Thinking beyond dogs, bees, and trees
Dissecting human-nature interdepence and the variety of natural stakeholders to consider.
This week’s essay is inspired by a recent article, “Microplastics hinder plant photosynthesis, study finds, threatening millions with starvation,” from The Guardian.
Disclaimer: All views are my own and do not reflect those of my employers or other affiliated organizations. Essays are not peer-reviewed, do not constitute scientific theories or findings, and the perspectives can change as new information emerges.
Updates:
A new AI-generated podcast episode based on my co-authored chapter, “Multispecies Ethnography in Design Research and Practice”
I am collecting questions, challenges, situations, and perspectives for the “Ask Emilija” segment of the Multispecies Digest video lectures. If you have anything you want addressed in an upcoming lecture, please share!
Photosynthesis under threat
A new study has shown that microplastic pollution damages the ability of plants to photosynthesize. Microplastics can block sunlight, harm soils, block nutrient and water flows within the plant, harm plant cells, and reduce the level of chlorophyll.
“Microplastics are broken down from the vast quantities of waste dumped into the environment. They hinder plants from harnessing sunlight to grow in multiple ways, from damaging soils to carrying toxic chemicals. The particles have infiltrated the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans.”
The decrease in the ability to photosynthesize is visible in land plants as well as algae in the oceans.
For humans, the decrease in photosynthesis likely means a substantial loss in crop yields. Researchers estimate crop loss to be 4-14%, which will increase the risk of starvation and decrease global food security. On land, it would impact the production of wheat, rice, and maize; in global waters, it would impact the production of fish and seafood.
For natural systems, the decrease in photosynthesis likely means a decrease in the amount of atmospheric CO2 grounded by the plants and phytoplankton, which can lead to an acceleration of climate change. The decrease would also impact terrestrial and water food webs.
The article calls for more research on the impact of microplastics on plants and human food chains and for rapid action to curb the pollution.
Short video providing a summary of the study (not from The Guardian):
Multispecies themes
Humans and nature are interdependent, but we are not trained to see that.
The study is a strong example of human-nature interdependence.
On the one hand, it showcases that much of our food production, in one way or another, depends on the photosynthesis process, a process of the natural environment. We need plants and algae to photosynthesize so we can eat plants, feed plants to animals, catch fish that eat algae, or harvest fungi that digest plant-based substrates.
Sadly, we humans often do not remember this dependence. Even as someone raised in a family growing food, I do not think of dependence as I pick up bread, chickpeas, potato chips, and chicken wings from the supermarket. The growing of those products and their ingredients is so far removed from my daily life that I do not need to think that I depend on some photosynthesis process.
On the other hand, the study showcases that natural processes, organisms, and systems depend greatly on human activity. There was a time in Earth’s history when nature was the key force on this planet: humans were striving to conquer, control, and align with nature to ensure human survival. That time, however, is over. At the moment, globally, there are very few to no ecosystems that do not include humans and are not affected by human activity. Global ecosystems and local green spaces and species carry the brunt of the consequences of human actions, such as deforestation, nature-free urban environments, pesticides, and pollution.
I’m wondering if humans need to learn that the natural processes that we have always taken for granted–photosynthesis, decomposition of organic matter, growth of plants, and stable climate and weather patterns–might not be around forever. I must admit that I had not thought that we would need to worry about plants not being able to photosynthesize. Like, come on… It’s the photosynthesis process… It’s here forever. (Though I also had not thought that Finland or Latvia would ever have snowless winters, but here we are.)
For those striving to shift towards multispecies thinking, I think it is important to accept that humans, our physiological vessels, our production systems, and the stability of our societies depend on seemingly obscure natural processes, like photosynthesis, that we have taken for granted. It would be a good exercise for each of us (and overall for researchers, designers, and businesses) to systematically trace what we depend on because those are the things that we truly need to protect. We also need to systematically trace and study what our lives, lifestyles, and companies impact. Where do the microplastics from our toothpaste go if we stop thinking that they just disappear once they enter the drain? Or what ecosystems and natural processes will the extraction of minerals disturb if we stop seeing the minerals as pure units we purchase from a retailer?
There are many systemic natural stakeholder types, and photosynthesis is one of them.
The main reason why this Guarding article caught my eye is its focus on the photosynthesis process. In my research, I have been trying to make the case that in multispecies design, we need to think beyond the immediate natural beings, like our beloved dogs or the trees we see from our window, and consider more abstract, obscure, complex, systemic natural stakeholders.
There has been a move in design and other spheres to consider natural stakeholders in processes. For example, animal-computer interaction focuses on pets, working animals, and zoo-held animals to shift how technology is made for and with them. Urban designers and planners, among other things, are looking into urban trees as critical infrastructure. Some projects look at individual nonhuman beings, while others look at complex webs and entanglements.
However, after working in the field for eight years, my impression is that when a person starts considering that they could and should think about natural beings and entities as stakeholders, their first instincts are to consider animals, trees, forests, or some other ecosystems. Which is understandable. Those are the elements that humans actively associate with nature and likely know the most about.
However, there is a whole range of other stakeholders that we can and (I would argue) must consider.
Commonly considered natural stakeholders:
Visible, known, or ‘cute’ organisms, e.g., plants, mammals, birds.
Ecosystems, e.g., lawns, parks, cities, forests, rivers, seas, and oceans.
Protected species & sites, e.g., bats, freshwater pearl mussels, nature reserves and national parks.
Other stakeholders that we can and should consider:
Invisible, unknown, or ‘yucky’ organisms, e.g., reptiles, insects, amphibians, crustaceans, and mollusks.
Single-species collectives, e.g., social insect colonies (beehives), mosses and hornworts, algae and fungi.
Multispecies collectives, e.g., bacterial collectives, lichens, and soil.
Life Processes, e.g., photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition of organic matter, and nitrogen fixation.
Biogeochemical cycles, e.g., carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water cycles.
Processes of the Atmosphere, e.g., weather, season, and climate.
Geological elements, e.g., bedrock and sand.
Natural light, e.g., natural light and darkness.
There is a large variety of what we must consider as we approach the world through a multispecies lens. For me, the life processes category, which includes photosynthesis, is one of the most interesting. Thinking through processes could change how humans relate to nature.
For example, I often ponder how urban governance and maintenance would shift if we redesigned with the decomposition of organic matter as the key stakeholder. Currently, in most places, leaves from the streets and parks are removed and taken to special polygons. But what if we needed to enable decomposition where the leaves fall or close by? Decomposition requires insects, bacteria, fungi, water, appropriate temperature, and many other things. Meanwhile, it provides nutrients for the trees, plants, and other elements in the urban ecosystem to grow and reproduce. How would we redesign the city, the laws and regulations, the maintenance structures, and our own values and aesthetic preferences? Would there be studies to evaluate whether and how microplastics and other chemicals in the urban space prevent decomposition from happening? Focusing on this process would create space for reflection, speculation, and evaluation of the current practices.
Closing remarks
Reading this article on photosynthesis and the likely fragility of this process in the face of human-created pollution (and hopefully now also you) to further focus on the more complex multispecies stakeholders. We need to consider the complex, systemic entanglements we live in. Seeing the photosynthesis process as a stakeholder can allow us to rethink our actions.
The typology I included in this article is an ever-evolving categorization, and we might come back to discuss the assumptions and simplifications embedded within it at a later day. But, as a thinking tool, I hope it can inspire you to think beyond dogs, bees, and trees.
If you are interested to know more:
Description of the Photosynthesis process by Encyclopedia Britannica (Open access).
Chapter “Global Change Risks and Human Systems” in the consensus study report Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031 (Open Access).
Academic Article “Multispecies Sustainability” in the journal Global Sustainability (Open Access).
Academic Article “Reconnecting to the Biosphere” in the journal AMBIO.
Academic Article “When a tree is also a multispecies collective, a photosynthesis process and a carbon cycle: A systemic typology of natural nonhuman stakeholders when designing for sustainability” from the proceedings of RSD Symposium (Open Access).
Article “Autumn Leaves: Should You Collect Them or Leave Them in Place?” by Brooklyn Botanic Garden (Open Access)
Multispecies digest
Lighthearted yet research-informed analysis of situations, projects, and life through the multispecies lens. Paired with bi-weekly video lectures on multispecies and more-than-human design, decision-making, and business for those who want to know more.
This is a really useful framing and makes me rethink my approach when I talk about non-human. It’s easy to think of animals and visible organisms.
I like the way you started with photosynthesis to identify all of these other overlooked processes and less obvious stakeholders.