as it is to acknowledge, some people do not care about species extinction or atmospheric pollution unless they are personally affected in some way. What is most noteworthy about indifference is that it cannot be overcome with more information. Those who feel helpless by the state of nature, will only become more overwhelmed by additional information. For these people, empowerment will have a greater effect on changing their behaviour. Similarly, the scepticism of those with deeply held political beliefs will be reinforced if they feel attacked by a barrage of new information. Instead, recent research in political psychology suggests appeals to their curiosity will be more effective than trying to convince them that they are wrong [21]. This suggests that telling people to care about nature will not work. We should rather try to incite them into caring by appealing to their curiosity. Perhaps a good way to achieve this is through art, music, poetry and story-telling. For example, we all understand how David Attenborough’s soothing voice can inspire people to care about plants and animals on the other side of the world.

2.1.3 Institutions: do we have the right incentives to change our behaviour? If we have access to information and are motivated to act more sustainably, how should we go about turning our personal decisions into society-wide progress? One way is through strong institutions, which reflect society’s values [22]. Strong institutions, whether formal or informal, can amplify the impact of individual actions (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: How the individual’s sphere of influence can gain in impact by expanding into different levels of society. (From Amel et al. 2017)

Institutions are not limited to formal organisations, with physical headquarters and elegantly designed letterheads. Instead, institutions refer to the, often unspoken, rules of the game that shape social, economic and political interactions throughout society [23]. Whether formal or informal, these rules, norms and routines create incentives that affect our actions. While it is easy to blame greed for the dire state of nature, more often ecological destruction is caused by misaligned incentives. For example, a CEO of a mining company gains no satisfaction 20 Chapter 2. Why do we harm nature?

from stripping the top layer of earth and piling it on a dump nearby. Instead, her behaviour is motivated by the desire to maximise shareholder profits. At a deeper level, she probably feels fulfilled (and well paid!) when the company’s board of directors acknowledge her role in managing a multinational organisation. It is also important to realise that incentives are not just economic. They can also be moral or social. People are complex and don’t just make decisions based on money. We also want to fit in with our peers or feel that internal satisfaction of knowing we did the right thing. This is an essential distinction because, if we ignore it, we risk creating motivational crowding [24], where one strong incentive is replaced (i.e. crowded-out) by other weaker incentives. Unfortunately, our current institutions create incentives that promote consumption and ecologi- cal destruction [5]. Therefore, we are left with one of two options to reduce our personal impacts. First, we can ignore existing incentives and live separately from modern institutions. This would be the approach typified by radical environmentalists who try to exist in parallel with modern society while minimising their personal environmental impacts. The second option is to reform exiting institutions [23]. While this latter approach is more difficult, it is more likely to have broader impacts that are more long-lasting.

2.1.4 Infrastructure: do we have the tools to act more sustainably? Let’s imagine a society that is well informed and cares about nature; especially the need to stop burning fossil fuels. They elect a government that reflects their values and these leaders have written policies that encourage divestment in fossil fuels and a transition to an energy system driven by renewable sources like wind and solar. This would be wonderful progress that would require considerable societal reform, political will and institutional transformation. However, none of it would count for anything unless there are also solar panels, wind turbines and an electricity distribution grid. The same logic applies to public transport, waste recycling and water reclamation systems. We need sustainable infrastructure in order to act sustainably. Often inadequate infrastructure is an obstacle to sustainability. This is especially true when much has been invested in less sustainable infrastructure during the past, which makes decision- makers resistant to new technologies (i.e. the sunk cost fallacy). Infrastructure is the last level on the sustainability hierarchy (Figure 2.1) because it relies on the previous three levels. Proper infrastructure will not emerge without knowledge, will and investment. However, once sustainable infrastructure is in place, it can make obstacles at the lower levels obsolete. Think about it, most people around the world choose to use public transport, not because they care about the environment, but because it is faster, more convenient and cheaper. Similarly, a properly insulated house prevents excessive electricity consumption because the inner climate is comfortable without turning on the heating, regardless of how environmentally-conscious the inhabitants are. Exercise 2.2 Now you know about the significance of information, indifference, institutions and infrastructure for sustainability. Try to apply it to your own life. For example, think about the last disposable plastic item you purchased: was it because you were unaware of the negative environmental impacts of disposable consumption (information) or are there just no other alternatives (infrastructure)? Could it be that sustainable alternative are too expensive

(institutions)? Or does it simply not bother you (indifference)?  II Part Two

3 Meaningful lives without harming nature 23 3.1 What is a meaningful life? 3.2 How is your life connected with nature? 3.3 What is your ecological footprint? 3.4 Bringing it all together

Bibliography ...... 28

Index ...... 31

3. Meaningful lives without harming nature

Look around at all the things in your life. Your clothes, your meals, your phone. Each of these items came from resources that were either mined from the earth or grown from soil. The more stuff you own, the greater your impact on nature. The question that needs to be asked, however, is whether our lives are indeed better when we have more stuff. Does a better life inevitably leave a bigger wound on planet earth?

3.1 What is a meaningful life? Before we can answer whether a better life inevitably harms nature, we need to first ask ourselves what a good life actually entails. Here we assume that a good life is a meaningful one. Psychological research suggests that a meaningful life signifies general well-being, the ability to cope with life’s pressures, and a marker for emotional growth [25]. There is no single way to lead a meaningful life, so we all need to find the things that add meaning to our own lives. However, there are some general characteristics of a meaningful life [25]: • Having a coherent understanding of where your life is going. • Having a purpose or goal-directed approach to your life. • Having a feeling of self-worth. • Having a feeling of autonomy in your own life. To this end, researchers have developed a 10-point questionnaire [25] to quantify meaning of life (Figure 3.1). We can use this questionnaire to get an idea of our own meaning of life.

Exercise 3.1 Calculate your own Meaning of Life Score using Figure 3.1. The maximum score of 70 implies that you have a very meaningful life, while the minimum score is 10, suggesting a lack of meaning in your life. The average score on the questionnaire is 40. This is a very simple survey, which is only a brief glimpse into your own well-being. Don’t read too much into your score. Instead, see this as a structured way to reflect on how in control you feel about the direction of your own life. Does the score reflect your own feelings about your life? Which 24 Chapter 3. Meaningful lives without harming nature iue31 h enn fLf usinar.Crl oronrsosste d paltenmest aclt oronmaigo iescore. life of meaning own your calculate to numbers the all up add then responses own your Circle Questionnaire. Life of Meaning The 3.1: Figure 3.2 How is your life connected with nature? 25

questions did you score high or low on? Did the questionnaire help highlight some aspects in

your own life that could be improved? 

By now, you should realise that there is no test that can tell you how you should live your life to make it more meaningful. If there was, it would take all the mystery and wonder out of our time on earth. Could life be an adventure if it was possible to plot a pathway towards a purposeful life? Now that you have some baseline on how meaningful your own life is, it is time to connect the dots and try to link this to nature.

3.2 How is your life connected with nature? If you grew up in a city, then you are probably more familiar with buses and cars than you are with butterflies and caterpillars. But physical separation does not imply that you are also separated from nature emotionally and intellectually. Your connection with nature can be captured by your ecocentricity. Ecocentricity can be interpreted as the the extent to which you endorse pro-nature views [26]. This concept has also been represented in a 15-question survey instrument (Figure 3.2). This instrument considers five facets of environmental beliefs: • Limits to growth (the global resource base cannot sustain human population growth indefi- nitely). • Balance of nature (natural ecosystems are vulnerable to the growing impact of humans). • Anti-anthropocentrism (species other than humans also have a right to exist). • The human exemptionalism paradigm (the notion that humans, unlike other species, are exempt from the constraints of nature). • The possibility of an eco-crisis (the likelihood of catastrophic environmental changes).

Exercise 3.2 Use the ecocentricity questionnaire (Figure 3.2) to estimate your pro-nature views. Choose your own responses to the 15 questions and add the numbers to get your ecocentricity score (note, however, that even-numbered questions are reverse coded). Scores can vary between a minimum of 15 (very weak ecocentricity) and a maximum of 75 (very strong ecocentricity). An average score is 45. Does your ecocentricity score match your own feelings about your relationship with nature? Which questions scored higher and lower. Although this is also a simple survey instrument, it provides a valuable starting point for you to reflect on you own

connection with nature. 

3.3 What is your ecological footprint? By now you should have an idea of your own meaning of life and ecocentricity. What remains is to explore your own ecological footprint. As already discussed, humans rely on nature for crucial ecosystem services. These services can be compared to the interest you earn from a financial investment. If you invest a lump sum of capital, it will begin generating interest. If you withdraw less money than you are earning in interest, then your investment will continue growing indefinitely. However, as soon as you start withdrawing more than you are earning from interest, then you will start eating away at your principle capital. Your initial investment will continue shrinking until there is nothing left. Nature is very similar. We obtain ecosystem services from features in nature (i.e. natural capital). As long as ecosystems remain healthy, then we can continue using nature’s services indefinitely. By contrast, when we over-exploit nature’s services, we damage the very ecological features we are relying on. This can lead to irreversible ecological degradation. 26 Chapter 3. Meaningful lives without harming nature iue32 h ccnrct usinar.Crl oronrsosste d paltenmest aclt oronmaigo iesoe ( score. life of meaning own your calculate to numbers the all up add then responses reverse-coded. own are your questions Circle even-numbered Questionnaire. Ecocentricity The 3.2: Figure ) oethat Note 3.4 Bringing it all together 27

This concept is central to the idea of ecological footprint. Your ecological footprint is determined by first estimating the area of planet earth needed to support your consumption patterns. It then takes this area estimate and multiplies it by the global population. This reflects the amount of planet earths that would be required to support humanity if every person lived a life similar to your own. If your ecological footprint is less than 1, it means that your lifestyle is within the bounds of the planet. As soon as your ecological footprint is more than 1, it means that the planet will be unable to support humans if everyone lived the same way as you do. A related concept is the Earth Overshoot Day. Unlike the ecological footprint, which is an estimate of area, the earth overshoot day is an estimate of time. Specifically, it assumes that planet earth supplies us with ecosystem services, and it estimates the day of the year when you consume a year’s worth of ecosystem services. Using the investment analogy again, it is the time in the year when you have withdrawn more than you would earn as interest over a 12 month period. What should become apparent is that ecological footprint is a combination of individual consumption patterns and the size of the global population. Therefore, if the human population continues to grow, the only way to regulate our combined ecological footprint will be to reduce our consumption patterns.

Exercise 3.3 Measure your own ecological footprint using a convenient online calculator (Figure 3.3). Go through each of the questions and, if necessary, follow the links to get more information. Once you have completed all the questions, explore your results. How large was your ecological footprint? When is your Earth Overshoot Day? Did these results surprise you? Take a look at the details of your results. Which part of your life has the biggest footprint? Think of simple ways to reduce your consumption patterns and try to imagine if your life will

be worsened by these changes. 

Figure 3.3: A QR code to an online ecological footprint calculator (http://www. footprintcalculator.org/)

3.4 Bringing it all together Meaning of life, ecocentricity and ecological footprint are not three concepts that can be easily linked. However, it is time that we start thinking deeply about relationships between these concepts. If your ecological footprint requires more than one whole planet earth, then it might be time to think of ways of scaling back your consumption. How much you are willing to scale back will depend on your ecocentricity: specifically, do you feel obliged to reduce your consumption, or do 28 Chapter 3. Meaningful lives without harming nature you believe that nature is there for humans to exploit? At an even deeper level, you may wonder whether cutting back your consumption will reduce meaning in your life? This is not a simple question and it is one that needs deep reflection and perhaps even some uncomfortable introspection. It is important to realise that a life of zero consumption is probably not one worth living. Even though nature is struggling under the weight of human demands, the goal is not reduce all consumption. Instead, the challenge is to modify our consumption patterns to enhance the meaning of our lives. For example, we might personally justify flying to an overseas location to enhance our education. But we should probably draw a line at taking the same trip for a shopping spree or to laze on the beach. Consumption that doesn’t add meaning to our lives is hollow. It is similar to eating high calorie foods that don’t have nutritional value; it only makes us obese. Where we draw the line for our environmental-obesity probably depends on our ecocentricity. However, it also depends on the information, indifference, institutions and infrastructure around use. We can focus on making improvements in our own lives, but we also need to understand the broader society around us. We can influence people around us by demonstrating that we can use our ecological footprints to specifically add meaning to our lives (rather than just adding more hollow consumption to the world). We can have a wider impact by partaking in democratic processes and making sure that our leaders represent our own values. Most importantly, we need to understand ourselves. We need to reflect on what makes our lives worthwhile. We need to identify the things that add meaning to our time on earth and we need to appreciate that these things do have an impact on nature. This is not a bad thing, however, because we form part of nature. The environment around us influences our lives and, in turn, the way we choose to live our lives will affect the environment around us. Hopefully this workbook shed some light on your own personal journey. Bibliography

1. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51 (2011). 2. Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014). 3. Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016). 4. Laitala, K. & Klepp, I. Age and active life of clothing. Product Lifetimes And The Environment, 182–186 (2015). 5. Martin, J.-L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 6105– 6112 (2016). 6. McLellan, R. et al. Living Planet Report (WWF International, 2014). 7. Butchart, S. H. et al. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2, e383 (2004). 8. Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015). 9. Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014). 10. May, R. M. Q&A: Extinctions and the impact of Homo sapiens. BMC biology 10, 106 (2012). 11. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). 12. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives 5, 193–206 (1991). 13. Alcamo, J., Bennett, E. & (Program), M. E. A. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment ISBN: 9781559634038. https://books.google.co.za/ books?id=0JGLgfndz0YC (Island Press, 2003). 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY

14. Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global environmental change 26, 152–158 (2014). 15. James, S. Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction ISBN: 9780745645476. https:// books.google.co.za/books?id=5VOXoAEACAAJ (Wiley, 2015). 16. Singer, P. et al. Animal liberation. Towards an end to man’s inhumanity to animals. (Granada Publishing Ltd., 1977). 17. Espinosa, C. Interpretive affinities: the constitutionalization of rights of nature, Pacha Mama, in Ecuador. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–19 (2015). 18. Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S. & Bradshaw, C. J. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in ecology & evolution 23, 453–460 (2008). 19. Nerb, J., Bender, A. & Spada, H. in Culture and the changing environment: Uncertainty, cognition and risk management in cross-cultural perspective 107–123 (Berghahan Books, New York, USA., 2008). 20. Fairbrother, M. Environmental attitudes and the politics of distrust. Sociology Compass 11, e12482 (2017). 21. Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L. & Hall Jamieson, K. Science curiosity and political information processing. Political Psychology 38, 179–199 (2017). 22. Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B. & Koger, S. Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 356, 275–279 (2017). 23. Fischer, J. et al. Human behavior and sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10, 153–160 (2012). 24. Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Krause, T. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 117, 270–282 (2015). 25. Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S. & Kaler, M. The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53, 80 (2006). 26. Wilhelm-Rechmann, A., Cowling, R. M. & Difford, M. Responses of South African land-use planning stakeholders to the New Ecological Paradigm and the Inclusion of Nature in Self scales: Assessment of their potential as components of social assessments for conservation projects. Biological Conservation 180, 206–213 (2014). Index

Anti-anthropocentricism, 25 IPBES, 7 IUCN, 9 Balance of nature, 25 Limits to growth, 25 Climate change, 8 Living Planet Index, 9 Conservation mainstreaming, 18 Living Planet Report, 9 Coping mechanism, 18 Cultural ecosystem services, 13 Mass extinctions, 11 Material consumption, 8 David Attenborough, 19 Meaning of life, 23 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 13 Earth overshoot day, 27 Moral rights, 14 Eco-crisis, 25 Moral significance, 14 Ecocentricity, 25 Moral standing, 14 Ecological footprint, 25 Motivational crowding, 20 Ecosystem services, 13 Emotional growth, 23 Natural capital, 25 Environmental education, 18 Extinction rates, 11 Planetary boundaries, 12 Poverty, 8 Fossil record, 12 Provisioning ecosystem services, 13

Global population size, 27 Red List Index, 9 Regulating ecosystem services, 13 Holocene, 12 Human exemptionalism paradigm, 25 Safe-operating space for humanity, 12 Supporting ecosystem services, 13 Incentives, 19 Sustainability hierarchy, 17 Indifference, 19 Information, 17 Virtue ethics, 14 Infrastructure, 20 Institutions, 19 WWF, 8