odd (homograph)

Trees are competitive, it’s true. When there is a break in the canopy, a tree will fight hard to grow as fast as it can to take that space and be the one to take up that sunlight, often hindering other young growth around it. They will outcompete other life for the sake of their own survival. Plants are a great illustration for allowing only the strongest to survive. That being said, that’s what makes life so adaptable. We fight to make our own environments hospitable for us, but that doesn’t mean we don’t help others along the way. Fallen fruits, leaves, and branches offer nutrients to the plants on the forest floor. Dense canopies, while selfish with sunlight, protect smaller trees with weaker branches from harsh weathers. Even their monopoly over the sunlight, however “selfish” it may be, creates an environment that allows shade loving plants to thrive, all while offering moisture and nutrients. Even trees like pines—who will create a carpet of needles over the floor, smothering out all other life—only out compete because they are suited the best for that specific environment. Their layered branches handle snow better, their dark, evergreen needles allow them to soak up as much sunlight as possible in environments where the sunlight is limited. The trees aren’t selfish, they take what they need to survive, as “individuals” and to ensure their own reproduction, maintaining globally balanced ecosystems in which all creatures can thrive. Pine barrens have nutrient poor soils and are incredibly susceptible to wildfires, which allow plant and animal species to thrive without competition from those who can’t handle that kind of environment.

And obviously, one of the most realistically “pessimistic” takes regards human interference. Still, it’s not as cut and dry as one might think. I will not deny the harm of the Anthropocene. I will not claim survival of the fittest when it comes to the mass extinction of too many species of plants and animals, the genocide of humans, or acts of ethnic cleansing. But I refuse to encourage the idea that those acts are inevitable—that humans are constitutionally or immutably dominating. Not only do I think it’s a cop out—that it lacks true accountability—but because it pushes this idea of human separatism that doesn’t align with what I believe to be true about the world. Take, for example, the oak tree in North America. I don’t think I need to explain the importance of oak trees in regards to other plants and non-human animals. They are some heavy lifters in incredibly biodiverse environments. What’s maybe lesser known, though, is that acorns were a dietary staple for many people indigenous to North America. And this wasn’t just passive foraging, these ecosystems were, in part, maintained by those who relied on them. Oaks are very resilient to fire and are not very tolerant of shade, unlike many tree species who could outcompete them. In an average environment, if a couple of maple seedlings find their way into an oak grove, there is a very good chance that, over time, the maples will take over. This is because young maple trees can survive for a long time in the understory with very limited sunlight, where young oaks cannot. When an older oak falls and a gap is created in the canopy, the surviving maple sapling will then take its spot. Knowing this, indigenous Americans used controlled forest fires as a way to ensure the survival of the oak. And who knows if the oak would even exist today without that! In the 40s and 50’s Smokey the Bear promised us an end to wildfires! Granted, much of this was in regards to accidental (non-controlled) fires caused by humans, but it was also a side effect of a culture who was terrified of any human interaction with nature—because humans, in the eyes of this culture, were not part of this nature. This mindset is heavily rooted in human centrism and racism which I have written a bit about in my thoughts on pastoralism (which I might link when I’m on my laptop), but right now I’m less interested in the cause and more in the effect. For a while, we had this idea that all human interaction was inherently harmful, and this led to a serious decline in oak trees. I bring this up because I don’t know the exact intentions behind the controlled fires practiced by indigenous Americans. They could’ve been done for purely “selfish” reasons or in an effort to maintain ecosystems for all creatures, but does it matter? Bees pollinate as a byproduct of feeding. They may or may not be aware that through their feeding, they are ensuring the survival of the species that they feed off of—ensuring their own survival in the future—but they are. Their base needs could be seen as “selfish”, like the trees who fight for space in the upper canopy, but their base needs are part of a generative ecosystem.