Ecology: Biology of Interaction. VI-18. Dies irae
As a conclusion to the section devoted to human ecology (and the ecology course as a whole), the authors for many years asked students to answer the questions proposed in this section and then discuss those answers. There is no single correct solution to the described set of problems.
VI-18. Dies irae Dies irae, or Dies irae (pronounced "dee-es ee-ray", Latin for "day of wrath") is a Catholic sequence (a genre of composition close to a hymn, which originated in the Middle Ages; a characteristic feature of a sequence is the repetition of a melody for subsequent verses). It was likely written in the 13th century by the Franciscan friar Thomas of Celano. Wikipedia Dies irae, dies illa, solvet saeclum in favilla... The day of wrath, that day, will dissolve the world into ashes... (translation by Borys Khersonskyi) As a conclusion to the section on human ecology (and the ecology course in general), for many years the authors of the textbook have invited students to provide their own answers to the questions below, and then to discuss these answers together. There is no single correct solution to the described complex of problems, but searching for the right course of action and discussing the proposed options can (and should!) be a valuable experience for both students and teachers. As the epigraph shows, humanity has expected catastrophic changes ("the end of the world") before; in such expectations, the fear of death and, more broadly, the fear of the future, which is characteristic of humans, found an outlet. Cultural norms (of which the mentioned sequence was a part) transformed this fear into an impetus for a certain course of action. The "recipes" of that time no longer work today; unfortunately, the fear of the future has gained new, more significant grounds. Will we be able to find the right course of action that corresponds to our time and our understanding of the situation? The current stage of human-biosphere relations, as understood by the authors (this is a debatable opinion), can be described as follows: — the number of people on Earth has increased dramatically and will likely continue to grow for some time (despite uneven growth and population decline in some parts of the global human population); — the increase in human population is associated with a decrease in mortality, especially infant mortality, due to advances in medicine, improved nutrition, and widespread vaccination against dangerous diseases; — natural population stabilization or decline occurs in socially mature societies with high well-being and freedom for individual self-realization; as a result, the population of socially mature countries is already smaller than that of less successful countries, and this disproportion will only increase over time; — the global nature of humanity, high internal mobility, and the number of contacts with other fauna create extremely favorable conditions for the emergence and spread of new infectious diseases; — modern humanity exists largely thanks to non-renewable resources; even food production that sustains modern human life is primarily driven by fossil fuel energy (we don't eat oil, but we eat thanks to oil!); — today, the human population already far exceeds (by more than an order of magnitude, according to current estimates) the number that the Earth's biosphere can support without depleting non-renewable resources, given the current relationship between our species and the environment; — the peak extraction of some important non-renewable resources (e.g., phosphate rock) has already passed, and humanity is likely at or approaching the peak for others in the near future; — the consequences of excessive population growth include shortages of energy, food, and clean water, destruction of natural ecosystems, increased environmental pollution, and military threats; — resource scarcity for some parts of humanity can lead to struggles for redistribution, and these struggles reduce the already limited amount of available resources; — the global security system built after World War II has been destroyed; using fantastically advanced brainwashing systems, aggressor states (including nuclear ones) have launched a propaganda and armed struggle for resource redistribution and world domination; — the defeat of nuclear aggressor states in conventional warfare creates the risk of their use of nuclear weapons; the threshold for acquiring weapons of mass destruction is becoming lower; Ukraine's experience of abandoning nuclear weapons shows that such a renunciation can become a source of mortal danger; — the consequences of a full-scale nuclear war are still not fully understood, but in any case, they will catastrophically reduce the carrying capacity of the environment for humanity (the number of individuals for whom resources are sufficient); — human activity has led to global changes: disruption of atmospheric and hydrospheric circulation and composition, melting glaciers, sea-level rise, desertification and forest reduction, and the "sixth mass extinction" of biota; — climate change will likely lead to a shift of favorable agricultural climates to regions with poor soils in the near future, while fertile soils will experience arid climates; — technological development leads to liberation from many limitations of the previous stage of human development; technological progress is likely to ensure an increase in the environment's carrying capacity for humanity; — it is likely that humanity's future can still be changed in some way; overall, our state can be described as a race between technological prosperity and the depletion of the biosphere due to resource exhaustion; — the rapid changes in life and demands on each individual contribute to the desire of many people to return to the "good old world"; in various countries, populists who promise a return to a "golden age" of former (mostly fictional) glory are gaining support; — science still does not know all the cause-and-effect chains that determine the future relationship between humanity and the biosphere; observing changes in natural systems, we do not know their limits of resilience and cannot predict their dynamics if they are significantly altered; — the current state of humanity is extremely unstable; the consequences of changes that we cannot yet assess may lead to powerful transformations that we cannot predict; these transformations may lead to either humanity's collapse or its incredible flourishing. What to do? What should be the optimal strategies in such a situation: — for humanity as a whole; — for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people; — for you personally? Please propose courses of action that can be implemented. Consider that not everyone may agree with your proposals; in such cases, you need to anticipate how their disagreement will affect the implementation of the plan. It is necessary not only to declare the desired state but also to show the path to achieving it or increasing its probability!