A debate in environmental ethics regarding disposing human excrement

Great Debates
1

Early, I was having a discussion (that turned rather heated) with a friend about environmental ethics. I feel that I understand the principles behind the “Leave No Trace” doctrine that the environmental ethicist proclaims are necessary to cause the least amount of “unnatural” impact to an environment. The “Leave No Trace” proponents have set a list of things to-do and not-to-do when camping, hiking, and otherwise exploring areas of the environment that are to be preserved in their “natural” state, such as national parks.

One of the points that I wanted to nit-pick centered around the issue of disposing human waste. The “Leave No Trace” proponents strongly encourage that one digs a shallow hole in the ground with a trowel, do their business in said hole, and fill said hole again with as little damage to the tundra or grassland or what not that surrounds this hole.

To me, this seems rather… unnatural. I would think that the most natural thing to do in this situation would be to simply do your business on the ground, as a bear or other large mammal would, and let “nature” run its course. Needless to say, this suggestion stirred up quite a bit of controversy.

At first my question was simply what’s “more natural” or “less natural” - going on the ground like my mammalian bear brethren, or digging a hole and isolating it. But then the argument pretty quickly developed into an argument rooted pretty deeply in the definitions of what is the role of humans and how we define “natural”.

Perhaps a general question is - is it “natural” for a human to bury and cover their waste?

But the debate part of this would be – what is natural? A tall subject to debate… so I’d like to try to keep it framed in the “pooping in the woods” analogy for clarity’s sake. In my new understanding of the “Leave No Trace” doctrine, the point is not to encourage what is “more natural” (if humans and their toilet business are defined as part of nature), but to discourage any type of human interaction by humans in a natural area at all, no matter what. If the goal of a national park (or conservation in general) is to preserve “nature”, then is excluding a natural human interaction like pooping on the ground a little… unnatural?.. and thus hypocritical? Or does the environmental ethicist view humans intrinsically as unnatural?

Oh, I’ve been lurking here, reading the debates regularly for about ten years now, and I think it’s a bit funny that this is the topic that I’ve chosen to finally muster up the courage to post a question to the Teeming Millions. I’m pretty lame and am struggling to not post any corny puns.

Thanks!

2

Certainly a bit of human waste left above ground can be integrated into the ecosystem. But note that “a bit”- on some trails it is a lot more than “a bit”. There are also considerations of the smell, accidentally walking in it and flies. There’s also the propblem with TP- if you don’t bury the TP it gets unsightly, to say the least.

Quite a few mammals (esp carnivores) bury their scat so it’s hardly unnatural.

3

Forget about what’s “natural”. Focus on the effect you’re going to have on the next large mammal who passes by the place you just pooped. Is your poop going to cause a problem? Are they going to step in the poop? Are they going to be disgusted by the sight or smell of your poop? Is the poop going to get into water that some mammal is going to drink? Your one pile of poop isn’t a big deal, but what if there are lots of other mammals pooping nearby?

Your poop will eventually be recycled as raw materials for plants and fungi and bacteria whether you bury it or display it prominently on top of a rock. Both ways are perfectly natural. But would you rather live in a world where hiking mammals leave piles of poop displayed prominently along the trail, or a world where hiking mammals took a minute to throw some dirt over their poop?

4

Right, I understand this point from a human-defined aesthetic point of view. But aren’t we sacrificing what’s “natural” (pooping and leaving it on the ground - and I may be incorrectly assuming that this is a natural human behavior) for humans’ convenience or tastes – and isn’t that sort of against the whole conservation ideal?

I guess I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around what the philosophy is behind a preserved natural area if unnatural things are expected to be done inside of it.

edit

So is it true to say that preserved natural areas aren’t designated for nature in itself, but for humans enjoyment? Is the point to look at them from an “outside of nature” sort of viewpoint, like a big delicate interactive zoo?

5

You clearly did not read my post. Many mammal carnivores bury their scat, thus it is natural to do so.

6

I did read your post, but I don’t think that because it is natural for some carnivores makes it natural for humans. By extension, wouldn’t that make building dams on rivers a natural behavior because some small mammals happen to do that as well?

7

It doesn’t matter whether it’s natural or not to bury your poop. Humans are natural creatures, so whatever we do is natural. And I’m not looking at this from a human aesthetic view, or maybe more precisely I’m looking at it from another level of aesthetics.

Does burying poop degrade the environment of the park? Does leaving poop exposed degrade the environment of the park? Does your poop kill animals and plants? Does it change the ecosystem?

The park wouldn’t exist except that we human beings have decided that it would be nice to have places that aren’t farms, factories, buildings, or parking lots. Obviously the parks aren’t “natural”, they are human managed in the sense that some humans prevent other humans from building houses and factories there. Every place on Earth is under human management, even the places with no humans, because they are managed by keeping humans out.

So it isn’t about the aesthetics of piles of poop. It’s about the effect of piles of poop on the park. Does burying your poop hurt the park or help the park? You don’t strip off your clothes and discard all your tools at the border of the park, the goal isn’t to change from an unnatural lifestyle outside the park to a natural lifestyle inside the park, because no such distinction is possible or desirable.

Would you rather have a park with piles of poop, or a park with buried poop? It’s that simple.

8

Do you know how Archaic Homo sapiens disposed of their scat? How do you know it isn’t “natural” for Homo sapiens to bury their scat?

9

Most mammals live at carrying capacity in the environment or if not in a boom or bust cycle that nonetheless is strictly limited at the top end by the resources available. Humans have moved way, way past environmental carrying capacity relative to the hunter-gatherers we evolved as.

So is it “non-natural”, in the sense of not being a primitive trait? Possibly, though I wouldn’t assume that as a given. But considering our population density, if we didn’t take extra care to dispose of our waste we’d be wading in it. Yosemite gets well over 5,000 visitors per day. Even if we assume only a fraction of that hit the trails away from the toilets, the piles o’ poo would rapidly multiply well beyond human tolerance, not to mention the ability of the environment to break it down naturally in a timely manner, without adversely impacting said environment.

10

or more, precisely, SOME preserved natural areas are so designed.

In the US, we have National Forests, which are kept mostly-natural, but are nevertheless meant to be used for recreation and even commerce (i.e. logging). We have National Parks, which are closed to commerce but where recreation is not only allowed but encouraged. We have Wilderness Preserves, which are often closed to human entry of any kind altogether. And all sorts of levels and distinctions in-between those. Pretty much every natural area has it’s own distinct goals and guidelines for use.
Leave No Trace is best understood as a goal or principle, rather than a realistic expectation; taken quite literally, it would involve wiping away your footprints. It would certainly rule out things like hiking trails or backwoods shelters. The idea is for you, the user to preserve the environment essentially as you found it, so the next guy can enjoy the same thing you’re enjoying.

The issue WRT waste is that unburied feces are going to substantially impact other people’s enjoyment. In addition to the smell and the sight of unburied TP mentioned above, a lot of people crapping in the same place (e.g. along a trail) may make wildlife start avoiding the place. You’ve now 1) reduced the next guy’s chance of seeing a bear, and 2) disrupted the normal movement patterns of the wildlife, with who knows what consequences.

True LNT would entail carrying your waste out – and in fact, this is what is done in some very sensitive, limited-access environments (the Colorado River, for one). In others, this is not a realistic goal, and so burial is recommended. In others, backwoods privys are put up.

I’ve got no idea whether burying feces is “natural” for humans or not. I do know that

  1. I spent 6 1/2 months last year hiking along a footpath used by millions of people, and
  2. I’m glad I didn’t have to smell other people’s dookie every hour.
11

It’s only natural to not bury your scat if you don’t realise the consequences of your actions. Since we, as evolved humans, know the outcome of not burying our scat it can no longer be said to be natural to not do so. It’d be like saying it’s natural to have sex (anywhere you want, cause it used to be that way) but we have morals and societal issues to deal with that makes having sex in the open no longer natural. Fun maybe, but not natural.

12

Unless you roll around in that natural unburied poop as you are rolling around in the hay so to speak :slight_smile:

13

Excellent summation. “Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but memories.”

Did you hike the AT? if so, congrats, and I’m extremely jealous.