In the Netflix documentary “David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet,” the renowned broadcaster presents a stark warning about humanity's ongoing destruction of global biodiversity. Drawing from his experiences filming various ecosystems since the 1950s, Attenborough highlights the significant damage inflicted by what we often regard as societal advancement.

Attenborough critiques the arrogance of modern civilization, noting our relentless exploitation of nature. Our practices include overfishing, damming, and polluting rivers, which devastate freshwater ecosystems. We are responsible for deforestation, replacing rich biodiversity with vast plantations of oil palm. The polar ice caps are melting, impairing the oceans' ability to absorb excess heat, resulting in rising global temperatures. While our population has surged, many species have been driven to extinction.

He emphasizes that humans have transformed half of the planet's arable land into agriculture, systematically replacing wild ecosystems with cultivated ones. For instance, domestic birds make up 70% of large bird populations, and humans constitute over one-third of mammalian biomass on Earth, with domesticated species like cows and pigs making up another 60%. The remaining wild animals account for a mere 4%.

This epoch, termed the Anthropocene, marks a departure from the Holocene, where the environment exists solely for human benefit.

Attenborough offers a glimmer of hope, asserting that we can still avert a severe backlash from nature and the impending sixth mass extinction. He advocates for “rewilding” to restore ecological balance. Reducing the human population is essential, as sustaining First World living standards for everyone is unattainable with current resources. This decline is already occurring in developed nations, necessitating efforts to eradicate poverty and enhance education and healthcare, particularly for women in developing regions.

The challenge lies in uplifting living standards while simultaneously minimizing our ecological footprint. Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal is crucial. Additionally, imposing restrictions on commercial fishing will help ensure sustainability, alongside establishing protected zones for fish recovery.

On land, reducing farmland to allow for forest recovery can be achieved by altering our diets—consuming less meat and incorporating more plant-based foods. Furthermore, halting deforestation and cultivating oil and soy only on previously cleared lands is imperative.

Attenborough concludes with profound insights, stating, “There’s one overriding principle: nature is our biggest ally and our greatest inspiration.” He stresses the necessity of rediscovering “the secret of life,” emphasizing that a species can only prosper when its ecosystem thrives as well. By caring for nature, we ensure our own survival, advocating for a harmonious existence akin to that of our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors.

The fundamental issue, however, is deeply rooted and far more complex than the technical challenges Attenborough presents. The transition from small nomadic groups to large, settled societies likely stemmed from a burgeoning antagonism toward nature. This hostility is embedded in human behavior, often misinterpreted as “pride” in our uniqueness and superiority as the most intelligent species. Our self-image is often constructed in opposition to the natural world, leading us to view human existence as extraordinary, a notion reinforced by religious ideologies.

Human beings are perceived as superior, created in the image of a deity, while animals exist merely to serve. This humanistic belief, pervasive across both religious and secular cultures, stands in stark contrast to environmental advocacy.

This presumption of human supremacy serves as a unifying ideology, allowing diverse individuals to coexist in relative harmony. Historically, trust in monarchs and priests, who mediated divine will, underscored this belief system.

As secular philosophies evolved, the sanctity of human nature morphed into a secular narrative, from ancient civilizations to modern scientific cultures. Even in a post-religious context, humans often assume a divine role over nature, believing that technological prowess can solve our crises without necessitating sacrifices in freedom or happiness.

In the discourse surrounding Promethean transhumanism, thinkers like Jason Reza Jorjani advocate for the sanctity of humanity's technological evolution. Jorjani suggests that our destiny involves transcending our biological limits, aspiring to a higher state of existence, divorced from the biodiversity of our planet.

His Zoroastrian framework intertwines various conspiracy theories with a critique of left-wing environmentalism, depicting it as an obstacle to our technological progression. He calls for a rejection of limitations and an embrace of responsible Prometheanism, urging humanity to rise above its natural constraints.

This perspective reflects a broader trend: many prioritize self-interest over collective well-being. Our fascination with consciousness and self-awareness often leads to alienation from the natural world, fostering a belief that our existence is beyond natural constraints.

Consequently, our inability to address the environmental crisis stems from an unwavering commitment to humanism. The challenges posed by the absence of a divine overseer, as highlighted by Nietzsche, pale in comparison to our ingrained secular beliefs. Most secular individuals may not explicitly engage with Promethean ideas, yet our actions as consumers often reflect an unyielding faith in technology, science, and market forces to remedy our societal issues.

The environmental crisis reveals a troubling reality. There is no inherent guarantee in our collective purpose, yet humanity's journey away from animal servitude began with our ability to domesticate and manipulate our surroundings. Our detachment from nature evolved through language and culture, leading us to prioritize intellectual pursuits over survival instincts.

This fascination with self-awareness and creativity coexists with our alienation from the animal kingdom, as we sought to transcend basic survival needs. Our intellectual advancements ultimately catalyzed the scientific and industrial revolutions, significantly harming our fellow species.

Environmentalists assert that reform is in our best interest, as our quest for transcendence threatens our very existence, as Attenborough emphasizes. The pressing question remains: Are we prepared to forsake our conviction in an unnatural existence devoid of other beings and ecological balance? Might we prefer to cling to our belief in personhood, even in the face of its potential folly?

The sluggishness of our response to environmental degradation suggests that our faith may not align with Attenborough's hopes. This dilemma transcends mere scientific data or rational problem-solving; our irrational self-belief has taken millennia to cultivate. How can we expect to reverse this trajectory in a few decades, and what would replace our humanistic pride?

One potential solution lies in a mystical perspective, proposing that self-awareness fosters a sense of interconnectedness rather than egocentrism. Mystics argue that introspection reveals an underlying unity, prompting us to identify not as isolated beings but as integral parts of a greater whole.

However, persuading the developed world to adopt such a perspective before irrevocable harm occurs seems improbable. Cultivating the discipline to resist ego-driven temptations would require considerable time, and such spiritual outlooks might clash with corporate interests, which thrive on consumerism.

Alternatively, a more philosophical approach may emerge, emphasizing the tragic nature of our self-belief, potentially leading to a reluctance to exacerbate our circumstances out of self-disgust. Shifting our mindset away from a simplistic dichotomy of superior humans versus inferior animals could enable us to recognize our dual nature, both angelic and demonic.

The powers of personhood are morally neutral, and we have often misused them amid our relentless pursuit of progress. In short, we must cultivate a more nuanced moral understanding. The prevailing cynicism and apathy in developed societies could be harnessed to direct our justified outrage not just at the elites or other cultures, but also towards ourselves. Each of us shares a part of the responsibility for contributing to the sixth mass extinction through our participation in society.

Ultimately, while the uniqueness of human personhood may seem anomalous in the grand scheme of nature, it does not inherently confer value. Our capacity for understanding and manipulation is as devoid of inherent purpose as any other product of natural forces. Our admiration for our potential must be tempered with recognition of the destructiveness of our self-empowerment. We need a framework that appreciates both our capacity for rational creativity and our role as agents of destruction.

The Apeiron Blog — Big Questions, Made Simple. We understand that Philosophy can often appear complex. To simplify this journey, we curate insightful articles, news, reading lists, and various free resources. Join us on Medium and subscribe to our free mailing list.