(Image retrieved 12.12.08, from http://www.sacredart-murals.co.uk/snippits.htm)

 

 

“Why ‘King Louis’ Might Not Survive the Next Century”

by Christopher B. Cox

12.12.08

 

Will King Louis survive the next century?

 

The 17th century French king you might be thinking of died long ago -- in 1715; but what of the character in Disney’s 1967 cartoon adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book”?

 

Disney’s ‘King Louis’ is an orangutan - well known among fans for his mischievous nature and the film’s most famous song, “I Wanna Be Like You” performed by jazz artist Louis Prima.

 

Like other animal characters in the film, King Louis is able to communicate with the human protagonist, Mowgli. Louis’ desire for fire, serves as a plot foil that stresses the importance of fire, and ultimately ensures Mowgli’s survival in the film’s climax. Today, this example serves as irony. Orangutans face extinction because of a tragic human inability to communicate.

Rudyard Kipling, best known for his essays collected in The Jungle Book (1894), was so inspired by the charismatic fauna he encountered growing up in India that he spawned a career of fable writing. Kipling often employed the storytelling device anthropomorphism, which endows the animal characters in his stories the ability to speak to one another, and to humans.

 

This device has been used throughout history, from indigenous folklore to modern song, to teach moral lessons. In the case of the wild orangutan, humanity is faced with a moral failure.

 

Orangutans, or pongo pygmaeus, have been featured on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ “Red List” for endangered species since they began to track the species’ risk for extinction in 1986. It is estimated that between 45 and 69,000 individuals persist in the wild today. This surviving group is just the remnants of the population it once was, estimates from 1950 indicate a loss of 86% of wild orangutans in the past 60 years.

 

The orangutan is just one of tens of thousands of species who face extinction in the 21st century, but it’s role as a charismatic and well-known mammal poise the species to serve as a symbol for what is at stake in the modern biodiversity crisis.

 

Orangutans are not native to India, as the Disney film suggests. The species is found solely on the island of Borneo, which is split between the nations of Indonesia and Malaysia. The majority of remnant populations are located outside national park boundaries, in rainforests that are being exploited for timber production or converted for agricultural uses.

 

The largest of arboreal mammals, orangutans are dependant on highly productive forested areas for survival. Their omnivorous diet consists of over 500 documented plant species as well as leaves, bark, flowers, and insects. Sixty percent of their diet consists of fruit, some whose seeds are too large to be dispersed by smaller mammals. The availability of fruit impacts the orangutan’s health, social, and reproductive behaviors, as well as seasonal movements and ranging patterns, making the species a vital component within Borneo rainforest ecology.

 

“Orangutans are definitely an 'umbrella species'," said Dr. Sarah Karpanty, a field biologist at Virginia Tech, “protecting the habitat needed to support orangutans protects many other species.”

 

Low-lying and flood-prone forests, whose swampy environment yield the largest fruit crops, are the preferred environment of orangutans, and also are the prime areas for agricultural use. Large rivers and high elevation also present natural barriers, limiting suitable habitat. Behavioral studies indicate a low tolerance for habitat disturbances, putting the species at odds with the local human populations in Borneo, who, due to their own population growth and increased land use, have already disturbed over 60% of the orangutan’s original habitat.

 

Disney created another unintentional irony in their film version of The Jungle Book when King Louis, in his title song and introduction to Mowgli, begs for the knowledge to make fire. Not only do orangutans have no use for fire, but also the destruction human beings have caused through fire may ultimately lead to the orangutans’ demise.

 

Massive fires and drought periods can severely reduce orangutan populations. Fires in 1983 and 1998 destroyed 90% of Kutai National Park in Eastern Borneo, reducing an estimated orangutan population of 4,000 in the 1970s to just 500 in 1999. A 2006 drought is estimated to have killed several hundred orangutans in a just six months.

 

Population disturbances force orangutans into either densely inhabited territories where ecological resources become insufficient, or into contact with humans. Although fully protected by law in both Indonesia and Malaysia, little to no regulation means orangutans face the risk of being killed for their meat, used for medicinal purposes or sold as pets.

 

Fragmented forests also make populations more susceptible to disease outbreaks and increase the chance of inbreeding.

 

Genetic studies can provide crucial insight into the plight of the orangutan. A 2004 study estimated that orangutan populations numbering less than 50 are not viable in the long term and face near certain extinction within 100 years.

 

“The probability of extinction statistics come out of a process known as
 population viability analyses,” said Karpanty. “Scientists take all
 known population data about the species (birth rates, death rates, immigration, and emigration) and model the trajectory of the population over time under various threat scenarios.”

 

These threats, in combination, exert tremendous pressure on already dwindling populations, putting the viability of the entire species at risk.

 

The orangutan is officially protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), an international agreement to which nations adhere to voluntarily. In 2004, 100 orangutans were confiscated in Thailand under this agreement, 50 of which were returned to the Kalimantan province of Borneo in 2006. Several hundred other orphaned orangutans were confiscated by local authorities and entrusted to different orphanages in both Malaysia and Indonesia.

 

Despite these efforts, a greater lack of enforcement provides little or no protection for remaining populations, and the IUCN suggests, “new mechanisms to ensure the orangutans’ long-term survival are urgently needed” (IUCN Redlist, 2008).

 

Dr. Karpanty believes orangutans themselves can play an important role in their survival story.

 

“Orangutans are a flagship or charismatic species; they incite people to care about environmental issues,” said Karpanty.

 

The current biodiversity crisis, which is just beginning to garner international attention, needs a flagship species, one already known to the public, but one which the public does not know nearly enough about.

 

People rely on mediated images to understand things they may never experience in person.

 

King Louis, as an isolated Disney character, cannot be the end of the mainstream public’s relationship with the orangutan. Like Mowgli, we as a public and a fellow species must take the time to listen, learn, and understand. We must decide the relationship we share with the orangutan is worth protecting.

 

This relationship can be emboldened by a new media representation of the orangutan that creates public awareness of the biodiversity crisis. Like Finding Nemo raised awareness of the diversity and fragility of the Great Barrier Reef, a re-imagining of The Jungle Book might challenge publics, in Borneo, and all over the world, to take action.

 

We can decide whether King Louis will survive the next century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources:

 

www.cites.org

 

www.iucnredlist.org

 

www.responsibletravel.com

 

Dr. Sarah Karpanty, Virginia Tech Faculty

(karpanty@vt.edu)

 

Clip from Disney’s “The Jungle Book”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur3uk0OiyuA&feature=related

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Environmental Coalition Members prepare to bike on campus, 10.30.08)

 

HALLOGREEN BIKE RIDE PROMOTES CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY

Nov. 11th, 2008

Christopher Cox

 

[HALGREEN]

 

BLACKSBURG, Va. – Environmental coalition members bicycled en-masse on Thursday, October 30th, to promote alternative transportation awareness at Virginia Tech.

 

The “Hallogreen Community Bike Ride” coalesced growing enthusiasm for environmental awareness, and the excitement of Halloween when approximately 30 students in costumes ranging from hillbillies to fairies rode their bikes around the Virginia Tech Drillfield.

 

The Environmental Coalition members at Virginia Tech constantly find ways to include eco-friendly behaviors into their daily lives. Lyndsay McKeever, the organizer of Thursday evening’s “Hallogreen Community Bike Ride” is no exception.

 

“You don’t have to drive” McKeever explained in a clown-fish costume, as she prepared for the ride.

 

The bicyclists forged through campus and on to surrounding roads in Blacksburg en-masse at 5:30pm on the eve of Halloween, sharing lanes with other vehicles.

 

Angie DeSoto, the former President of the Environmental Coalition, who now holds a leadership role as the Sustainability Planning intern for the Subcommittee to Develop the Virginia Tech Climate Action Commitment, addressed the demonstration’s significance.

 

“We need more bike racks on campus, bicycles are literally chained to trees, hand rails, everything.” DeSoto said.

 

DeSoto sported an elephant trunk as she chatted with other EC members in costume. Bryce Carter, Vice President of the Coalition wore a “Clean Coal” t-shirt.

 

“I’m the most optimistic person in the world!” Carter explained, “It’s scary to think that people actually believe in such a thing as clean coal.”

 

Environmental Coalition members, who at any given time are involved in a variety of projects, from organizing environmentally-aware youth, to encouraging sustainability in Virginia Tech’s dining halls, are an active group of students with diverse ideas, but don’t let their personal beliefs get in the way of their shared goals.

 

John Linford, an athlete on the triathlon team and new member of the Coalition admires the group’s efforts.

 

“This crowd has a lot of energy and is very knowledgeable,” John said, “I also appreciate how the EC is non-partisan”.

 

The Environmental Coalition, with its’ aims for a more sustainable campus, has made some aggressive goals and realizes that a pragmatic approach is necessary, but to attract members and retain enthusiasm, the group also has to enjoy themselves.

 

“Organizing can be fun, as much as it can be for a cause,” Jackie Pontius, the President of the Environmental Coalition acknowledged.

 

Sharkey’s bar and restaurant, located on Main St. in Blacksburg hosted the Environmental Coalition and friends after their ride. McKeever estimates that about 45 people showed their support for the group at Sharkey’s, including many who rode their bicycles. The restaurant informally committed that 20% of the proceeds made between 6:00 and 9:00pm on October 30th will be donated to the group. The Environmental Coalition is still waiting on the promised donation.

 

The Hallogreen Community Bike Ride serves as a reprieve from the coalition’s other activities, which included planning the Virginia Powershift, a state-wide student summit on climate change that took place earlier this month and demanded an enormous amount of time, money, and effort on the part of its’ organizers.

 

The Environmental Coalition’s current focus is to increase sustainability awareness among youth at Virginia Tech. In collaboration with the “Green Team”, an organization including EC leadership that educates students on global environmental problems and solutions, the Coalition has facilitated 30-minute interactive presentations to many student organizations and on-campus communities.

 

Next semester, the Virginia Tech President’s Climate Action Commitment, an EC effort successfully planned with University President Charles Steger, will undergo approval within the University’s governance system. The EC hopes that an informed student body will create pressure on the administration to enact the sustainability goals outlined in the commitment.

 

McKeever was unsure of whether to deem the “Hallogreen Community Bike Ride” a complete success.

 

“I really expected more people,” McKeever said, “It was a challenge getting the word out.”

 

Promoting next year’s ride is one of McKeever’s goals, as well as specifically targeting bike racks with advertisements. McKeever attributes the underwhelming number of attendees to last-minute advertising, but wants to keep the relaxed atmosphere of this year’s ride in future iterations.

 

“I really liked that we had no intended route.” McKeever said.

 

The group of students who did participate remained enthusiastic in their demonstration, whooping loudly and attracting attention while riding throughout campus. The effect of their bicycle tour remains to be seen, but their presence among cars on the streets of Blacksburg provides testament to McKeever’s initial message that “You don’t have to drive”.

 

The Environmental Coalition meets every Tuesday at 7:00pm in Squires’ Student Center, in the Brush Mountain B room. Meetings are open to both students and Blacksburg residents.

 

 

 

The Overkill Hypothesis

(chris cox_10.14.08)

 

The primary vector for megafaunal extinction in the Pleistocene Era is a highly debated topic of research. According to the American Museum of Natural History, the overkill hypothesis, “argues that humans were responsible for the Late Pleistocene extinction of megafauna, (and supporters) see a chronological and causal link between the appearance of humans and the disappearance of many species of large mammals.” This explanation places responsibility for this violent and geologically quick extinction on humans. Research has been conducted to disprove this hypothesis, citing the extraordinary circumstances necessary for hunting such a great amount of mammals and the absence of significant archaeological findings. In my search for resonance on the issue I have analyzed evidence for both arguments and have come to my own conclusion on the Pleistocene extinction debate.

 

 

Evidence For:

 

Author E.O. Wilson offers, “the somber archaeology of vanished species has taught us the following lessons: the noble savage never existed, Eden occupied was a slaughterhouse, & Paradise Found is paradise lost”. This explanation obviously is pro-overkill hypothesis pitting humanity against nature’s will. The “noble savage” is an illusion if Paleo-Indians were the primary vector for the extinction of more than half of the 167 genera of large mammals (Foreman, p.34).

 

It is extremely difficult to deny the correlation between the arrival of Homo sapiens and megafaunal extinction. In an article, Extinct Humans, published in the journal Scientific American, the author calculated at least seventeen hominid species are represented in the known fossil record. His evidence for the origins of Homo sapiens favors an “Out of Africa” scenario, with Homo sapiens evolving in Africa and displacing other hominids and causing the extinction of other large mammals. The spread of modern humans began forty thousand years ago as skilled “big game” hunters first entered lands where Homo sapiens had not previously existed. According to this argument, megafauna continue to thrive in Africa because they co-evolved with Homo sapiens, thus acquiring the knowledge to avoid us and our hunting practices. The megafauna of Eurasia and the Americas, however, having evolved separately from humans, had little or no reason to fear the “big game hunters”, making their naivety a reason for their susceptibility of excessive hunting.

 

The geological evidence, provided by carbon dating, of the extinction of megafauna such as the giant sloth and mammoth coincides with the estimated time humans arrived on the scene through the Bering Strait. It is believed that in the following thousand years humans spread through the Americas along with the extinction of over thirty genera of mega fauna (Foreman, pg.30) This time correlation cannot be denied, and is part of the chief evidence in the overkill hypothesis.

 

 

 

Dave Foreman, in his novel, Rewilding North America, suggests, “The Climate Change hypothesis (in regard to megafauna extinction) is based on the assumption that the food supply was dwindling because of wholesale vegetation changes with warming after the Ice Age.” This idea had been the dominant ideology in regard to the extinction previous to the overkill hypothesis. Foreman continues, “The Ice Age happened at the same time all around the world, why didn’t extinction happen similarly?” In this reasoning, the climate change hypothesis is disproved by the scattered extinctions of megafauna among the continents during the steady warming after the Ice Age.

 

 

Evidence Against:

 

There are scientists who disagree with Martin’s Overkill assessment and cite a lack of geological evidence of an association between Paleo-Indians and extinct megafauna. Martin’s 1972 assessment reported in Science magazine assumed a hunter who, “preferred killing and persisted in killing animals as long as they were available.” The overkill hypothesis also suggests that not until prey populations were extinct would the hunters be forced to learn more about botany, to adapt to the loss of their main dietary resource (Choquenot, 1998). Mega fauna would have had to be a main staple in the Paleo-Indian diet if the Overkill Hypothesis was true. David Choquenot, in a study on Australian aborigines and the overkill hypothesis writes, “One person in four would have destroyed one animal unit (992 lbs.) Per week in any one region” to cause the amount of damage inclined by the Overkill hypothesis. He goes on to say that these kills would produce 32.5 lbs per person, per day, totaling 30,000 calories per person, 15 times the daily food requirement.

 

The insatiable appetite of the Overkill’s Paleo-Indian also contrasts what we have documented about aboriginal cultures. Choquenot writes, “The ethnographic evidence affirms that subsistence hunting is an activity demanding not bloodlust, but sophisticated knowledge of animal behavior and local landscape.” Cultural evidence for a mass killing of megafauna is non-existent. Ethnographic evidence also shows that hunting-gathering economies are based on a division of labor between men and women. This provides a startling reality: if half of the women were reproducing or caring for young, the statistics for hunting requirements grow.

 

Other evidence negating the Overkill hypothesis exists through demographic studies of Kalahari San tribes of Africa which demonstrate that the average birth interval for this group of nomadic hunters is four years, thus population growth is limited not by the availability of food but by the difficulty of carrying infants (Choquenot, 1998). It is extremely likely that any nomadic tribe experienced the same troubles with caring for young, despite the abundance of food.

 

Modern Relevance

 

What is evident among the research both for and against the overkill hypothesis is an underlying argument for humanity’s role in environment and altogether existence on Earth. The magnitude, scope, and scale of this question involves many sciences, including ecology, geology, anthropology, and biology, but ultimately is answered by the researcher.

 

Those who believe that the Earth is a human resource use the Overkill Hypothesis to justify not only homo sapien superiority, but also current consumptive habits. In Endgame, author Derrick Jenson states, “to rely on something that may or may not have happened 10,000 years ago to defend current behavior is really pathetic.” Reliance on Overkill is made even more so pathetic by the lack of knowledge on paleo-indian culture to validate such a claim.

 

It is also important to note that climate change was occurring during the debated time period and humans were also under pressures to adapt. Human hunting (or burning, or disease) likely exacerbated and created problems for mega fauna, however, cannot be fully responsible for their extinction.

 

What remains important is the unavoidable truth that humanity has a disproportionate impact on our planet and thus has an incredible responsibility. Regardless of the evidence for human potential to destruct, there is an inherent choice in everything we do. The simple fact that mega fauna extinction is up for debate and that there is evidence present for humanity’s impact on the world creates a self-awareness in our current biodiversity crisis that has not been present during previous human-induced extinctions. As this self-awareness grows, and individuals and nations take action to save our planet, it contradicts the ideology that homo sapiens are bent on destruction.

 

We have no control over what happened 11,000 years ago, only a choice to act on what we can do now.