Environmental Generational Amnesia

Yes, the title is pretty complicated. No I didn't make that up.
 This term was popularised by psychologist Peter H. Kahn Jr in one of his scholarly articles. You may read the online version of it (best I could find) here.

Basically, he worries that future generations may be unaware of the situations before they were born, and gauge the extent of current environmental impacts base on what they have experienced or witness from childhood. As each generation pass, we inherit a standard set by the previous generation, and gauge the severity of changes against the norms. Here's a fictional example:

LIONS. PHOTO: CRAGDORIASAFARIS.COM

 In 1970, There were originally 30 lions living in a jungle. Due to loss of habitat, number of lions fell to 10 after 20 years (1990). Their population continues to fall till none is left in 2014.

Lets say that you were a teenager in 1990, when the lion population was 10. If someone asks you how many lions were wiped out to the point that there's none in 2014, your answer would be a "10", simply because you used the 1990's statistic(10) as a baseline. You were unaware that back in 1970 (when you were'nt even born yet), number of lions was originally at 30. And so, number of lions wiped out should be 30, not 10.

Notice how from that example, you can tell that there is a tendency to understate the extent of changes depending on where the baseline is fixed at. This problem stems from the term "Shifting baseline syndrome", which I wouldn't be talking about in detail lest there's an information overload. Basically, every scientist accepts the data as they inherit them. These scientists are unaware of how much has changed, and instead, use the already declining situation as the baseline, and then during their careers, record even further declines (Mooallem, 2013). This continues and declining rates gets even worse.

Now here's a real example extracted from the book "Wild Ones" by Jon Mooallem.

BALD EAGLE. PHOTO: RAYMOND LEE, ALLABOUTBIRDS.ORG

In 1973, number of bald eagles in America numbered around 417 nesting pairs.
In 2007, the effort to increase their population size was considered a success and it was removed from the Endangered Species Act, as numbers rose to 10, 000 nesting pairs.
But...
Much further back in 1782, there were an estimated of 50, 000 nesting pairs.
So here's the question.
Do we count the 10, 000 nesting pairs as a mega achievement or just a slight improvement to the declining figures? Unfortunately, if you base it against the statistics of 1782, it is still a population decline, and there isn't really anything much to celebrate.

Are we underestimating the rate of decline? Where should we set the baseline in order to agree on a reliable and accurate statistical value?

 As mentioned by Milner-Gullanddid (2009), one of the authors for a research paper on shifting baseline syndrome, there are ways to circumvent this problem, such as getting the older generation to narrate personal recounts to the younger generations about how the environment was years ago and how much it has changed, or providing hard evidence such as photos or old samples to prove the extent of impact.

Ultimately, this problem may have implications on our efforts in environmental conservation. People forget what the past look like, and the current state becomes the new baseline. With "Shifting Baseline Syndrome" and "Environmental Generational Amnesia", it may be hard to convince members of the public-especially the younger generations, the severity and extent of the decline in animal populations over time. There may be misconceptions, as people fix their baselines during their time period and perceive the extent of changes to be minimal, becoming cynical when environmentalist stressed the vast decline in numbers. This problem is exacerbated when there are no or insufficient data about the conditions of the ecosystem in the past ( Hance, 2009) to validate the severity of the problem.

This term is still in its infancy, and more research is currently on-going to analyse how "Environmental Generational Amnesia" could affect conservation efforts. What I worry is that if we start out with an already depressingly low baseline, we would barely react with shock and just be ambivalent if it shifts further.

Literature Citied

Hance, J. (2009) Proving the ‘shifting baselines’ theory: how humans consistently misperceive nature. [ONLINE] Available at: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0623-hance_shiftingbaselines.html. [Accessed 15 September 2014].
Kahn, P. H. Jr. (2002) “Children’s Affiliations with Nature: Structure, Development, and the Problem of Environmental Generational Amnesia.” - Children and Nature. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mooallem, J. (2013) Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story about Looking at People Looking at Animals in America. New York: Penguin, Print.
 S.K. Papworth, J. Rist, L. Coad, & E.J. Milner-Gulland. (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2, pg. 93–100.