We, humans, have an instinctive idea that the natural is good and the artificial is terrible. Therefore, we are easily drawn to solutions and products that appear natural. When we eat organically, it not only feels better for ourselves but also like a good deed for nature. Paradoxically, however, the “natural” solutions are often worse for biodiversity than the “artificial” alternatives.
The worst thing we can do for nature is to take space away from it, and unfortunately, this is often the case with “natural” solutions. Many have a romantic notion that we need to go more “at one” with nature to solve our challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. But is this a good idea? Should we instead focus on producing more efficiently? And is natural now always as good for humans as we are tempted to believe? The analysis here will make you wiser about that.
In the analysis, we will touch on solutions that most people have an idea are natural or artificial. This includes ecology, genetic modification, wind, sun, and atoms energy.
Everyone can nod in recognition to have used or heard the argument that something is “more natural” than something else. We automatically think that when something is natural, it’s good.
However, this instinctive appeal to nature is a thought trap, which is a well-known psychological phenomenon. It is far from everything natural that is good for us humans. In the time before modern medicines and hospitals, it was natural that infants, in particular, died like flies. In general, mortality was much higher when people lived closer to nature.
Idealization of nature can be detrimental to us in many contexts. For example, it is central to vaccine resistance to oppose the consumption of artificially developed products claimed to be toxic while celebrating alternative “natural” treatments, even though, unlike vaccines, they have no scientific evidence to work. In reality, then, what is toxic is the naive belief that nature is only for the benefit of man.
In addition to the fact that this idealization of nature is often detrimental to us humans, it is also rarely an advantage for nature itself. Paradoxically, a “naturally” produced product is often more harmful to biodiversity than an “artificially” produced product.
Ecology takes up more space from wild nature
Organic farming may seem better for nature than conventional farming because the soil is cultivated with animal manure rather than artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Ecology may be better for the flora and fauna on the land being cultivated, but organic farming is nowhere near being real in nature.
Real nature is untouched and exists on its own terms without human intervention. What really matters for biodiversity is therefore not how the fields are cultivated, but how much of the landscape is not cultivated. The more space we leave to nature, the more biodiversity we get. Organic farms require significantly more space because they are simply less efficient than the “artificial” conventional alternatives.
Thus, ecology takes more space from wild nature.
According to a meta-study in the renowned journal Nature, if the world were to be converted to ecology, it would require between 16 and 33 percent more land area than today. The figures are significantly more extensive if you look at the Western world’s highly efficient agriculture in isolation. Humans already use about 50% of the habitable part of the planet for agriculture, so if we were to use about 25% more space, we would have to dedicate an additional area 17 times larger than the whole of Germany to farmland.
This means that with a large-scale conversion to ecology, we will get the same amount of food but less wild Nature and more fields – to the detriment of climate and biodiversity. Since organic farms also use (animal) fertilizer, the emission of nitrogen and ammonia to the environment will increase, which can, among other things, lead to oxygen depletion and dead fish in the sea.
Researchers have also clarified that consumption of conventionally grown foods does not pose a significant health risk, as the amount of potentially harmful pesticide residues is relatively low. A Danish study shows that daily consumption of conventionally grown foods has a health risk similar to drinking one glass of wine every seven years.
“It is a misconception to think that organic farming saves biodiversity. It doesn’t. All agriculture is destructive to biodiversity.” (Biology professor Carsten Rahbek)
The figure below illustrates that you get about half as much wheat in the same area by growing organically.
Crops per hectare are lower in organic farming, leading to more significant indirect carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. Credit: Yen Strandqvist.
Our idea that the natural is good makes it difficult for us to embrace artificial and high-industrial solutions. We feel horrible about technologies that harness nature’s forces and influence and control them. “We humans must not play god,” it is often said in the debate.
Genetic modification is safe and suitable for nature
Many are opposed to growing genetically modified plants, even though, according to science, it is completely safe and an essential technology in the fight against climate and the environment. When you can change the genetics of plants, you can make them survive more challenging conditions than usual, which is necessary since climate change in many places will make it harder to cultivate the land. In addition to the fact that GMO crops can survive prolonged periods of drought, they also require significantly less water overall. And because GMO crops can be made more resistant to, for example, pest attacks, we can avoid a large part of the consumption of pesticides. Most importantly for biodiversity, genetic modification can significantly increase yields per hectare, freeing up more space for nature.
For many years, Greenpeace and other old-fashioned environmental organizations have spread unfounded fears about genetic modification, prompting more than a hundred Nobel laureates to write an open letter to defend science.
Throughout evolution, we have developed a skepticism about new foods because most plant species contain potentially harmful toxins. Your brain is therefore predisposed to be skeptical of new technology such as GMO crops. Keep in mind, however, that science declares GMOs relatively safe and that we also use genetic modification in other contexts, such as for developing several vaccine types, which, fortunately, many like to put their arms to.
“All leading scientists in the field of GMOs agree that genetic engineering is not dangerous. This is one of the areas that has been researched the most, and no examples have yet been found of GMOs being something to be afraid of.” (Professor of Plant Physiology, Stefan Jansson)
Wind and solar power feel natural, but nuclear power is best for nature
Many also have a great deal of skepticism about nuclear power, the most advanced and high-tech product that industrialization has brought with it. A product in which man fully controls and exploits the enormous, almost supernatural forces that can be unleashed from the atom’s interior.
Relying on these “supernatural” forces goes against our instinct, which tells us to control our surroundings. Through evolution, our brains are built to fear a loss of control. Therefore, many people feel more fear when, for example, sitting in a plane than driving the car to the airport, as in the car we feel in better control, even though it is more than 2000 times as likely to die in a car accident as on a flight.
Nuclear power can feel like an even greater loss of control because there are powerful energy forces at play and because nuclear power is, for most people, an unknown technology that seems to tamper with some of the basic building blocks of the universe.
Therefore, we can easily be influenced to believe that nuclear power is unpredictable and dangerous. Conversely, wind and solar power automatically act as excellent and harmonious because the energy is produced by itself in nature. We can feel the glorious forces of the current and sun on our bodies, and the technologies are thus easy to relate to. Therefore, wind turbines and solar cells feel nature-friendly, unlike artificial industrial products.
The wind and the sun may be natural energies, but the machines that harvest them and feed them into our sockets are anything but natural. Like nuclear power plants, wind turbines and solar cells are industrial products. The difference lies in how efficient the technologies are at producing energy.
The energy that can be obtained by splitting atomic nuclei is many lengths stronger than in both fossils and the weather. Therefore, it takes an incredible number of wind turbines or solar cells to make up one nuclear power plant. In addition, the nuclear power plant can supply energy reliably compared to weather-based energy sources. For this reason, it simply requires far fewer resources and far less space to produce energy with nuclear power than with solar and wind power – and all other energy sources.
Material consumption for clean energy sources
Land use of energy sources
American researchers have calculated through satellite data how large areas of land different energy sources require to produce an hour of electricity.
Area intensity km2/TWh for several electrical energy sources. From the inception, total land consumption, including the required distance between units (km2/TWh), is used to achieve the specified energy density. For example, you have to place wind turbines at a relatively large distance so that the turbines do not brake on each other’s wind. The estimates for wind power are only based on onshore wind turbines, as there currently needs to be more scientific GPS analyses of offshore wind turbines. The figures relate exclusively to the direct land consumption at the power plants and do not include the area footprint of the materials used to build the power plant. If these figures are included in the imprint, weather-based energy will look even worse, as these energy sources are uniquely material-intensive due to their low energy density. There are several similar estimates of land use in recent research articles that also use the GPS method, see here and here.
Summary
Hopefully, after reading this analysis, you will be aware that we solve climate and biodiversity problems best by becoming more efficient and not by becoming more “natural.” When you come across organic, natural, or renewable concepts, ask yourself whether the solution is also the best overall for people, nature, and the climate. Our instinct tells us that the natural is always sound, but it is a good thought trap to be aware of to act rationally.
Effective climate action and nature conservation are not about making our products as natural as possible but about making it as efficient as possible. If we do this and embrace all the necessary technologies, we can ensure a stable climate and preserve and restore wild nature.