Natural history museums and the global setting Aizdvens L. Steigen

Andreas L. Steigen is associate professoi at the Centre for Studies of Enuironment and Resources at the University of Bergen, Noniiay, and former head of the iiniriersityk &ILiseuni of Zoology. He is president of Natllist, ICOiWk International Coinmittee for fiiz~seums and Collections of Natural Histovy. In this introdiictoy article he describes IJOLLJ the cziwent environmental situation radicnlLv affects the Loay natziml histoiy mbseums inzrsf fiinction.

IvIuseums have always reflected history. It is a consequence of the museum concept itself and of the evolution of collections. Although environmental change may increase the scientific value of collections and the infor- mation value of exhibitions in natural history museums, the present global situation calls, first and foremost, for placing the natural history museum into a context of responsi- bilities and commitment for the future.

Not since 1972 has &fusemi International contemplated topics especially significant to these museums. Over the past twenty-five years, our understanding of nature and natural processes, and our perception of the world and of humanity‘s place in nature, have radically changed, perhaps more than we comprehend. The understanding of social behaviour in humans has been put on an evo- lutionary basis through sociobiology; re- search in genetics tells us that most, perhaps all, diseases may have some genetic cause; the eradication of smallpox is a triumph for epidemiology; the AIDS epidemic has al- tered human health and behaviour. Indeed, everyday life has been transformed for most people on planet Earth. The microprocessor revolution, biotechnology, the population increase, the fresh-water crisis, global warm- ing and climate change, soil erosion and pollution are all elements of a multifarious change. The end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the USSR and the integra- tion of Western Europe, the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, are but a few of the dramatic new political aspects with unpre- dictable consequences.

There is a growing awareness of how hu- man beings alter their environment and with it has come widespread concern for the future. Available information tells us that this anxiety is justified. Our Common Futirre, the report of the United National World Com- mission on Environment and Development in 1987, and the R.io Conference in 1937, are

landmarks of political awareness which have influenced management and legislation in many countries; they have also brought about a greater understanding of the inter- disciplinary nature of the challenges and problems facing humankind.

No escape from the laws of nature

The laws of nature were not invented by clever scientists working in the natural sciences. They were discovered and de- scribed by scientists and, whether w e like it or not, they are omnipresent and govern all activities in the universe.

W e live in a science-dominated society where, paradoxically, scientific illiteracy is widespread. The persistence of natural laws is not easily understood by the general public which all too easily forgets (and sometimes deliberately overlooks! the fact that these laws are crucial elements in both the frame- work and the matrix of societies. A social system that violates the second law of thermo- dynamics -which tells us that each time we use energy some of it will be lost as heat to the environment -will destroy the material foundations for its existence, disintegrate and eventually perish. The increased accumula- tion of heat in the atmosphere correlated to a raised concentration of carbon dioxide is not a fancy idea of scientists, but a consequence of the sFcture of the CO, molecule itself.

A crisis is a turning point for better or worse. Previous crises in the history of humanity have led to inventions, migra- tions, starvation and war. Since the advent of agriculture, societies have met with crises on a local or regional scale. The development of agriculture itself may have been influenced by overpopulation and over-exploitation of natural resources in a particular area. Whole societies and cul- tures have disintegrated. Bi-it those events

ISSN 1350-0775, Afirseim inteixntionnl (UNESCO, Parisi, No. 190 (Vol. rH, No. 7. 1996) Cl UNESCO 1996

I’ublished by iilackwrll I’ublishcrs. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford. OX+ 1JF iUK) and 238 Main Street, Cambridge. MA 0714 (USA)

Natural history museums and the global setting

also spawned progress and new and more sophisticated utilization of natural and bio- logical resources. The present situation is quite different, for never before has the use of non-biological resources been more extensive, encompassing the entire planet.

Humanity’s activities change soil, water and atmosphere. Using all their brilliant intelli- gence and ingenuity, human beings have turned the earth into a test-tube, an ongoing experiment which has, in fact, lasted for thousands of years and has engendered many irreversible outcomes. For the first time in the history of the planet, an organ- ism, the species Homosapiem, lias become the agent of the mass extinction of other organisms. Previous extinctions have been caused by major events such as climate change or colliding meteorites, but this is not the case today. The experiment is now catalysed by over-exploitation of resources, pollution, overpopulation and human self- ishness. The effects and consequences of this vast removal of biological information from the biosphere is unknown, as evolu- tion itself is unpredictable. W e do know, however, thdt earlier extinctions dramati- cally changed life on earth.

Three messages

Global food production is reaching its limits. The green revolution gave us more food for a rapidly growing population, the biotechnological revolution may not do so. Soil destruction and lack of fresh water are strongly impeding food production. Today more than 40 per cent of the earth’s reli- able, fresh-water resources are being used annually, mostly for agriculture. Other es- timates indicate that Homo sapieiismay be exploiting, directly and indirectly, a third of net primary production photokynthesized by the earth’s plants every year. One billion people are still inadequately fed. So the

O UNESCO 1996

first message is: planet Earth can hardly support humankind today.

The second message tells us that the human population is increasing exponentially at an annual net increase of more than 90 million. Within a few years, global population will pass G billion and might double before the year 2050. However, these figures do not truly reflect the gravity of the situation as they count only the number of heads and not the number of consumer units on earth. Energy use reflects resource use, so let us apply it as a unit for comparison. in this way we can see that the average American consumes over thirty times more energy than the average Indian. If the energy con- sumption of the Indian is counted as one unit, we could say that there are almost 8 billion American citizens! And yet we know that any activity following an exponential pattern will eventually destroy itself. The power of exponentiality is difficult to imag- ine and easily underestimated for the simple reason that the path of exponential develop- ment is historical: what we observe today is a delayed response; what happens tomor- row is a consequence of what we do - or do not do - today. The third message is that the great disparities in wealth, possibilities and expectations between and within countries are an eco- nomic and ethical time-bomb. As we enter the new millennium, 80 per cent of the worlds population have access to 20 per cent of global wealth. The remaining 20 per cent, who control 80 per cent of world capital and resources, will put much effort into protecting their wealth and privileges.

These three dimensions of man’s ecological niche - food production, population growth and global and national inequality - are the main forces shaping our future. They are at the heart of what is often called ‘the environ- mental crisis’, the widespread fear that we

9 5

Aiadmzs L. Steigen

are destroying the earth. But it is more accur- ate to say that what is being changed is the present environment and its ability to sup- port our needs: there will always be an environ- ment on earth, but it may, however, become hostile to humans. So the cmx of the crisis is neither the planet nor the environment as such but rather the societies of the future; what is at stake is the life and welfare of their citizens, and eventually humanity itself.

In other words, we are facing a human crisis, with many possible consequences. The global village may turn into a global battlefield where disintegrating societies fight in a ruthless struggle for resources and survival. Climate change may shift balances between the rich and the poor. The countries of the north, with their complex, unstable and nervous economic systems, may face self-amplified economic setbacks. Serious recessions may be sparked off by events in other parts of the world. Ecological change may force millions of people to emigrate. The rich countries will be constrained to reduce their pollution as economic growth and industrialization in the Third World seriously increase emis- sions to the atmosphere. This can be diffi- cult to explain to the unemployed. Eventu- ally the wealthy will have to substitute their quality of life for a basic standard of living.

Ecolacy, biophilia and the dangerous electron

Literacy and numeracy are skills required in a modern society. But humanity’s inis- management of the earth tells us that ecological insight is just as important. The American ecologist Garret Hardin has called this ecological skill ‘ecolacy’. In the ecolate society individuals, corporations and poli- ticians accept that laws, principles and limits of nature are real and cannot be evaded. All human activities are based on this simple fact: to accept nature as it really is; nothing more; nothing less.

Since nature always fluctuates with both natural cycles and unexpected changes, in an ecolate economy all use of biological resources should be sub-optimal. All activi- ties should take the second law of thermo- dynamics seriously. And this principle can be extended further: nothing can be com- pleted with an efficiency of 10Q per cent. The account is always negative. This is the consequence of the second law for all aspects of human life, not only in technol- ogy, industry and transport, but also in activities regarded as social or cultural.

To be Sustainable, a society must manage and use material, biological and human resources in such a way as not to impede the fulfilment of the needs of future generations. it is probable that a sustainable society can only survive if founded on humanism, national and international solidarity and consensus. The world today is dominated by inequality, excessive self-indulgence, and increasing fundamentalism in politics and religion. Material and biological resources are badly managed, whereas valuable human resources are exploited for selfish benefits. The reali- zation of a sustainable society confronts humanity with the unresolved problems of environmental destruction, mismanagement and myopic politics. The factors threatening the global environment and hindering sus- tainable development cannot be under- stood if the social dimension is omitted. Thus, the immediate challenge is to pave the way for a political climate permitting radical changes in economy, legislation, manage- ment and responsibilities if w e are to avoid a global struggle for limited resources.

Do natural history museums have special obligations to act? Not necessarily. Museums are not ethical entities. But people working in the museum are individuals with ethical obligations. Natural history museums have huge collections of valuable specimens. Through exhibitions and other activities, they act as an interface between science and the public, establishing a contact that most

Q UNESCO l!Vh 6

Natural history museums and the global setting

scientists and research laboratories do not have. This opens great possibilities for con- veying information and insight and places new responsibilities on museums. But al- though natural history museums the world over have taken seriously the threat to our common natural heritage, few have demon- strated concern about the need for a sustain- able society, nor have they recognized that humans have bonds with nature which are an integral part of human nature itself, a concept that E. O. Wilson at Harvard Univer- sity has called biophilia. Yet, by using the principles and ideas of ecolacy and biophilia, museums may open up new avenues in working towards a sustainable future.

But there may be rough waters ahead. A natural history museum presents objects and artefacts to the public. Concepts and principles are displayed through text, pic- tures and dioramas. Adults and children are informed through demonstrations, lectures and courses. Interested amateurs and lay people have the opportunity to meet spe- cialists. These activities are time-consuming and expensive. On the other hand, the ‘electronification’ of natural history muse- ums is popular and relatively inexpensive, andwe find that museums today are increas- ingly filled with television screens, comput- ers with interactive programs, and buttons to be pushed. One might get the impression that the electron is the central artefact of natural history, and that the reason for some of the gadgets is to manipulate skilfully the same elementary particle.

Virtual reality wiil soon find its way to the natural history museum. It can take one to the rain forest and show animals that might not be seen on a real visit to the same forest since they are often hidden in the trees. It can enable us to experience the extinct ciclids of Lake Victoria, electronically restored from the late Dr Greenwoods collection in the basement of the Natural History Mu- seum in London. Lost biodiversity regained!

Nevertheless, various electronic devices definitely have their place in museums. The use of e-mail lias increased interna- tional co-operation between museums, and the number of museum home pages on the Internet grows daily. This is inexpensive communication with great potential. W e must simply be on guard to ensure that virtual reality does not wipe out actual reality, and that the excitement and fasci- nation of new technology with great pos- sibilities in the museum do not distract attention from the most serious issues facing us today.

The articles in this issue’s special dossier delve further into the many aspects of natural history museums. S. M. Nair dis- cusses how museums, through exhibits and educational programmes, can act ethi- cally to change values, attitudes and (hope- fully) behaviour. Three case-studies are presented: from the Grande Galerie in Paris (Jacques Maigret), the Museo de las Aves de México at Saltillo (Yani Herreman) and Oregon’s High .Desert Museum at Bend (George S. Gardner). Together, these three rather different museums depict an interesting collage of natural history. From an African perspective, the problems in coping with and accessing too much, and often too complicated information, are considered by Joris Komen. C. Wemmer and his colleagues take us on a journey into cyberspace showing the advantages and possibilities offered to practical museum work from information technology. And lest we forget that the majority of the museums of the world are small institu- tions with very limited resources, E. Granqvist discusses their situation. Finally, Michael Ruse points out that there is a philosophy behind‘ the way a museum presents itself to its visitors, and questions whether museum professionals are aware of how prevailing philosophical paradigms may penetrate our thinking and influence exhibitions.

O UNESCO 1996 7