Some people say that we don't have to worry that we're destroying the natural world, and that we increasingly live in increasingly large, congested, and polluted cities. At the core of their argument usually lies three claims, which sound something like this: (i) "Well adapt." (ii) "Adaption is how we evolved." And (iii) "adaptation is good for us."
It's a pernicious argument.
Granted, the first claim is true. We will adapt. It is that or we will go extinct, and I doubt that will happen. The second claim is also true. Adaptation is part of our evolutionary heritage. But the third claim is not always true. It is possible to adapt and then to diminish the quality of human life, if not suffer. Let us imagine, for example, that all of us were put in prison for the rest of our lives. If we did not die straight out, and most of us would not, we would adapt to our new environment. We might get fatter from lack of exercise. We might become more violent. We might shut down emotionally as a way to cope, and hardly be aware of it.
That said, the idea of adaptation - of what it is and how it operates - is far from straightforward. I'd like to start chipping away at the idea. I'd like to end up in a place where we stop rationalizing bad choices with bad arguments.
First off, many people tend to believe that adaptations are good in the sense that they always lead to better biological systems. They likely believe so because that is how adaptations often appear to work. For example, when we enter a darkened area, the pupils in our eyes adapt by dilating; when we then re-enter a brightened area, the pupils adapt again by constricting. In the summer, people with fare skin tan, which is the body's way of adapting and thereby increasing its resistance to harmful ultraviolet radiation. Muscles adapt to strenuous efforts and get stronger. When we go to higher altitudes, our bodies adapt in terms of changes to our breathing, blood hemoglobin, and tissue metabolism. In hot conditions our bodies sweat to regulate their core temperature. Our bodies adapt when we change time zones. Entire cultures adapt to their climates. In the arctic, for example, we see more of a stocky and fat body type, which has been adaptive, as that body type helps to conserve heat.
Some of these examples draw on a biological evolutionary conceptualization of adaptation: Genes that lead to behaviors that enhance survival tend to reproduce themselves (since they are in bodies that procreate more rather than less), and thus these genes and correlative behaviors grow more frequent. For example, in the above example of arctic cold, it would be hypothesized that people born with a stockier and fatter body type had a slighter better chance of survival in that climate, and thus over time, that body type tended to prevail. In my book The Human Relationship with Nature, I've discussed how E. O. Wilson uses this biological adaptive explanation to argue for the existence of biophilia. Namely, certain affinities for nature (such as for water and plants) and fears of nature (such as of snakes and heights) increased people's chances of survival, and thus those affinities became more prevalent in our species.
It is true that biological adaptations can be good for us, as humans. But it is essential for us to understand that such adaptations can also be bad for us, or simply neutral. I would like to develop this idea.
First, we should set aside any thought that adaptations lead to moral goodness. To think so would be to commit what in moral philosophy goes by the term the naturalistic fallacy. Its specification is often credited to David Hume and later G. E. Moore. The fallacy can be stated simply. "Is" does not equal "ought." For example, let us for a moment agree with Freud that "aggression is an original, self-subsisting instinctual disposition in man." That biological quality by itself would not establish the moral justification for its expression, such as for killing one's neighbor to gain his property. Another example is that in the 1930's Nazi Germany appeared to be adapting quite well to the world environment; but such success in their adaptation did not make that adaptive behavior morally right. Similarly, when Europeans came to the United States, they wiped out most of the Native American populations and took their land, and in the centuries since have successfully adapted to the new land; but that adaptation does not by itself establish the moral legitimacy of the invasion and the killing of many native people. In short, if you want moral justification you have to do something more than simply establish the existence of a trait or behavior that has been adaptive.
Morality aside, adaptations can be not only good but bad for the biological system. In a study by Evans, Jacobs, and Frager back in the 1980's, it was found that people who live with a certain level of air pollution for an extended period of time become desensitized to that pollution, and less readily recognize that such pollution exists. It's part of an account of what I've discussed in this Blog in terms of the problem of environmental generational amnesia (click here and here).
Imagine, then, we had grown up in a rural area with clean air and then as adults moved to a dense, noisy, and polluted city, such as Los Angeles. Over time, we would become desensitized to, and in this sense adapt to, our new polluted environment; but that environment would still be harming our health. Imagine, now, if we took up residence close to a noisy freeway in Los Angeles. Perhaps initially we would have trouble falling asleep at night. The noise would be too loud. But over time we would likely get used to it, and in this sense adapt to it, and hardly notice the noise. But that does not mean that the noise would still not act as a stressor on our biological systems. Imagine next our surprise and irritation when we started our job and for the first time in our lives found ourselves commuting for long periods every day in traffic jams. Eventually we would also become mostly used to this commute, and in this sense adapt to it. At some point we might think that we were at our limit, and that if the traffic got much worse, then it would be impossible for us to handle it psychologically. But our thinking would be mistaken. Jared Diamond (2005), for example, writes: "There is no end in sight to how much worse Los Angeles's problems of congestion will become, because millions of people put up with far worse traffic in other cities. For example, my friends in Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, now carry a portable small chemical toilet in their car because travel can be so prolonged and slow; they once set off to go out of town on a holiday weekend but gave up and returned home after 17 hours, when they had advanced only three miles through the traffic jam" (p. 500). People adapt to worse and worse traffic. But that does not mean that the adaptation is good for people. Some cities have efficient mass transit. But here, too, humans often need to adapt to being crammed into a subway or train, standing humans, elbow to elbow, front to back. What are the psychological costs to such efficient transportation systems? I noted earlier that if we were forced into a prison for the rest of our lives, we would adapt to that new environment, but we would not enjoy it and we would fare worse than we do now, much worse. Another example is that some people eat fast food corporate style: French fries, Big Macs, Whoppers, chicken nuggets, bacon-burgers, sodas, milkshakes, fried chicken. They like the taste of this food. They need it. Their bodies have adapted to this food. If they do not eat it regularly, their bodies call out for compliance. But as we all know, fast food is not so good for human health.
I am saying that one misconception people sometimes have is that adaptation to the environment is always good for the biological system. It is not. A second misconception people sometimes have is that while an adaptation might be harmful for any particular individual in a society, that the adaptations are always good for the society at large. But that also is not true. For example, we can get used to bad traffic in our urban environments, but such traffic can still be stressful for millions of people, waste time, cost money, and contribute to air pollution and global warming. In other words, that traffic which we are getting used to is not good for society.
