Thank You for Not

Breeding






Peter Heft


Anthropocentrism, Homo ecophagus, and Human Extinction

2
0
1
4

1

Part 1: What is Life?
Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult?... Life is a concept that we invented. Ferris Jabr

I would like to start off with a two part rhetorical question: what is life and why is it
sacred? For me: life is not sacred. Life is not holy or special or magical. In fact, the concept of
life is so arbitrary it's almost laughable and holding it up upon a pedestal of grace makes no
sense.

So allow me to explain: as of right now, there is no comprehensive definition of what "life"
actually is. In fact, there are many different definitions that conflict with each other. For
example, Campbell's famous biology textbook lists 7 characteristics of life:

1. Order
2. Regulation
3. Energy Processing
4. Evolutionary Adaptation
5. Response to the Environment
6. Reproduction
7. Growth and Development

(Reece) whereas NASA's working definition of life in their search for extra-terrestrials, written
by Gerald Joyce
1
among others, is that "life is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian
evolution" (Mullen). Clearly the latter doesn't inherently include all 7 characteristics of the
former. This is a problem because, if there is no concrete or stable definition of life, then there is
nothing to hold sacred. For example, if I were to say "art is sacred", one would rightly ask "what
is art?". For some reactionaries, modern art is not art at all, for others, it is. This conflict will then
lead to competing claims of the sanctity of art (this was most prominently shown during the
Third Reich). Until there is a stable definition, it's hard to take any claims of absolute sanctity
seriously.

But it gets more problematic. The arbitrary definition of life as "a self-sustaining system
capable of Darwinian evolution" opens the door to tons of claims of life that most people would
think "no, that's not life". Example: programs have been created to test the theory of evolution.
These programs are simulations, similar to Conway's Game of Life, in which bits evolve and
change according to changes in their environment (Zimmer). Programs like these actually fall
under NASA's own definition of life. Robert Pennock
2
explains:

All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they
mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is
happening there. If thats central to the definition of life, then these things count. (Jabr)

So if a computer simulation would be considered life, where is the sanctity? That means
that everytime this simulation is shut down, mass genocide is occurring and is morally
repugnant. Or maybe, just maybe, we have the wrong conception of life.

1
Researcher and professor at The Scripps Research Institute
2
Professor of philosophy at Michigan State University
2


But let's ignore all that, let's ignore the fact that there is no stable definition of life and
discuss why there is no sanctity. Sanctity implies that something is special, unique, rare. For
something to be sacred, it has to (from an iconic religious perspective) be rare or hard to re-
create. That's the entire reason people care about preserving historical artifacts, because they are
rare and provide some insight into the past. While maybe not "sacred" in the traditional sense,
there is uproar when people destroy ancient artifacts. To further hammer this home, let me give
an example: you have two axes, a handaxe from India (over 1 million years old) (Smithsonian),
and a handaxe from Lowe's (Lowes).

If I were to walk into the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and smash the first
axe, I would be arrested and likely serve jail time. But if were to go into Lowe's and break their
axe, I would probably get slapped with a fine (the price of the axe) and then be kicked out of the
store. Why the difference, they're both axes right? The reason we value one axe above another is
because one is rare. The Lowe's axe is common, easy to replace - the handaxe from India is one
of a kind and thus we value it more.

So in order for something to have some special treatment or value, it must have some
characteristic that makes it worth saving. That characteristic can't be based on some ambiguous
definition of "life", rather, it needs to be something external. In the case of something sacred, that
external factor is rareness/uniqueness. So to determine whether or not life is sacred, one must
honestly answer the following question: is life really all that rare? Hell, one human body is home
to over 100 trillion bacteria... (Pollan) (For those keeping score at home, that's over 14,000 times
more people than currently exist)

In other words, every time you wash your hands, you're committing genocide on an
unimaginable scale.

But wait...the life a germ doesn't matter now does it, for if it did, humans would have
died out long ago trying to not kill germs. So what is it that makes human lives sacred? Is it some
arbitrary level of complexity? Because if it is, all that does is beg the question of where the line
is drawn. Until one knows where the line is drawn, there can be no clear claims of the "sanctity
of life".

But lets ignore all of that as well. Lets ignore the fact that rareness often determines
value and look at some of the arguments made by pro-life people.

Charles Choi, a writer for LiveScience, has been kind enough to provide a list of the Top
10 Things that Make Humans Special and I think its fitting that each of those 10 are replied to
and refuted. According to Choi the 10 things are (emphasis added):

Speech: The larynx, or voice box, sits lower in the throat in humans than in chimps, one
of several features that enable human speech. Human ancestors evolved a descended
larynx roughly 350,000 years ago. We also possess a descended hyoid bone this
horseshoe-shaped bone below the tongue, unique in that it is not attached to any other
bones in the body, allows us to articulate words when speaking.
3


Upright Posture: Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright
is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately,
the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with
large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the
animal kingdom. A century ago, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women. The
lumbar curve in the lower back, which helps us maintain our balance as we stand and
walk, also leaves us vulnerable to lower back pain and strain.

Nakedness: We look naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. Surprisingly, however,
a square inch of human skin on average possesses as much hair-producing follicles as
other primates, or more humans often just have thinner, shorter, lighter hairs.

Hands: Contrary to popular misconceptions, humans are not the only animals to possess
opposable thumbs most primates do. (Unlike the rest of the great apes, we don't have
opposable big toes on our feet.) What makes humans unique is how we can bring our
thumbs all the way across the hand to our ring and little fingers. We can also flex the ring
and little fingers toward the base of our thumb. This gives humans a powerful grip and
exceptional dexterity to hold and manipulate tools with.

Extraordinary Brains: Without a doubt, the human trait that sets us apart the most from
the animal kingdom is our extraordinary brain. Humans don't have the largest brains in
the world those belong to sperm whales. We don't even have the largest brains relative
to body size many birds have brains that make up more than 8 percent of their body
weight, compared to only 2.5 percent for humans. Yet the human brain, weighing only
about 3 pounds when fully grown, give us the ability to reason and think on our feet
beyond the capabilities of the rest of the animal kingdom, and provided the works of
Mozart, Einstein and many other geniuses.

Clothing: Humans may be called "naked apes," but most of us wear clothing, a fact that
makes us unique in the animal kingdom, save for the clothing we make for other animals.
The development of clothing has even influenced the evolution of other species the
body louse, unlike all other kinds, clings to clothing, not hair.

Fire: The human ability to control fire would have brought a semblance of day to night,
helping our ancestors to see in an otherwise dark world and keep nocturnal predators at
bay. The warmth of the flames also helped people stay warm in cold weather, enabling us
to live in cooler areas. And of course it gave us cooking, which some researchers suggest
influenced human evolution cooked foods are easier to chew and digest, perhaps
contributing to human reductions in tooth and gut size.

Blushing: Humans are the only species known to blush, a behavior Darwin called "the
most peculiar and the most human of all expressions." It remains uncertain why people
blush, involuntarily revealing our innermost emotions. The most common idea is that
blushing helps keep people honest, benefiting the group as a whole.

4

Long Childhoods: Humans must remain in the care of their parents for much longer than
other living primates. The question then becomes why, when it might make more
evolutionary sense to grow as fast as possible to have more offspring. The explanation
may be our large brains, which presumably require a long time to grow and learn.

Life after Children: Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can
survive long after ceasing reproduction. This might be due to the social bonds seen in
humans in extended families, grandparents can help ensure the success of their
families long after they themselves can have children. (Choi)

Now not only is Choi incorrect about many of his facts, but there is also no analysis as to
why these traits are inherently special. But regardless, lets answer each one.

First Choi mentions the fact that humans have speech, or the ability to communicate with
one another, as a reason for humans being special but this is absurd. There is no stable
articulation of what speech actually is much less why it must be confined to some
hierarchical language system. Additionally, it is extraordinarily well documented that chimps
possess many of the same abilities speech wise as humans. Chimps are not only able to
communicate with one another, but they are able to communicate through multiple different
mediums as well as utilizing different types of speech. Specifically, Dr. Jane Goodall
3
isolated
two distinct patterns of speech intraparty and distance calls. These are two fundamentally
different patterns of chimp interaction and chimp communication that shows not only is there
another species that possess an ability akin to speech, but they possess an ability akin to speech
that is hierarchical like human languages (Communication).

But thats not all, a study coming out of Georgia State University found that chimps are
able to communicate the location of food to one another with hand gestures and work as a team
to find the food (Roberts). This is significantly more advanced than most toddlers can do and, as
one of the researchers Dr. Anna Roberts says, The use of gestures to coordinate joint activities
such as finding food may have been an important building block in the evolution of language,
(GSU). This means that chimps have demonstrated a fundamental piece of what Choi asserts is
uniquely human.

And how could one forgot mans best friend? Ignoring the obvious barking to
communicate with other dogs, a 2012 study found that dogs are as receptive to human
communication as pre-verbal infants (Castro). So I suppose, if one adopts Chois framework,
pre-verbal infants arent really that specialor at the least equivalent to dogs.

Next Choi asserts that our ability to walk upright makes us special but in his analysis he
includes some points which show that the change to purely upright walking was in fact a
devolution. This is indicated when Choi says the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two
legsmakes human childbirth unusually dangerousA century ago, childbirth was a leading
cause of death for women (Choi). Thats not sounding too good to me. But regardless, Choi
does make the positive claim that upright posture has allowed humans to utilize tools and that
makes us special. But either out of neglect or denial, Choi ignores the abundance of evidence that

3
Arguably the most famous chimp researcher.
5

indicates that chimps can do the exact same thing. In fact, as early as 2004, evidence has come
to light that chimps not only utilize one tool, but utilize many tools for many different jobs
(Trivedi). This is quite literally the epitome of what Choi tries to assert as being uniquely human.

Whats more, a study coming out of the University of Zurich found that not only were
chimps able to utilize tools, but they were able to make and combine multiple tools and tool uses
to get access to one food item (Boesch). I dont know about you, but Im beginning to see a
trend.

Following that, Choi asserts that our nakedness or apparent lack of hair makes us
special. Not only is there no analysis as to why this makes us special, it ignores the fact that if
nakedness were somehow special, the Sphynx cat (hairless cat) would be far more special
because it lacks hair entirely. It isnt apparently naked, it is naked!
4


Choi then asserts that our hands, specifically the dexterity of them, makes humans special
because we can utilize tools. Since the only analysis regarding dexterity is tool use, I would like
to point out again that chimps have been found to do exactly the same thing (Trivedi) (Boesch).

Fifth, and potentially most importantly, Choi asserts that the human brain is
extraordinary because it allows us to reason and think and create. Now ignoring the obvious
flaws in Chois claims, namely the lack of definitions, there is also the ignorance of the animal
intelligence. Chois argument rests on the fact that humans are significantly more intelligent
than other animals yet this ignores recent findings. Specifically, a study from 2009 found that
pigs are able to utilize mirrors and reflected images to scope out their surroundings and find
their food (Angier). Not only that, professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State was able to teach pigs
to play video games (Shaker)! And those are just a few examples. Not only do scientists argue
that dolphins should have the same rights as humans due to their intellect (BBC), but India has
officially classified dolphins as non-human persons thus giving them legal protection (Ketler).
Whats more, recent studies have also found that chickens, an animal often thought of as dumb,
are smarter than 4 year olds (Friedrich). This puts Choi in a tricky spot, because either chickens
and 4 year olds are both equivalent in terms of specialness, or a 4 year old human cant be
considered special.

Sixth, Choi argues that humans are unique because we are the only animals to have
developed clothing. Ignoring the fact that there are no warrants as to why this is means anything,
this is probably a reason why we are have devolved. So I want to say a few things here if
having some cool trick makes a species of more worth, then dolphins, with their ability to
balance balls on their noses, are super talented. But regardless, its ironic isnt it? Clothes were
developed as a means to protect us from the elements and nature around becausewe lost our
fur. Yep. Clothing was developed as a means to stay safe because we evolved without fur and
thus had no natural protection.

Following this, Choi asserts that the human ability to control fire is a uniquely human
activity which represents something unique about our species because it allowed us mastery over
nature. This would be pretty convincing and all if it werent for the fact that chimps have been

4
This is of course ignoring the Heterocephalus glaber, or naked mole rat.
6

shown to be able to do the same thing. Specifically, an article published on Livescience entitled
Chimps Master First Step in Controlling Fire indicates that chimps have already evolved to the
point where they are no longer intrinsically afraid of fire (which is the first step to mastering fire,
and is a good deal better than many humans, ie. my mother) and actually see the value in it. But I
think the ultimate irony here is the authorship of the last article. It was written by none other than
the one and only Charles Choi (Choi)! But thats not all, anthropologist Jill Pruetzs study of
chimps found that are able to predict when yearly fires occur and they understand the outcome of
brush fires and can utilize them (Ferlazzo).

Subsequently, Choi asserts that the ability for humans to blush is something special and
unique to humans but, as usual, Choi doesnt explain why this makes humans special. Even if
blushing is unique, that doesnt mean that humans are inherently special. Regardless, Choi
argues that blushing keeps humans honest and that benefits a group dynamic but the only reason
that the issue of dishonesty arises is because we have an arbitrary level of development and
have so called consciousness. Animals with a different level of consciousness dont
necessarily need to display this. Even so, there are other methods of maintaining a strong group
dynamic that we see everyday in the animal kingdom.

Following this, Choi argues that a lengthy childhood is a unique characteristic to human
because other primates usually develop faster. Again, there is no analysis as to why this
supposedly unique characteristic makes humans special. Regardless however, from a pure
utilitarian stand point this is a negative thing because there is less time for reproduction (Choi).

And finally, after a long and arduous list, we get to the last point. Here, Choi asserts that
the fact that humans are able to stop having children and develop parental relationships is
something that makes us special because we can build strong community bonds. But this ignores
the fact that animal relationships are often just as strong, if not stronger than human relationships
regardless of the rate of breeding. Specifically, there are a few interesting examples. Both orca
whales as well as elephants have shown a strong knit family and group dynamic that look out for
their young (OSA) (JP). An odd 2006 study from Rice University studied the microbe
Dictyostelium purpureum and, surprisingly, found that in times of danger they favor their kin
and stick together in tight knit microbial communities. The study found that when food runs
short, D. purpureum aggregate together by the thousands, forming first into long narrow slugs
and then into hair-like fruiting bodies and are able to capture food more easily (Boyd). Even
more interesting however is a 2012 study from Oxford which studied bird behavior and
interaction and found that birds create clique-like structures similar to the structures we see in
high school group dynamics (Smith).

Thus, keeping all this in mind that is the arbitrariness of life as well as a lack of a
special characteristic that makes us, as humans, better than other creatures I cannot believe that
human life is inherently worth more than the lives of other creatures.
7

Part 2: Goodbye Biosphere!
The human species may look to some people outside the planet as though it's more of a planetary disease. Dr.
Warren Hern

Despite the amazing strides by Greenpeace and the likes in the past few decades, there is
still much to do and a lot of what we have done is past the point of irreversibility. Although we
might have successfully stopped the humpback whale trade, we have just created more problems
that are a far more serious threat to the environment than overfishing. Specifically right now Im
speaking of climate change
5
and its dramatic implications for the health of the planet as a whole.

Now before continuing, I must address the ever lingering and, unfortunately, still debated
issue of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. If youre a person who enjoys the
Kochs or believes everything the CATO Institute tells you, this section is directed towards you.
In 2013 a study was completed by and authored by nine different scientists ranging from climate
scientists at the University of Queensland to geological scientists at Memorial University of
Newfoundland. The article, titled, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
in the scientic literature, apart from being one of the best articles on climate science I have
ever seen, without a doubt proves the human influence on the environment. Specifically, the
authors, Cook et al., took over 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in journals
examining climate science over the past 20 years and found that papers rejecting the consensus
on AGW
6
[make up]a vanishingly small proportion of the published research (Cook et al.).
Specifically, the study found that literally less than 1%
7
of all the papers published and studied
rejected the anthropogenic thesis. When one churns the math (.007 * 11,944 papers = 83.6,
rounded to 84), 84 out of the over 10,000 papers rejected the thesis that climate change is
anthropogenic and, as per the study, that already amazingly small percentage is shrinking (Cook
et al.).

Here, the smart climate denier
8
will be quick to say but wait, CO2 isnt actually a
greenhouse gas and CO2 doesnt contribute to climate change!. However, that is patently false.
Although technically not the largest greenhouse gas, multiple studies prove that CO2 is the most
important. Specifically, a recent study by NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies found
that although CO2 only accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect, there is a large amount of
CO2 that is not condensed and ultimate leads accounts for about 80% of the greenhouse affect
(Lacis et al.). But, as John Cook
9
says on his site Skeptical Science, CO2 may be one of the
most misunderstood subjects in climate science and thus further elaboration and examination is
needed.

So lets begin. The way temperature increases on the Earth work are very interesting.
What happens is the sun bombards the Earth with radiation (ultraviolet, infrared, etc.) and this

5
I prefer to use the term climate change over global warming because conservative pundits like Sean Hannity
jump on the word warming and display their scientific ignorance when they make statements like well its COLD
out so how can there be warming?? Checkmate!.
6
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming
7
Specifically, .7%
8
If ever there were such a person
9
Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland
8

radiation is bounced off the Earth (via. the oceans and ice caps) and is absorbed by particles in
the atmosphere and then re-emitted in all directions. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are especially
good at this because they absorb and re-emit thermal energy in the form of infrared radiation.
Now the re-emission of thermal energy occurs in all directions, but for the most part, it is emitted
back down towards the Earth and the process repeats. This overtime has a very real effect on the
temperature of the Earth because the heat from the sun is literally trapped in the Earths
atmosphere as if the atmosphere were the glass of a greenhouse. Measurements of the change in
wavelength of light re-emitted shows that GHGs are especially good at re-emitting infrared light
and studies on Earth show that the amount of infrared light (which is converted into thermal
energy) coming back to the Earth is massive.

Specifically, a paper presented at the 18
th
Conference on Climate Variability and Change
featured the following graph which shows just how much infrared light is being re-emitted
towards the Earth with its associated GHG (Evans):



This shows just how much energy is returning to Earth. We also know the climate
sensitivity, that is how sensitive the Earth is to changes in radiation, and are thus able to compare
the change in temperature over time vs. the change in CO2 emissions. This allows us to
understand exactly what the affect CO2 has on temperature and, when plugging in the climate
sensitivity values, changes in CO2, and temperature values
10
, we find that even under [the]

10
I will put the equations down here to save space: CO2s radiative forcing, dF, is found using dF = 5.35 ln(C/C0)
where C is the current concentration of CO2 and C0 is a reference concentration (pre-industrial concentration of 280
ppm) (Myhre). The climate sensitivity (dT) equation is dT=*dF where is climate sensitivity in C/W/m
2
(SS). We
then know that a doubling of CO2 can lead to increase in temperate of 2-4.5C (IPCC). Using this, we can solve for
: = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2C/(W/m2) and from there, we can calculate
temperature changes (SS). Specifically, using data from 2010 and the first equation, we get dF shown here: dT =
* 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * (SS). Using skeptics own numbers, that is their assertion that the climate sensitive
9

ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2
over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8C increase in surface
temperature(SS).

Thus, data from the IPCC as well as spectrographic readings of radiation and CO2
emissions conclusively show that CO2 causes warming.

Finally, to cover all the bases that skeptics might try to steal, one lingering question
remains and that is how can humans be causing this if our CO2 output is so small?. There are a
few ways to explain this but the most obvious is the fact that humans are introducing excess
CO2. The Earth is a fragile system and is well regulated naturally, but humans pumping CO2
into the atmosphere messes with that system and, over time, adds up. This is most clearly seen in
the fact that 60% of human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere and have led to the highest
atmospheric concentration of CO2 in over 15 million years (Tripati).

So there is no excuse to be ignorant anymore, the most comprehensive study preformed
to date clearly shows what almost everyone is already aware: climate change is real and human
caused, and the all the data point to the fact that CO2 contributes to the warming of the planet. (If
you dont believe me, please see the giant footnote right above this)

So with that out of the way, a discussion of the impact of climate change on the Earth is
going to be important.

Climate change is a net bad thing for the entire environment for tons of reasons but most
importantly for this paper will be the affect it has biodiversity and the survival of non-human
species. There are a few main ways that climate change harms biodiversity, the first of which
being something called ocean acidification. For most people, the threat of climate change is oh,
the Earth gets hotter but that is far from the only impact. In fact, merely the release of CO2
causes tons of problems for marine life. Once CO2 is released, some of it is absorbed by plants,
some stays in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect, and some gets dissolved into
the oceans. This occurs much the same way oxygen gets into the water, but CO2 directly affects
the acidity of water. Now on a small scale this would be fine, but on a large scale and over time,
we see a downward trend in the pH of the oceans because more and more CO2 is getting
dissolved. This drop in pH leads to the oceans being slightly more acidic in what scientists call
ocean acidification. Ocean acidification isnt some oh, the water is slighty more sour type of
thing, rather it affects organisms at the bottom of the food chain and the impacts reverberate
upwards. Specifically, the acidifying of the oceans leads to a decrease in coral growth, some
types of snails that are crucial first level food sources are unable to construct their calcium shells
and thus die before being a food source, and ultimately sensitive fish like salmon die as well
(Romm).

This is a net bad thing for biodiversity because species of fish that live amidst coral are
deprived of protection and thus die off. Organisms that feed on the small snails (called sea

value is around 0.27C/(W/m
2
) we can calculate the change in temperature and we get the conclusion I wrote above:
dT = 1.8 * = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5C (SS).
10

butterflies) are unable to eat because their food source, the sea butterflies, are dying (Whitty).
And obviously, organisms that depend on salmon and the habitats they create will die.

Whats worse, we dont fully understand the complex relationships of oceanic organisms
and thus far too often, our predictions of it wont be that bad are dead wrong. By continuing to
pour CO2 into the atmosphere, subsequently acidifying the oceans, we are quite literally playing
Russian Roulette with nature (Hendriks et al.).

But I wish that were all. Climate change has drastic implications for creatures living on
land as well. Specifically, as the Earth warms, diseases mutate and grow more easily and we see
an increase in the number of new diseases that are killing off animals and plants currently
(Schnackenberg). And at risk of sounding like an alarmist, although the threat is very real, there
is one other implication and that is habitat destruction. As the temperature increases and water
becomes more acidic, increased pressures are placed on animals in their habitats and those with
already fragile ecosystems due to human intrusion will suffer the most. Scientists predict that
with the loss of one species, another will go, and another, and another in a cascade effect. This
will be detrimental obviously not only to human life, but to all life because organisms will no
longer have food or a place to survive (Hansen).

Now of course, I wish this were just a surface issue, one that could be rectified with
tighter regulations or smarter leaders but alas, its much deeper than that. For these destructive
actions dont make sense in vacuum but when viewed through the lens of what humans really
are, the destructive tendencies of our species becomes painfully clear.

Examination of city growth, population growth, and resource consumption all lead to one
to conclusion, that humans are a cancer to Earth.

You see, there are four key traits of a malignant tumor, four characteristics that define it.
They are as follows:

1. Rapid, uncontrolled growth;
2. Invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissue;
3. De-differentiation (loss of distinctiveness of individual components); and
4. Metastasis to different sites (Hern)

These characteristics, characteristics that are endemic of one of the most destructive
things know to life, apply to human growth and expansion over the course of our tenure on this
planet. Humans are being born at an unprecedented rate. In fact, over the past century, the human
population has more than quadrupled. From the period of 1953-1993, more humans were born
than over the past three million years (Hern).

There is really no dispute over whether we are overpopulated (although more will be said
on this later). Resources are scarce, land is running out, and ethnic tensions are increasing in
frequency. According to the US Census, one human is born every 8 seconds whereas one dies
every 12. This means that we are constantly growing exponentially and there seems to be no end
in sight. Additionally, when compared with the first characteristic of a malignant tumor, the
11

similarities are terrifying. As tumors grow, they expand outward rapidly and without boundaries
and control and consume all tissue around them.

The following is an image of three different simulations of malignant tumor growth and I
ask that you note the shape and pattern (Jiao):



(Notice the expansion akin to a drop of water creating a ripple spreading outwards)

Back in 1972, James Johnson looked at the growth of cities over the course of 100+ years
and he published his findings. Specifically, he published an image that shows that growth of
London from 1800-1955 and that image is below. I ask that, again, you note the shape and
pattern (Hern):

12



At this point, the astute observer will see the frightening similarities between the three
different models of malignant tumor growth, and the growth of London over a 155 year period.
The tumors are seen branching out in all directions with no boundaries or limits, and the people
of London are seen doing the same (even overcoming and taking control of a potential natural
boundary, what I would assume is the River Thames).

But that is not all, in fact all the other characteristics of malignant tumors can be view as
descriptors of humans just as easily. No matter how good I think my writing may be, I think A.
Kent MacDougall explains this phenomena best he says the following:

Cancer cells proliferate rapidly and uncontrollably in the body; humans continue to
proliferate rapidly and uncontrollably in the world. Crowded cancer cells harden into
13

tumors; humans crowd into cities. Cancer cells infiltrate and destroy adjacent normal
tissues; urban sprawl devours open land. Malignant tumors shed cells that migrate to
distant parts of the body and set up secondary tumors; humans have colonized just about
every habitable part of the globe. Cancer cells lose their natural appearance and
distinctive functions; humans homogenize diverse natural ecosystems into artificial
monocultures. Malignant tumors excrete enzymes and other chemicals that adversely
affect remote parts of the body; humans' motor vehicles, power plants, factories and
farms emit toxins that pollute environments far from the point of origin (MacDougall).

Now some, after reading this, might dismiss it as just a hypothetical for viewing the
environmental movement, but the implications are real and disturbing. The Earth has been
viewed many ways, but the most interesting hypothesis, and probably the most correct, would
the Gaia Hypothesis. The Gaia Hypothesis, originally devised by James Lovelock, posits that the
Earth functions much like a living organism in that it self regulates and stays in a homeostatic
state naturally. This view of the Earth aids us in understanding how humans can be viewed as a
cancer because we can see human interaction with the environment as disrupting the natural
balance of self-regulation and order.

Specifically, humans are amazingly efficient at destroying the world around them until
there is no more land to live on. Historically, humans exploit the land they live on until the
resources run out and then they leave the desolate and destroyed landscape in search of new
plunder.

And this isnt a cry made by just a few people, many prominent Gaia Hypothesizers have
made their opinions abundantly clear from both a medical perspective as well as an
environmental one. Jerold Lowenstein
11
spoke about this issue when he said "[i]f you picture
Earth and its inhabitants as a single self-sustaining organism, along the lines of the popular Gaia
concept, then we humans might ourselves be seen as pathogenic[w]e are infecting the planet,
growing recklessly as cancer cells do, destroying Gaia's other specialized cells (that is,
extinguishing other species), and poisoning our air supply....From a Gaian perspective... the main
disease to be eliminated is us"(Lowenstein).

Thus, keeping the following facts in mind, namely that
Humans cause lasting damage to the biosphere through the effects of climate change;
Humans are especially keen and adept at destroying biodiversity around us; and
Human growth and the expansion of cities when compared to the growth of malignant
tumors are almost indistinguishable,

I must agree with Dr. Warren Herns diagnoses that humans should be rightfully re-named
Homo ecophagus, or one who devours the environment (MacDougall).



11
Professor of medicine at the University of California
14

Part 3: Anthropocentrism and the Intrinsic Value of Nature
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Thought experiment often
associated with George Berkeley

So, keeping all that has been discussed in mind, I ask a semi-rhetorical question of what
is value? This is an important question that must be addressed because, absent a proper
understanding of what value actually is, the previous issues of human destruction of biodiversity
and the biosphere are moot because there is no reason to care about them.

So I revisit the question, what is value? Well according to the Google definition, value is
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of
something
12
. But this definition is grossly incomplete and ignores that there is deeper meaning
to word. In philosophy and economics there are two types of value (primarily), extrinsic and
intrinsic. Despite sounding similar, they are two very different forms and the distinction must be
mad.

Extrinsic valueis the value that something has in relation to something else that is, its
usefulness. Things that have extrinsic value are good/desirable/valuable insofar as they lead to
something else that is desirable, an end goal. (One can almost think of extrinsic value as the
utilitarianism of value) Conversely, intrinsic value is the value that something has independent
of any external factors that is, its inherent worth. Two examples to solidify the distinction are
money and happiness. Money is something that has extrinsic value because the only reason we
care about it is its usefulness to us is because we view it as important. Just like a one dollar bill
would be meaningless to an extra-terrestrial, moneys value only exists because we believe it
does and we use it to gain some end. Happiness however would be an example of something that
would, arguably, be intrinsically valuable. We dont use happiness to achieve something else
that is, its not a means to an end nor do view it in terms of usefulness or utility. Rather,
humans simply have a tendency to want to be happy because it is something that is, for the most,
innately good.

The differentiation of intrinsic and extrinsic value has some important implications on
our understanding of environmentalism and human growth. So going off the line of reasoning
before as well as the semi-rhetorical questions I like to ask, if a tree falls in a forest and no one
is around to hear it, does it make a sound? While this question is clich, it will serve as the
building block for our understanding of the worth of nature. To most people, the answer to the
previous question is simple: without someone to hear the tree, how can it make a sound? That
answer, while being smug and moderately annoying, brings to light two important issues the first
of which being the belief that nature has extrinsic value. The answer of if there arent humans
there is no sound assumes that in order for sound to be produced or the tree falling to have any
importance, there must be a human there to observe it and without one, there is no importance
(in this case, sound) to the tree falling. The second issue that the question brings to light is the
issue of whats called anthropocentrism that is, the belief that humans are the most important

12
Google search terms: define value
15

creatures and are the center of everything
13
. There are, of course, many problems associated with
anthropocentrism that I will get into later, but first a more thorough understanding of which type
of value nature holds is needed.

Counter to the cries of the without humans theres no sound crowd and those that
believe that nature was built for them, a growing number of environmentalists and ecological
philosophers argue that nature (and the definition of nature will be discussed in a moment) has
intrinsic value and it doesnt matter if humans are here to exploit it, we do not give it value.

There is, however, another important distinction that must be made and that is between
subjective intrinsic value, and objective intrinsic value. The former posits that nature has
intrinsic value but the degree to which it is valuable is determined by humans who look at it
that is, it has no value independent of humans. In contrast, objective intrinsic value is something
that has intrinsic value of a fixed nature regardless of if anyone is there to quantify it. (An
example would be, as per the human rights folks, humans have objective intrinsic value because
we are all equal no matter who is looking
14
) As I hope you are able to guess by now, my view is
that nature has objective intrinsic value and that is what I will be forwarding (Sandler).

Now I apologize, but before continuing it is important to understand what nature
actually means. For most environmentalists, the nature that has intrinsic value would be the
living organisms in ecosystems (whereas the ecosystems themselves have extrinsic value based
on the organisms use of them). For some ecological philosophers however (Keekok Lee for
example), the nature that has intrinsic value is both the animate and inanimate objects that make
up an ecosystem. I, based on a lack of definition of life as well as this being the only one that
works with the argument made in part one, subscribe to the second view of nature that is,
natures intrinsic value is both in its animate and inanimate
15
objects.

By this point, the astute reader will realize that I have not actually made any argument as
to why nature has objective intrinsic value, rather I have just defined terms. The rest of this
section however, will be devoted to proving that nature does have the objective intrinsic value I
say it has and that human domination over nature, la anthropocentrism, is bad.

So, how do we actually know that nature has some objective intrinsic value? Well, there
are a few arguments for this, the first of which I call the Platonic Essence argument. In
metaphysics, there is the concept of the essence that is, the base standard traits that make up an
object. (For example, a pencil is a writing utensil that uses lead to transfer hand motions to paper,
an object that violates part of this definition is thus not a pencil) Objects in nature, be they rocks,
leaves, sticks, etc. have a Platonic essence as well. They each have a set of traits that make them
what they are. Absent these traits, the objects are no longer what we thought they were. Now
keeping this in mind, these traits that come to make up the object have extrinsic value in that
they make up an object, but once conferred upon the object, their value is transferred and the

13
Now of course, there are distinctions within anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism. Although not explicitly
stated above, my argument will be for the sub-category of biocentrism(mixed with the anti-life perspective of part
one) that is, all living things need to be considered when making judgments (Sandler).
14
This is a topic for another paper
15
If one can even use such terms after part one
16

object has its own intrinsic value. Each object for which there are traits that make it up can be
thought of using the Heideggerian term being in that they exist on a base level and this base
level is valuable because it quite literally is what defines the object as existing in the real world.

Springboarding off of that is the so called teleological argument which relies heavily
on the existence of things and their double. Richard Sylvan
16
and Val Plumwood
17
argue that
objects with extrinsic value are created so they can be used and if they are not useful, they would
not be created. Shovels, in other words, would not have been invented except as instruments for
digging[a]nd since such things exist by artifice, not by nature, if they had not been invented
they wouldn't exist. This means that the very existence of useful objects proves that there is
extrinsic value at least, so why not the reverse? Objects that arent inherently useful to humans
(or to anything at all) still exist. They have no extrinsic value, yet they still exist and thus there
must be some other reason or source of value. Their essence, much like the essence of a shovel
necessitates that it has extrinsic value, necessitate that they have objective intrinsic value, for if
they didnt, they wouldnt exist (Callicott). While not the greatest argument, it cuts to the core of
Platonic essentialism and shows that the existence of an object necessitates some descriptor to go
along with it.

In addition to that however, would be the argument that extrinsic value is subjective and
is thus a poor moral standard to use. The view of nature varies from culture to culture, century to
century, and it would be nave to assume that there is any static human view of nature. In fact,
when we look around at the world, the views of nature have changed radically. Some cultures are
very keen to protect the environment and worship it while others actively work to destroy it.
Some cultures protect it because they feel an obligation because their religion may tell them that
nature is valuable and thus they may not view nature with extrinsic value as a Westerner would.
This crisis of subjectivity is an issue because it can lead to both sides of the environmental coin,
the strong anti-environment side, and the strong environment side. Thus a new way of looking of
nature is needed. When one recognizes that there is intrinsic value in nature absent human
experience, then the crisis of subjectivity is moot because value is not determined by human
interaction with nature and thus a more productive discussion of naturalism can occur
(Hargrove).

There is another argument, one traditionally called the phenomenological argument
(although I prefer smart-ass argument), that really gets one thinking about ones place in the
world. Allow me to tell a story leading up to the argument: retired biologist Edwin Pister had a
passion for fish and hated the extinction of species. As such, he was doing research in states
around his native California when he came across the endangered Devils Hole pupfish
18
. He
saw the pupfishs habitat being destroyed by agriculture and decided to sue to big agro-
businesses to save the habitats. He ultimately ended up winning and the pupfish is no longer on
the verge of extinction (Callicott).


16
Philosopher and fellow at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University in
Canberra
17
Eco-feminist and Research Council Fellow at the Australian National University
18
Now considered to be the rarest fish in the world
17

However, after the trial he was often asked why save the fish, it has no benefit? and the
question was very valid from an extrinsic anthropocentric view point the pupfish was too small
to be eaten and didnt have any human value per se. So Pister thought long and hard about this
question of what good is it? until he finally came up with the perfect retort: what good are
you? (Callicott)

The beauty of this answer is that it forces the questioner to examine their utility through
the lens they have set up. For the questioner in asking what use is the fish? has set up a
framework of utility that is, usefulness determines protectability and thus their own life must
be weighed within that specific frame. Now most people would like to think that their lives hold
some sort of importance or relevance to others, but in reality most peoples lives are useless on
the grand scheme of thing. However, despite their uselessness, people such as the questioner
dont go around saying we should let useless people die because they view human life as
intrinsically worth something. The same is therefore true for the pupfish, among other species.
Even if they serve to be no benefit to humans (ie. have no extrinsic value), their very existence
necessitates them having at least some degree of intrinsic value. And if one takes the arguments
from part one about the arbitrariness of life and complexity as true, then nature as a whole would
have objective intrinsic value. To quote Callicott
19
on the issue, The question How do we know
that intrinsic value exists? is similar to the question How do we know that consciousness exists?
We experience both consciousness and intrinsic value introspectively and irrefutably. Pister's
question What good are you? simply serves to bring one's own intrinsic value to one's attention.
(Callicott)

While simply ignoring the objective intrinsic value of nature isnt a great thing, it is the
belief that humans are the source of value and that humans are the center of things that is the real
problem. This problem, that of anthropocentrism, cuts to the core of the environmental
movement and is an idea from a site of privilege that must be addressed. To assume the
ontological superiority of humans is to deny the ontological trajectory of, what Keekok Lee
20

calls, the natural that is, all that is non-human.

Whats more, when one operates from a position of anthropocentric privilege, all nature
around humans is viewed as disposable because it simply has extrinsic value for human needs.
This logic, the logic of extrinsic value from an anthropocentric mindset, is the same logic that
allows for the destruction of rainforest to make way for farm land, the dumping of toxic waste to
save money, and the overfishing of the worlds oceans to enjoy cheap tuna. This logic, which
rests on the assumption that humans are somehow better than other beings
21
not only ignores the
fact that nature has the capacity to be different from us in its ontological trajectory, but it is the
same privileged logic that rests at the heart of ethnocentrism and racism (Lee) (Grey).

Additionally, if one accepts the premises laid out in part one of this paper, humans are no
more special than any other forms of life and thus to assert our superiority is to deny that simple
fact and thus to assert our privilege is absurd, to say the least.


19
Environmental philosopher at North Texas
20
Philosopher at the University of Lancaster
21
Beings in both the Platonic essentialist sense and the biological sense
18

One final point I must add in this section, it would be lovely if the view of human
superiority could be squelched by regulations on carbon emissions or a change in consumption
patterns, but unfortunately that is not the case. Since I agree both with Agent Smith in The
Matrix when he states that humans are not actually mammals but viruses
22
, and Dr. Warren
Herns analysis that humans ought to be considered a cancer on the planet because of our
propensity for destruction, that I think reform is no longer a viable solution. A new solution to
the problem of Homo ecophagus must be imagined and realized.


22
Smith gives viruses too little credit, they are much more interesting than humans
19

Part 4: Thank You for Not Breeding!
May We Live Long and Die Out. - VHEMT

As indicated by the previous sentence, reform is no longer viable solution. We have tried
to change consumption patterns, congresspeople have been lobbied, Greenpeace has been
fighting for decades, and yet the cancer that is Homo ecophagus continues to spread. A new
solution is needed, and fast.

By this point, the open-minded reader will be filled with feelings of hopelessness and fear
for the future (as one should be), but worry not, there is hope. Since politicians are impotent
23
for
real change and late capitalism is stuck in its models of consumption, individual action must be
taken. The solution to our current environmental troubles lies in a proposal set forth by Les
Knight
24
:

Humans ought to go extinct.

Now I know what youre thinking, He cant be serious? People dont actually advocate
human extinction but I assure you, that is what I am advocating. Because I am advocating
such an odd view, I will spend the next several pages arguing a few things: 1) reform is
impossible due to overpopulation, historical failures, and being locked in our current models of
consumption, 2) that the best way to protect the environment and the objective intrinsic value of
nature is so let ourselves die out and to convince you to halt your urges to breed and recognize
that the best and most viable way of letting ourselves die out is voluntary non-breeding, and 3)
bid you a farewell.

The optimistic minded amongst you may be wondering why we cant simply put stricter
regulations on companies that destroy the environment? There are a few reasons that reform will
fail and I shall explain each of them.

First, we are past the carrying capacity of the Earth and not living within our means.
Every year more and more people are being born and resources are becoming more and more
scarce. Specifically, an excess of 21 million people are born each year and when looking at the
population clock, the births far outpace the deaths
25
. In fact, as of 1:15 AM on April 6
th
, 2014
the world population is at approximately 7,224,552,678 people and its changing so fast that I
had to take a screenshot to get the number. So its clear that Earths population is not shrinking
and we are expected to hit 8 billion people by 2025 (Foley).

But the question thus arises, can the Earth sustain all these people? The answer is no. The
Earth, like every other ecosystem on the planet, has a carrying capacity that is, the amount of
organisms it can support before there is a crash and mass die offs and once past the carrying
capacity, a crash is sure to follow. Below is a graph of X species that has surpassed its
ecosystems carrying capacity (Hern):

23
Ironic, eh?
24
Environmental activist
25
Worldometers.info provides a very nice visualization
20



And of course, the next relevant question is what is the carrying capacity of the Earth?
Well, a 2012 United Nations Environment Programme meta-analysis of 65 different estimates of
Earths carrying capacity found that the majority of the studies agreed upon a carrying capacity
of, at maximum, 8 billion people (UNEP). Thus, as per the current rate of population growth
and the, from my view even liberal, carrying capacity of the Earth, we will be headed for a
catastrophic crash that will destroy both cities and the environment in a little over a decade
(Lewis et al.). Thus even if some regulations were placed upon companies, it would do nothing
to address the ever looming problem of overpopulation and the environmental destruction it
brings with it.

Second, environmental reforms, while helping localized areas, have failed globally. In
1992 the first Earth Summit was held in Brazil where countries from all around the world came
and tried to address the issues plaguing that era. The summit was met with failure and ultimately
ended up getting three resolutions drafted (which may or may not have done anything). The
history of global environmental failures has been long, but well documented and its easy to
understand why the failures occur. A few reasons are that the United States, the worlds
hegemon, has failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, amongst other important pieces of legislation,
and has not served as a model for the rest of the world. This has led to complacency by
developing nations as they create their own environmental laws which are, often times, barely
better than having none at all. Additionally, the rise in globalization has brought about huge
financial incentives to stifle attempts at change and, unfortunately, big business has done exactly
21

that (Foster). And, a decade after 1992, the Johannesburg summit was held in 2002. The United
States did not attend
26
.

And third, reformism has never, and will never work within the confines of capitalism.
The consumers want things cheap and cheap products come at the price of environmental
destruction. Here I would like to quote an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Theodore
Kaczynski
27
which, I think, speaks for itself in addressing the issue of reformism (Kintz):

I dont think it can be done. In part because of the human tendency, for most people,
there are exceptions, to take the path of least resistance. Theyll take the easy way out,
and giving up your car, your television set, your electricity, is not the path of least
resistance for most people. As I see it, I dont think there is any controlled or planned
way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will
get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses The big problem is that people dont
believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not
believe it is possible. To a large extent I think the eco-anarchist movement is
accomplishing a great deal, but I think they could do it better The real revolutionaries
should separate themselves from the reformers And I think that it would be good if a
conscious effort was being made to get as many people as possible introduced to the
wilderness. In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or
persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in
society to the point where things start to break down. To create a situation where people
get uncomfortable enough that theyre going to rebel. So the question is how do you
increase those tensions?

So if reform is impossible, what is the alternative? Well, as proposed above, the best
alternative would be for the human race to die out. If the human race were to let itself die out, the
aforementioned issues would be solve in numerous ways.

First, recognizing we arent the center of all things and we arent the givers of value,
allows us as humans to collectively take responsibility for our actions and pay the price. Whats
more, this recognition is the ultimate reconciliation of ethics and anthropocentrism because we
are giving up our place of privilege and power amongst the natural and ceding biological
supremacy to other things. In the face of reformist failure and increased destruction, this is the
only way to break the cycle of the death of the natural (Kochi and Ordan).

Second, allowing ourselves to go extinct quickly would instantly take the pressure off the
environment because we will no longer be contributing to the death of the natural
28
. This will
allow the Earths biosphere, to recover to from the initial start of the cancer of Homo ecophagus
around 200,000 years ago. The recovery of the biosphere will be slow and there will be setbacks
of course (ie. toxic leakage, nuclear plants falling into disrepair, etc.) but over the longer term,

26
In fact, George Bush decided not only to not attend, but to boycott the summit (much to the praise of
conservatives)
27
Yes, he is the Unabomber
28
Of course, this assumes a fast(ish) extinction
22

the benefits will be profound. One of the better images Ive seen on the subject is reproduced
below showing what would happen if all humans suddenly disappeared (VHEMT):



However, if humans were to go extinct slowly (the more likely scenario), we could at
least attempt to mitigate some of the disasters weve caused while we cease to breed. This
method, the method of not breeding which I advocate, would allow for the peaceful demise of
humankind as well as the return of the Earth to its natural, pre-human state (VHEMT). If humans
cease to breed, no new persons will be created and the existing people can live out their lives and
ultimately die, like we are all destined to do. So, and please excuse the semi-crude nature of my
comment, for the environment, please keep it in your pants.

And here we come to the end of our story (both humanitys as well as this papers) and if
you dear reader happen to be the last human on Earth, I applaud you and humbly say thank you.
Thank you for not breeding. I do, however, have one request: please be sure to turn off the lights
on your way out.
23

Works Cited

Cover photo credit: In a Bed of Grass Michael Mehrhoff

--------

Angier, Natalie. "Pigs Prove to Be Smart, if Not Vain." The New York Times, 9 Nov. 2009. Web.
29 Mar. 2014.

BBC. "Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists." BBC News. N.p., 21 Feb. 2012.
Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Boesch, Christophe, and Hedwige Boesch. "Tool Use And Tool Making In Wild Chimpanzees."
Folia Primatologica 54.1-2 (1990): 86-99. Print.

Boyd, Jade. "Tight-knit family: even microbes favor their own kin." Rice University News &
Media. N.p., 23 June 2006. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Callicott, J. Baird. "Intrinsic Value in Nature: a Metaethical Analysis." The Electronic Journal of
Analytic Philosophy 3 (1995): n.p. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.

Castro, Joseph. "Clever Canines: Dogs Can 'Read' Our Communication Cues." LiveScience.
TechMedia Network, 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Choi, Charles. "Top 10 Things that Make Humans Special." LiveScience, 22 Aug. 2011. Web. 28
Mar. 2014.

"Chimps Master First Step in Controlling Fire." LiveScience, 21 Dec. 2009. Web. 2 Apr.
2014.

"Communication." the Jane Goodall Institute |. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Cook, John , Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah Green, Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting,
Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. "Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the scientic literature." Environmental Research
Letters Online (2013): n. pag. iopScience. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin. "MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE
FORCING OF CLIMATE." NOAA. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Ferlazzo, Mike. "Earth & Environment." Futurity. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Foley, James. "UN World Population Report Predicts 8 Billion People by 2025, 11 billion by
2100." Nature World News RSS. N.p., 14 June 2013. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

24

Foster, John Bellamy. "A Planetary Defeat: The Failure of Global Environmental Reform."
Monthly Review 54.8 (2003): 1. Print.

Friedrich, Bruce. "Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old." NY Daily News. N.p., 16 Aug. 2013.
Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Grey, William. "Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism." Ethics and the Environment 3.1
(1998): 97-103. PDF.

GSU. "Study Finds Chimps Can Use Gestures To Communicate In Their Hunt For Food."
Georgia State University News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Hansen, James . "Tipping Point." Columbia. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Hargrove, Eugene C., and Sherwood J. B. Sugden. "Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value."
Monist 75.2 (1992): 183-207. Print.

Hendriks, I.e., C.m. Duarte, and M. lvarez. "Vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean
acidification: A meta-analysis." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86.2 (2010): 157-
164. Web.

Hern, Warren. "Has The Human Species Become A Cancer On The Planet?: A Theoretical View
Of Population Growth As A Sign of Pathology." Current World Leaders 36.6 (1993):
1089-1124. Print.

IPCC. "8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models' Climate Sensitivity Estimates?."
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models' Climate Sensitivity Estimates?.
N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Jabr, Ferris . "Why Life Does Not Really Exist." Scientific American Global RSS. N.p., 2 Dec.
2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.

Jiao, Yang, and Salvatore Torquato. "Diversity of dynamics and morphologies of invasive solid
tumors." AIP Advances 2.1 (2012): 011003. Web.

JP. " Jax Protest." Elephants Have Close Knit Families. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Ketler, Alanna. "India Declares Dolphins & Whales As Non-Human Persons, Dolphin Shows
Banned | Collective-Evolution." CollectiveEvolution RSS. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 29
Mar. 2014.

Kintz, Theresa. "Interview with Ted Kaczynski." The Anarchist Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr.
2014.

Kochi, Tarik, and Noam Ordan. "An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity."
Borderlands 7.3 (2008): n. pag. Borderlands e-journal. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
25


Lacis, Andrew, Gavin Schmidt, David Rind, and Reto Ruedy. "Atmospheric CO2: Principal
Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature." Science 330.6002 (2010): 356-359.
Science Mag. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Lee, Keekok. The natural and the artefactual: the implications of deep science and deep
technology for environmental philosophy. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 1999. Print.

Lewis, Chris, Isidor Wallimann, and Michael N. Dobkowski. "-." On the edge of scarcity:
environment, resources, population, sustainability, and conflict. [2nd] ed. Syracuse,
N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2002. 16-17. Print.

Lowe's. "Lowe's." Lowe's. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.

Lowenstein, Jerold . "Can We Wipe Out Disease?." Discover Magazine. N.p., 1 Nov. 1992.
Web. 4 Apr. 2014.

MacDougall, A. Kent. "Humans as Cancer." Wild Earth 81 (1996): n. pag. Bron Taylor. Web. 11
Mar. 2014.

Mullen, Leslie. "Defining Life: Q&A with Scientist Gerald Joyce." Space.com. N.p., 1 Aug.
2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.

Myhre, Gunnar, Elanor Highwood, Keith Shine, and Frode Stordal. "New estimates of radiate
forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases." Geophysical Research Letters 25.14
(1998): 2715-2718. University of Oslo (I think, it's in Norwegian). Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

OSA. "Whale Watching - Victoria BC." The Family Life of an Orca. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr.
2014.

Pollan, Michael. "Some of My Best Friends Are Germs." The New York Times, 18 May 2013.
Web. 11 Mar. 2014.

Reece, Jane B.. Campbell biology, AP edition. 9th ed. Boston, M.A.: Pearson
Education/Benjamin Cummings, 2011. Print.

Roberts, Anna Ilona, Sarah-Jane Vick, Sam George Bradley Roberts, and Charles R. Menzel.
"Chimpanzees modify intentional gestures to coordinate a search for hidden food."
Nature Communications 5 (2014): x. Web.

Romm, Joe. "Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity's Ability to Feed Itself."
Earth Law Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Sandler, R. (2012) Intrinsic Value, Ecology, and Conservation. Nature Education Knowledge
3(10):4

26

Schnackenberg, Kristen. "Global warming may intensify disease." Yale Daily News. N.p., n.d.
Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Shaker, Meret. "Pig Intelligence." Winnipeg Humane Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Smith, Graham. "Scientists develop 'Facebook for animals' that shows how birds from tight-knit
social cliques just like humans." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 13 June 2012.
Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Smithsonian. "Handaxe from India." Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human
Origins Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.

SS. "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?." Skeptical Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 3
Apr. 2014.

Tripati, A. K., C. D. Roberts, and R. A. Eagle. "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over
Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years." Science 326.5958 (2009): 1394-
1397. Web.

Trivedi, Bijal. "Chimps Shown Using Not Just a Tool but a "Tool Kit"." National Geographic.
National Geographic Society, 6 Oct. 2004. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

UNEP. "UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS)." UNEP. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr.
2014.

VHEMT. "Yes." Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

Whitty, Julia. "Snails Are Dissolving in Acidic Ocean Waters." Mother Jones. N.p., 27 Nov.
2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Zimmer, Carl. "Testing Darwin" Discover Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.