Recent discussions on the roles of oral language, fire, stone tools, horticulture, agriculture, metal use, and written language in shaping the road to a sixth mass extinction motivated an attempt to capture key elements influencing the ecological impact of deviations from well-worn paths.

The idea is that living beings try new stuff all the time—and not mostly by cognitive eureka moments, but by stumbling onto new genetic or behavioral tweaks. No conductor needs to sit at the helm for this to just happen. The process is impossible to stop, in fact. Obviously many—or most—ideas/mutations/novelties fail. Usually, any harm is suffered primarily by the species itself. Occasionally, the deviation has a serious impact on many other species.

Ecology can take a very long time to pronounce a verdict. Evolutionary adaptation (speciation) tends to operate over (sometimes many) thousands of generations, and all the interactive ripple effects can reverberate for far longer. As a measure of relevant timescales, the age of Homo sapiens is (logarithmically) halfway between 100,000 and 1 million years old (∼300,000). Typical species longevity is in the range of 1–10 million years, also indicating the pace of ecological adjustment through evolution. Climate varies on faster scales, but life has an answer to that: phenotypic variation. Pre-vetted modalities can be activated and de-activated. Most species have been around long enough to possess a library of adjustments that can be accessed as conditions demand, so-long as the changes are part of their historical cycles—or even those of their ancestral species. Truly novel conditions are another story: no library entry for coping.

Because many of the human deviations from ecological norms are indeed novel and operate on a much faster scale than evolutionary adaptation (e.g., cultural/cognitive rather than genetic mechanisms), it sure would be handy to have a sneak peek on what ecological judgment is likely to say on the matter in the fullness of time. So: introducing the Ecological Deviation Application.

Application Flowchart

The flowchart is not a perfect or precise tool: just something pulled together over a day or two. Maybe in a way similar to the Limits to Growth models, it is best not to take the model literally, but rather appreciate the overall thrust, timescales, and areas of concern. In fact, instead of viewing the flowchart as trying to algorithmize ecological decision-making (a futile task), think of this flowchart as a poor translator: trying to land a point for brains attracted to and conditioned on algorithmic thinking—perhaps providing a glimmer of insight otherwise unavailable in our ecologically-disconnected lives. Just as language is a crude tool leading to artificial categorization and (mental) boundaries, this flowchart only hints at a far more nuanced process.

Each question box has a green tint and a letter/label at top left (flowchart conventions stipulate that questions/decisions be placed in diamond-shaped boxes, but what a pain to try to fit text into such shapes!). Most answers are of the yes/no (Y/N) variety, but spelled out for other cases. A demerit system tracks worrisome “violations.” The more demerits racked up, the greater the chances of ecological disaster—like a mass-extinction event.

Three basic outcomes obtain in this flowchart:

1. Provisional Approval: a pass to keep doing what you’re doing, understanding that nothing is ever guaranteed. The guideline is to check in every 10,000 years to make sure you’re still operating in the safe zone.
2. Probation: The warning signs are worrisome, and your actions deserve close monitoring. You may surprise the world and prove out in time, but are running a big risk.
3. Disapproved: Your actions are very likely problematic, and could potentially trip mass extinction. Greatest concern.

No Lawyers!

Cases are adjudicated by the universe/ecology/evolution. Words and arguments have no bearing. A lawyer, for instance, might argue that agriculture is not unprecedented because ants and termites and damselfish engage in related activities. The lawyer would move for acquittal straight away in Box A.

The universe is not so easily fooled by twists, distortions, or word play—looking instead at the complete context in terms of what is actually going on. There is no rigid, codified, legal framework pretending to represent truth: it’s not a game. Every situation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering biophysical merits and demerits. Subtleties matter. There’s no hiding. Words are wind.

Keep this in mind if running scenarios through the flowchart. Efforts to put a thumb on the scale won’t fool Mother Nature. What is our best, honest guess as to how she would answer each question (keeping in mind that the questions themselves are only best-guesses as to what’s important). At the very least, this exercise can serve to stimulate conversation about what’s important, ecologically. We shouldn’t expect to ever really understand in full, but might at least develop a “spidey sense” for when things seem worrisome.

Various specific cases are briefly covered later, but first it may be worth a few words on each of the three “stages” in the flowchart/application, leading to the three outcomes.

Provisional Approval

The thrust of the questions in this section tries to get at whether the “deviation” is already vetted in time or space by having proven itself in similar form. Even so, approval can only ever be provisional. Each modality in life can only answer for itself, in the end.

Many deviations (mutations) result in failure of the individual or species, as in Box G. If the perpetrating species fails, that’s no longer so much an ecological concern and terminates the flowchart in removal of a single species. It’s still a form of disapproval: do this thing and you may suffer extinction—based on analog situations from the past. But the damage is isolated.

Probation

If the deviation in question has no proven precedent, probation or disapproval are the only outcomes remaining. To avoid outright disapproval, the criterion is simply that your own deviation has been going on long enough without causing a significant extinction event and has become a stable practice.

Fire is a decent example of this. It can be important to specify the place and time of the application process. In the case of fire, we might say Africa about 200,000 years ago: prior to migration and to the quaternary megafauna extinction (QME) event. Fire had been in use for 1.5–2 million years, and its use had stabilized. It still could be dangerous, though: might lead to something more damaging (and guess what…). So, probation is appropriate.

Disapproval

Any deviation that has no close-but-successful analog, and has not been around for long will end up being disapproved. The only remaining issue to be resolved is how many demerits are accumulated before the verdict is announced. Disapproval may not seem fair—whatever fair might mean. If the demerit count is low enough, an appeal may be reasonable, at least landing in probationary status. What is low enough? That’s not our decision. There is no hard-and-fast rule. It’s not codified law, remember? Unsustainable fails, and sustainable has a shot at success. The universe is the court, and this flowchart only serves to provide warnings that would be foolish to wave off—pretending we know better, somehow.

A chief concern in this section is the potential for ecological calamity. Signs include a number of endangered (or already extinct) species as a consequence of the deviation. At least as important is whether the list of impacted species is growing (what’s to stop it from continuing to escalate?).

A reasonable degree of stability on relevant evolutionary timescales counts for a lot. In the absence of reasonable stability—true stability doesn’t exist, in any case—the rate of change is of critical importance: whether changes are modest on the timescales that count. Especially important is whether the local ecology is adapting along with the changes. The survival of megafauna in Africa suggests that fire, stone tools, and spears developed/spread slowly enough to allow widespread adaptation/accommodation.

The post a few years back on deer crossing roadways—or roadkill in general—offers a contrast. Springing up in less than a century, animals have no evolutionary exposure to massive metal boxes hurtling down the road faster than anything they’ve ever seen move. It’s not part of their context. They don’t have a chance to adapt: they’re just wiped out. Sure, it’s possible that those who survive pass on some instinct to avoid the peril, but not if the rate is too high for this slow process to establish frequency within the gene pool.

Positive feedback is another key factor. Does the practice make it easier to do more of the practice? Using agriculture as an example: plowing fields, storing grains, and selective breeding all act to promote an increase in those activities as a function of their “success.” Lawyers could have a field day contesting the qualifications, here. But again, the universe does not abide lawyer games. You can’t fool Mother Nature: she knows bad news when she sees it.

Finally, substantial population growth is a key marker of ecological imbalance. This can be considered on the bases of either absolute numbers or rate. For instance, the annual rate of human population growth went from 0.0035% (20,000 year doubling time) before agriculture to 0.035% (2,000 year doubling) after. It took about three doublings (so about 6,000 years) for the absolute scale (population number) to increase by an order-of-magnitude, but the writing was on the wall at the start of this period.

Appeal?

The flowchart notes the possibility for appealing a “disapproved” result, if the demerit count is low. What does “low” mean? Nothing, really. The universe does not follow a rigid rule-based system as suggested by this flowchart. The appeal mechanism is part of the overall “provisional” nature of all outcomes. What really counts is the actual outcome in its full context. Because a negative answer to Box J trips disapproval, it’s worth making a distinction between merely disturbing and outright egregious—which demerits aim to reflect, crudely. Ecologies notice the difference, too.

Case Studies

Below is a summary table showing my own attempt to run scenarios through the flowchart. Just after is a full-account version (click to expand; also a PDF version is available for viewing side-by-side with the flowchart or post). The path through the flowchart is indicated by answers according to box label. Lower-case entries are “normal,” while upper-case indicates the earning of a demerit. It can be important to consider the time and place of the application submission. An asterisk indicates Africa something like 100–200,000 years ago.

Number	Case	Demerits	Outcome
1	Newt, Squirrel, Tick		Prov. Approval
2	Crow Sticks		Prov. Approval
3	First Firefly	2	disapproved
4	Oral Language		Prov. Approval
5	Fire*	1	Probation
6	Early Stone Tools		Prov. Approval
7	Stone Tools*	1	Probation
8	HS Migration from Afr.	7	Disapproved
9	Horticulture (general)		Prov. Approval
10	Horticulture (human)	1	Probation
11	Spear*	1	Probation
12	Bow & Arrow; 20 kya	3	Disapproved
13	Early Agriculture	6	Disapproved
14	Bronze Age Ag.	8	Disapproved
15	Modernity	15	DISAPPROVED
16	Cyanobacteria	6	Disapproved

The scale of modernity’s deviation is so enormous that a simple demerit count doesn’t capture the severity of the practice. To somewhat account for this, blue demerits count double, and red triple. Unfair? Remember, this extremely crude model is not binding: the universe will ignore it and might well effectively apply much harsher penalties. The scheme here simply tries to capture elements of how ecological decisions might be based.

Case Clarifications

The first column gives a case number, which will be useful for shorthand referrals.

Case 1 applies to just about every species/behavior found in the Community of Life, but space was limited in the description field. Most plants and animals occupy proven niches using proven techniques that have loads of precedent in both space and time.

Case 2 refers to New Caledonian Crows, who fashion tools out of sticks to access food. Similar practices are used by other creatures (many primates) as well, without bringing the Community of Life down.

Case 3 (firefly) is just trying to get at some novel provision that the world hasn’t seen before. Lack of precedent earns a demerit and sends into at least probationary territory. But, being new to the world, absence of track record flips into Disapproval Land at Box J, after which another demerit is incurred on the presumption that a newly-established species has seen significant population increase (from a necessarily small start). This is a good candidate for appeal to probationary status, ultimately proving out toward acceptance. Of critical concern is: how intrinsically harmful is a flashing butt to the Community of Life? Compare that to a bow and arrow (Case 12), for example.

Case 4 (oral language) is inspired by human language: was that the crossing of the Rubicon? Well, everything is provisional, here. But loads of other animals (and plants!) employ audio communication using a large vocabulary and even grammar. Language capability is not obviously in itself a deal-breaker.

Case 5 (fire), evaluated before migration from Africa, trips our first probation. It is saved from disapproval on the grounds that its practice had been going on for over a million years without creating a significant extinction event. That’s not nothing. Still, it’s in the doghouse as a potential problem—possibly laying tracks for more obviously problematic behaviors. One can easily argue that this is precisely what happened.

Case 6 grants provisional approval to early stone tools, since lots of animals use stones as tools in primitive fashion.

Case 7 takes us to stones with modified (sharp) edges used as scrapers, knives, hatchets, etc. Like fire, lack of analog earns at least probation, but length of usage without an extinction event keeps it clear of disapproval. It’s worth a close eye, however—principally because it could develop into something of greater impact.

Case 8 deals with migration of Home sapiens from Africa. Now, migration of plants and animals to new environments happens all the time. Disruption is expected. It’s a matter of scale: some are more impactful than others. The spread of a highly versatile and successful hunter did put many species on their back heels in a rapid process that left no time for evolutionary adaptation—indeed precipitating the Quaternary megafauna extinction as a very real and outsized consequence. Box S (positive feedback potential) could go either way, but finite continental opportunities squelch runaway in a time that is relatively short compared to evolutionary processes. All the same, human population no-doubt surged as a result of increased domain.

Case 9 gets at the generalized practice of plant tending. Since countless mutualistic arrangements exist between plants and animals (e.g., pollinators), as do numerous examples of more active tending of plants and fungi (e.g., ants, termites, damselfish), the practice in itself is not a planet-killer—thus getting provisional approval.

Case 10 narrows the horticultural focus to human practices, as often employed in places like the Amazon. Favored plants are tended, encouraged, and seeded in suitable spots surrounded by compatible species. Though lacking a close analog (the scope/scale differs significantly from ant horticulture, for instance), longstanding practice at least allows probationary status. As with many human practices on probation, horticulture could act as a gateway drug toward more destructive practices, when conditions (like the Holocene?) permit.

Case 11 (the spear) is closely associated with Case 7 (stone tools), but is made explicit for contrast with the next case (bow and arrow). Scoring runs identically to the cases for fire, stone tools, and horticulture—saved from disapproval by long practice, which means a lot.

Case 12 looks at the bow and arrow revolution that swept the world, evaluated 20,000 years ago. In contrast to the spear, this more recent development in human weaponry is no longer protected by longstanding integration and thus lands in the “disapproved” camp. A few more demerits are picked up on the notion that the technology puts more species at risk, and because escalation/adoption has been swift.

Case 13 looks at the first few-thousand years of agriculture. Many parallel starts around the world—all unproven modalities—lead to Boxes D and E. Demerits are picked up on the basis that the growth rate (spread) is too swift for biological/genetic evolution to track, and for the combination of many positive feedback mechanisms opening up while stepping up the rate of population growth by an order-of-magnitude.

Case 14 now includes metallic contributions to both agricultural tools and weaponry, serving to amplify the perils of novel human practices. New demerits are picked up for using materials not in biological circulation at a significant scale, and exposure of more life to extinction threat.

Case 15 is the full show of modernity. It’s ecological madness out there, with many measures indicating the initiation of a sixth mass extinction. As mentioned before, the scale is so far beyond what previous cases involved, that at least doubling some of the demerit weights seems justified. After all, destructive potential is more analog than digital/Boolean. This is no mere game.

Case 16 is motivated by seeking comparison to another biologically-induced mass extinction, in the form of the Great Oxidation Event perpetrated by cyanobacteria just over two billion years ago. The “application” is set in the first few-million years of the affair, when the phenomenon was gaining speed.

Demerits, Contextualized

The “score” as tracked by demerit count ought not be treated pedantically. Accumulating one, two, or three might in actuality relate to similar levels of ecological peril. Through blurry glasses, one might roughly recognize four regimes for demerit count: none; low; middling; and high.

The cyanobacteria example suggests that even middling demerit accumulation trespasses into mass-extinction territory. That means humans migrating from Africa and both forms of agriculture could represent extreme danger. Indeed, the migration from Africa did perpetrate the Quaternary megafauna extinction event. It was serious! Maybe that alone laid the foundation for a mass extinction that would unfold over the next few-hundred-thousand years. But since tens of thousands of years elapsed before agriculture without obvious continued fallout, maybe it played itself out. Agriculture, on the other hand, did quick work in terms of positive feedback, population growth, and ecological impact. It acts far faster than cyanobacteria, by three or four orders-of-magnitude!

Note that modernity, as crudely scored here, may be far more impactful than even the cyanobacteria as an extinction-machine. Indeed, this entire exercise was stimulated by modernity’s egregious ecological performance. It could be that a number of our practices from the past millennia put us on the road to mass extinction, but it took the over-the-top display of modernity for us to finally notice: we’re not subtle creatures. Some have argued that the trauma of megafauna extinctions instilled a more respectful ethos among tribal cultures living in the aftermath. Maybe the slap of modernity will carry profound and lasting lessons that we’re only now starting to contemplate, with this flowchart effort being one faint reflection of that story.

Flight Risk

This exercise carries the hazard that it may get wheels turning as to how one might improve, expand, and add nuance to the flowchart. It has probably already gone too far down a deceptively algorithmic path as it is. The more sophisticated the model, the more suspect its interacting mental fabrications become. The utility is in raising a general awareness of important questions and emergent modes—much as Limits to Growth highlighted the danger of delays in negative feedback as a general trigger of overshoot.

In other words, don’t get too excited by this flowchart approach (and maybe you aren’t even a little excited). It has probably delivered as much insight as it can. All the same, those insights might well aid understanding as to how we might react, now that modernity’s overt failure has caught our attention.

Future vs. Past

How might one square probationary practices that indeed appear to have led to something far more dangerous? Fire, stone tools/weapons, and horticulture did indeed lead to our present condition. Probation was perhaps too lenient a sentence. Does this mean that fire, stone tools, and horticulture are demonstrably problematic, given enough time?

Yes and no. Yes, there’s no denying what unfolded. But no, the future does not have to exactly mirror the past (and can’t). It still might have enough similarity that something like fire is always beyond the pale, but we aren’t smart enough to say for sure. In other words, should humans find themselves living in ways of old several millennia hence, using fire, stone, and horticulture, is the pattern destined to repeat? One reason for skepticism is that conditions will not be the same. The climate stability of the Holocene—which might account for agricultural initiation—may not repeat for the duration that humans remain on the planet (perhaps another few million years?). The low-hanging fruit of surface ores and fossil fuels won’t come back in relevant timescales. A bruised Earth won’t be as capable of supporting a similar surge in the intermediate-term.

These risky practices (fire, etc.) still earn probationary status, in my view, but that’s not an outright, blanket, categorical condemnation. Practices that can last for hundreds of thousands of years without in themselves triggering mass extinction may be fine—if kept to themselves by whatever constraints. How might the slippery-slope peril to more problematic practices be prevented from manifesting? Maybe they won’t be, but if they are then it’s probably not by intentional practice as much as by biophysical constraint. It’s certainly possible that humans are an evolutionary mistake: bound to think their way into non-viability by having a maladaptive form of intelligence (equating to ecological stupidity). But at least we know that some modes can persist for appreciable times, as long as the deadly elaborations don’t crop back up. All we can do now is stop being dumb enough to think our brains are capable of outsmarting ecology, and aim for lifestyles that are less obviously catastrophic—relying heavily on proven examples from the distant past.

Views: 395