Creeping Normality...what we cannot see may be slowly destroying us.

In 2005, Jared Diamond, author of Collapse, introduced the concept of "creeping normality." He suggests that the much of the environmental damage that humans have inflicted upon the world largely goes unnoticed. The way of life is not static, and thus, he argues that slight changes in the way humans interact with nature and use natural resources, have inconspicuously morphed past and present societies into destructive entities.

In simpler terms, consider an old parking lot.... Would you think twice about a new shopping center being built in its place?  Most likely not. But what was the site before it became a parking lot? Several hundred years ago, it was probably a farm field. But what was it before it became a farm? In New England, it might have been an old-growth forest. In previous generations the forest was home to countless woodland species... not exactly what comes to mind when gazing upon the cracked pavement. Long-term environmental degradation becomes more or less invisible over the course of generations. Diamond also describes this phenomenon as "landscape amnesia."

So what is it that we are missing? What horrible environmental damage are we not noticing today? I'd like to introduce three things that many people fail to notice that are a direct result of human disturbances:

1. Stormwater and non-point pollution
2. Invasive species
3. Habitat fragmentation and degradation

“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land [and the sea] is quite invisible to laymen." - Aldo Leopold


STORMWATER!!!!

It's pouring. The fresh scent of a summer storm fills your nostrils as you make a quick dash to your car after work. You peer out the car window watching the droplets crash and bounce on the pavement. Puddles accumulate in the varied depressions of the uneven black-top and a mini stream rushes along the curb in its journey towards the grated drain.

You may regularly notice the shear quantity of water streaming down the sides of roads during a large rain event, but have you ever paused to think about why? Do you notice the chocolate brown coloring of the rushing stormwater or ponder what pollutants could be transported by this road runoff?

'Impervious surface' is the generic name given to an area covered by solid cement, pavement, or buildings. Water is unable to percolate through these materials and must find an alternate path to complete the hydrologic cycle by returning to the groundwater. Roads are designed so that water does not accumulate on the surface, making it safer for drivers. As a result, rainwater is funneled to the sides where it either creates a gully and runs off into nearby wetland areas, or in more developed regions, makes its way into drains that weave an interconnected web of underground stormwater passage. In most cases, the stormwater makes its way to the nearest river or lake without any treatment. This is referred to as "non-point source" pollution because it is a compilation of small quantities of pollutants over a large area. The opposite is "point source" pollution, where a single source can be tracked, such as an oil spill or chemical company's outfall pipe.

Stormwater runoff, however, is not limited to impervious surface coverage. Manicured lawns or agricultural fields do not have the capacity to retain large quantities of rain water. Some water will infiltrate the ground, but much will run off as "overland flow" into the nearest stream, carrying any pesticides or nutrient-rich fertilizers with it. It is for this reason that many farmers have constructed stormwater retention ponds. Without a way to control runoff, excess nutrients could cause severe algal blooms, leading to anoxic conditions and degraded surface water quality. An individual homeowner living near a waterbody could opt for a rain garden or a vegetated buffer zone to serve a similar purpose.

Next time it rains, take a look at where that stormwater is going and what it picks up along the way!


INTRODUCED SPECIES!!!!

A few more anecdotes for you :) Guess what I am referring to in each!

It's lush, it's green; the vine gently blankets all of the trees along the side of the highway. 

A coastal barrier serving as a distinct separation from road to shoreline. The giant stems rustle in the breeze as hundreds of tiny seeds are whisked into the air.

As you meander across the rocky intertidal area, a stone shifts under your weight. Out scurries a family of tiny crabs, each with a distinguished striped marking on their hind legs.

A regal creature waves it's venomous spines through the water as it hovers in place. It is as if it knows it has no natural predators here. 

If you picked up on my sarcasm, you may have some sort of an ecological degree... If the descriptions of these four different invasive species painted a picture of a specific plant or animal in your mind, there is hope for this world yet! (If you have no idea what I am talking about, familiarize yourself with the following photos.)

Oriental Bittersweet - INVASIVE (in USA)

Yes... Oriental Bittersweet blankets everything. Suffocation might be a more accurate term.

Mile-a-minute Vine - INVASIVE (Northeastern USA)

Similar to Oriental Bittersweet, Mile-a-Minute Vine has crept into Connecticut and in the last ten years has choked out whole forested areas and spread throughout the state! Be aware! http://www.mam.uconn.edu/

Phagmites australis - INVASIVE

Phragmites australis is a tall grassy plant that was introduced to coastal and inland wetlands in the USA. There is a native similar Phragmites species, but it is much smaller and less aggressive than it's foreign counterpart!

Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation:

...I will finish this as soon as it gets colder outside and I don't want to spend every waking minute on the beach or underwater :)

Discovery Channel's Shark Week

As a disclaimer to the post, my position on Shark Week is rather neutral, and no bashing of the Discovery Channel will take place within the next few paragraphs. Though I do have many qualms with the direction the 'educational' programming is headed, I cannot fairly comment on specifics of Discovery's widening deviation from true science because I have yet to watch this year's pseudo documentary.

As far as Shark Week though, the occasion rattles social media and my Facebook news feed has been infiltrated with both enthusiastic supporters of the programming, as well as those who passionately denounce the yearly tradition. [What you get for being friends with a bunch of nerdy divers and ocean-lovers.] As for me? I see various pros and cons to it all, maintaining a balanced keel.

I had posted a status a few weeks ago after the Shark Week "King of Summer" advertisement left a bad taste in my mouth. I was frustrated (and even angry) with Discovery for reinforcing human dominance over nature. With an ecological education, one learns that the taste for taming nature stems from fear. One realizes that the human quest to conquer wilderness is the underlying motivator that has led humans to rapidly seize, consume, and deplete the world's natural resources. The thirty second video advertisement does not aim to convey this message, but the clip echoes what is wrong with society in the way that we view and interact with nature. Sharks are beneath us. We hold the reins. I will not even delve into the obvious sexism. Watch the video for yourself if you are so inclined. 

Moving on. The pseudo science has to stop; please Discovery, I beg you. Scientists have a hard enough time translating new findings for the public light as it is. We don't need to confuse people any further. Megalodon is extinct. Myths are myths, and Shark of Darkness also fits into that category. 

For a positive outlook, Shark Week has completely transformed and intensified the global attention to sharks, as well as the grave consequences the ocean will face in their absence. Focusing on the larger apex predatory species, Discovery has shone the spotlight on the perils of by-catch and the practice of shark finning. Ampullae of lorenzini and lateral line are now nearly terms of common knowledge. At the beach, I've overheard children as young as five discussing how if they were to be bitten by a shark, that it was probably just an "exploratory bite" and that the likelihood of a fatal attack was slimmer than being killed by a vending machine. Maybe those kids will not grow up to be shark biologists, but if Shark Week instills a sense of awe and curiosity about the ocean into it's millions of viewers, I can be only gracious.

People are paying attention! In my opinion, Shark Week could definitely focus less on the hype of shark attacks, and producers should put more effort into airing purely educational material. But in the mean time, increasing public awareness is still a positive thing. The 'fear factor' is a notable issue that has plagued large pelagic shark species for hundreds of years and Discovery Channel could do a much better job at dispelling, as opposed to encouraging, this fear. As I said, I do greatly disapprove of many programs that are aired on Shark Week. However, ratings are important for drawing in more people. The profit margin might be Discovery's true incentive, but the whole world is concentrating on sharks for an entire week! If people keep pushing Discovery to improve its programming and to banish pseudo science, positive change will surely engender a long-lasting respect for sharks, the ancient wonders of the ocean. People DO protect what they love, and we clearly love sharks!

"We're transfixed by them, prone to weave stories and fables and chatter endlessly about them, because fascination creates preparedness, and preparedness, survival. In a deeply tribal sense, we love our monsters." - Peter Benchley, author of Jaws.