Conservationists should be aware of how a basic aspect of how we think can determine the fate of endangered species. Numerous scientists studying human behavior, for example, Daniel Kahneman in his highly recommended 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, have carefully and credibly explained how we have two modes of thought. One has been dubbed “system-one” thinking, largely quick, intuitive, and prone to accept biases that may have or lack validity. The second, “system-two” thinkinh, or what I call analytical, requires an objective examination of all available evidence, allowing facts to drive opinion that is subject to change if more facts indicate that need. Bob Altemeyer, in his book, The Authoritarians, freely available online, essentially allows us to judge the likelihood of either system dominating our thought processes. Tests he and others have created demonstrate that the more intuitive, “system one” thinkers tend toward an authoritarian outlook, while the more deliberative, predominately “system two” thinker may seem dithering and undecided, with lots of exceptions in both camps.
That all sounds kind of technical, political, judgmental, and isolated from what dominates Born Free USA’s interests – animals and how to protect them – but bear with me. That’s “bear” as in polar bears, whose fate, like that of all endangered species, depends on decisions made by many different people, most ultimately legislators.
Consider, then, what’s going on with polar bears in the M’Clintock Channel and the Gulf of Boothia. This region hosts a subpopulation of polar bears in Nunavut, a vast area of northern Canada. People have lived there for at least a thousand years, probably much longer, and in that time many basic facts emerged, one of which is ever so obvious: the more bears seen, the more there are.
This is not merely an obvious assumption for a “system one” thinker; it became a cultural norm, elder wisdom standing the test of time. And, it was important knowledge to people entirely dependent on those animals, and a relatively small range of plant species, for survival. No grocery stores, restaurants, food stamps, care packages, or food lines are available in this wilderness.
Fast forward to now. There are not only more polar bears being reported from M’Clintock Channel and the Gulf of Boothia, some of those bears are fatter than is typical of the species in the region. And, those facts are the root of a potentially serious misconception. It would seem obvious, and substantiated by elder wisdom, that there are therefore more bears, less need to conserve the species, and more justification to pass regulations and quotas for bears to be hunted, accordingly. Canada is the only nation with resident polar bears that allows a limited hunt for them for trophies.
But, “now” is not like anything ever known to the people of that region. What is happening, scientists warn, is that warming climate has led to thinning ice, which has led to more fish, thus more ringed seals, and thus more food for the bears, for whom seals are a primary source of nutriment. Some bears are obese. But, the primary food of female bears, the ringed seal, depends on ice to give birth and nurture their young. Without ice, there ultimately will be fewer cub-bearing females, for whom ringed seals are so essential, and therefore fewer ringed seals and less food, and specifically fat sources, for the bears. The larger, stronger male bears can capture larger prey than can the females.
There may be other food sources, of course, and it may be that polar bears will adapt to a more land-based diet, but to do so may require a degree of genetic diversity that is reduced by the hunting that is sanctioned and increased by people given to “system one” thinking. To the degree that there are inheritable traits that allow a polar bear to manage a different diet, those traits can’t be passed on if a bullet intervenes.
Meanwhile, overall across their range, polar bears are in continual decline as the arctic warms and ice recedes. Elder wisdom is not to be discounted, but neither does it accommodate the contemporary situation. “System two” thinking should prevail, inform us that it is not that simple, and drive us to act accordingly to save polar bears in the long term.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry
