In early August, Trish and I took an amazing trip to the Galapagos Islands.  The time in the islands, along with the reading materials I consumed preparing for the trip, really got me to thinking.  I’m not in the habit of posing open ended questions without also proposing answers, but the answers here are too complex.  I want you to think about these questions and apply the answers you come up with to your own life.  Herewith, five observations and attendant questions from the Galapagos.  (Those who read American Scholar will be familiar with this format.)

1.  In the book, The Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner takes us through the amazing journey of Rosemary and Peter Grant, two evolutionary biologists who spent decades on the island of Daphne Major studying and following the major species of ground and cactus finches.  Their work produced a number of astounding revelations and I highly encourage the read.  One tale that struck me was of the behavior of a small percentage of cactus finches.  These finches rely on cactus flowers and resultant seeds and fruit for food.  One year during an extreme drought, they discovered that a very high percentage of cactus flowers were missing their stigmas (a part of the flower critical for pollination and thus continuation of the cactus).  Observing the cactus finches, they found that the vast majority, around 90%, would wait for the cactus flower to open in the morning, then alight to feed on the pollen.  They would gingerly hold the stigma aside with one foot to allow them to reach into the flower to feed.  However, around 10% were hungry early (or just wanted to beat the rush) and would force the flower open early by peeling back a petal.  The stigma would typically poke them in the eye when they went for the pollen, so they would just snip the stigma off with their beak, then feed.  The result of course is that the flower would not pollinate, there would be no seed or fruit, and food availability for the whole group of cactus finches dropped off precipitously. In a normal year, there is plenty of food for all.  In drought years, this behavior leads to a quick drop off in cactus finch population because many starve.

Now, these are birds.  They know not what they do.  But the behavior of 10% of the birds basically destroyed the on-going food source for 100% of cactus finches in lean years.  There are no finch cops.  This behavior was not identified as destructive and stopped by the 90% of properly feeding finches.  So they all suffered.  We, however, have our large prefrontal cortex and, as sentient beings, are aware of the damage of such self-serving behavior and the need to protect the greater good.  Except that we don’t.  Or can’t.  From bank collapses to over-fishing to texting and driving, we are overrun with examples of humans who act in their own best interest regardless of the impact on the rest of the population.  These selfish actions lead to suffering of many and crisis or death for a few, but at some point we are going to have large scale loss of life.  How do we avoid the fate of the cactus finch and rein in behavior that is individually beneficial but bad for the flock?

2.  Elsewhere in the book, Weiner describes an experiment with E. Coli, a common bacteria found in our gut.  A sample of E. coli is nurtured in a petri dish, resulting in a pile of tens of millions of bacteria in under half a day.  When that colony is challenged with an antibiotic, almost all the cells die in minutes.  Almost all.  A few have a mutation that makes them resistant to the antibiotic.  Within a half day, those cells have multiplied and replaced the entire colony, but now with antibiotic resistance.  Further work has shown that, when stressed like this, bacteria will actually throw out plasmids (little bits of DNA—genetic material) to cells around them and those plasmids will be randomly taken up by other cells creating new mutations.  In other words, attacking the bacteria causes them to mutate faster and thus find that resistant mutation even more quickly.  Nature always find a way.

Throughout human history but particularly over the last few hundred years we have worked hard to try to control nature.  We have developed pesticides, herbicides, fungicides galore.  Insects, weeds and fungi always develop resistance.  We have engineered control of great rivers and oceans to build our cities and nature always finds a way to take them back.  She is very patient.  When are we going to stop the Sisyphean battle of trying to make nature do what WE want and instead work WITH nature to identify and utilize natural processes to get to our desired endpoints?

3.  There are always winners and losers in nature.  Species come and go.  During hard times, species fail. In the early 80’s, the Galapagos experienced a severe drought.  The finches died out by the thousands.  The Grants and their assistants watched it happen, marking off the death of each finch, banded for identification, in their notebooks. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been for the Grants to watch all those finches die during the drought years and avoiding the temptation to intervene!  At this point, they knew a couple thousand finches on sight and had watched them grow for years.  But as researchers, they just could not intervene.  They needed to let nature run its course.  The finches are not gone.  Their numbers dwindled by 90%, but after the drought the species rebounded.  The species rebounded; however, individual “finch family” suffering was extreme.

As humans with compassion, we intervene with our species (and others) all the time.  We have developed amazing medical advances to save lives from all sorts of disasters that would normally kill.  We have developed social systems that look to identify and help those of lesser means (although one could also argue that social systems have also created the inequality that in turn lead to those lesser means).  We have intervened to help numerous species survive, especially when our own actions have endangered them.  However, we have also created a huge imbalance in nature by, well, creating so many humans.  Scientists don’t call this era the Anthropocene for nothing.  Technology has been a boon and curse in addressing the needs of our growing population, creating conveniences and processes that help our species grow and thrive but that have had significant unintended consequences on the balance of nature (plastics, fossil fuels, production farming).  Our sheer numbers are changing the planet in unsustainable ways.  If we let her, Nature will indeed restore balance, yet the thought of just letting millions of people die out is abhorrent to most of us. How do you balance the non-meritocracy of nature with human compassion while recognizing and minimizing the impact of unintended consequences?

4.  As this trip was predominantly Penn State alumni, a professor from PSU, Carter Hunt, joined us on the trip.  Carter is a cross-disciplinary researcher, currently at the Charles Darwin Research Center in the Galapagos on a Fulbright grant.  Carter is studying ecotourism.  Why study ecotourism?  Let’s back up for a second.  During the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the Galapagos Islands became a favored rest stop for pirates and sailors who brought goats, cows, rats, cats, and other non-native species to the islands; it was fished and whaled to an extreme degree because of its rich waters.  The ecological balance (and uniqueness) of the islands was almost destroyed.  After Ecuador annexed the archipelago and with the help of the international community, significant efforts were begun to return the Galapagos to the ecological conditions of Darwin’s time.  These efforts have been largely successful, but are under constant attack.  For example, while there is an enormous protected sea area around the archipelago, it is impossible to police effectively and marine poaching has been a real problem.  The Galapagos conservation teams brought the fishermen, local and not, to the table along with ecologists to discuss a solution.  “True blue” conservationists probably screamed at this tactic, but the reality is that you cannot achieve movement toward conservation without engaging all constituents, whether you like them or not.  Ignoring and excluding people who are doing things you do not like does not bring them into line and policing is not a 100% solution.  A balanced solution, which involves some controlled “marine extraction”, is the only one that will really work.  Similarly, ecotourism (like the trip we just took) creates an army of evangelists for the conservation cause, but is certainly not carbon neutral—not with a full day and a half of flying in large airplanes and the pampering we received aboard ship.  However, without this carbon expenditure, you don’t move the needle toward conservation support.  So, this question is really for Carter:  how do you find the right balance between the needs of those whose actions work against the planet’s apparent best interest along with conservation efforts aimed at restoring a needed balance such that everyone comes to the table and the whole moves toward conservation with time?

5.  Finally, as our trip wound down, our group of 23 travelers sat in the airport on San Cristobal awaiting our flight to Guayaquil and the long trip home.  The airport was crowded with other travelers, mostly Ecuadoreans moving between the islands and the mainland.  I looked around at these people I had just spent 10 intense days with.  All were strangers before the trip began, yet I looked at each one with a mixture of fondness and protectiveness that makes me smile as I type this essay.  How could I feel such a strong bond with these people?  We shared a very intense experience over a short time, yes, but I was amazed at the strength of the feeling for each one of them.  I put voice to this thought and my friend, Lynn, responded with “Why can’t we feel that way all the time with all those around us?”  I think that’s the most profound question in this essay.  Our shared humanity should be enough to bridge our differences.  It’s not hard to see that shared humanity in those around us if we just look.  Why not, indeed, Lynn.  Why not.