Competing for a Common Good

By The Foolosophizer

Stephen Forbes, whom The National Academy of Sciences referred to as “the founder of ecology in the United States (Daniel Schneider, “Local Knowledge, Environmental Politics, and the Founding of Ecology in the United States," p. 684),” sought to better understand natural communities by observing the lakes of Illinois. By treating this one area as a “microcosm,” he made global conclusions about the development and interdependence of organisms in a single place. This idea was explained in his 1887 classic essay, “The Lake as a Microcosm,” where he detailed the food web of the lakes. For instance, the future of the black bass population didn't only depend on its food source, but its food source’s food source as well; algae, insects, shellfish, smaller fish, and even mud were directly or indirectly in interdependence. Yes, organisms competed against one another for survival, but complete annihilation of one species would drastically alter the community. Forbes’s analysis of ecosystems and food chains seems elementary today, but they are important in understanding the history of nature and how we came to be. During his observations of the lakes of Illinois, Forbes’ used the local knowledge and populations (such as fishermen) to further his research. At the same time, local forces and outside interests such as privatizing land distracted his science. Forbes found himself in the middle of a political battle and began to advocate for conservation and public access over privatization and possible ruin. Forbes concludes in his essay that although competition dictated by natural selection exists in nature, it also promotes a “close community of interest,” in a world of predator vs. prey. Although political conflict surrounding the lakes occurred years after he wrote “The Lake as a Microcosm,” Forbes ends his essay by commenting on nature’s collective interest to humans. “If the system of life is such that a harmonious balance of conflicting interests has been reached,” Forbes states, “…may we not trust much to the outcome where, as in human affairs, the spontaneous adjustments of nature are aided by intelligent effort, by sympathy, and by self-sacrifice?”

This idea of cooperation and adaptation in nature transcending to values in human society relates to the contemporary relationship between man and nature: man not only dominates nature, but destroys it. Intentional or unintentional, many refuse to realize that damaging the environment threatens our own existence. The oilrig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 illustrates this modern conflict. Not only did the disaster damage the nearby ecosystems, but further supports Forbes’s call to action found at the end of his essay. Just as the local issues and politics surrounding the lakes engulfed him, competing interests and agendas of science, business, and government surrounded the oil spill in the Gulf. Indeed, Forbes abides by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest, but observed that in such a world, harmony did exist and a collective interest was maintained. In the end, humans are animals and still compete to survive, whether it’s economically, politically, or socially. So in this situation, what will fulfill our collective good? More oil? Wildlife preservation? Free enterprise? It seems that, like Forbes’s conclusion, the collective interest of mankind was largely ignored or deemed impossible in the Gulf oil spill. Such a fact may show man’s true disconnect from nature.