Simon Levin (United States, 1941) received a doctorate in Mathematics. However, his interest soon turned to Ecology and the intricate relationships between the actors in the environment, from animals (including people) to the landscape. Above all, and although it seems obvious, how the distribution of species in one way or another directly influenced biodiversity. “I realized that there wasn’t much mathematical theory that incorporated the space dimension of species interaction into models. So I started working along these lines in the 1970s, to build ecological models that integrated the spatial structure,” Levin explains to ABC at the BBVA Foundation headquarters in Bilbao. His contribution is the basis for us to better understand the processes of carbon fixation by forests, how animal and plant life are distributed on Earth, the migration of animals or the dispersal of plants. And he has motivated him to be recognized with the Frontiers of Knowledge Award granted by the foundation in the category of Ecology and Conservation Biology, the most important award in its field.
– What exactly is spatial ecology, your field?
– Ecology has to do with the relationship between the natural and physical world, but the first theories did not take into account the spatial distribution of species. This field has very important consequences, such as how infectious diseases spread: it is about understanding how a pandemic can start in a place as remote as Wuhan, in China, and then spread to the rest of the world.
– New technologies stand as a solution and, at the same time, as a problem for the planet. What do you think about its potential?
– They are like medicines: they solve some problems, but they can create others. Here it is important to see the time scales. Technology can be a quick fix to a problem, but you have to look at the consequences. For example, that has already happened with the hole in the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons. These compounds were initially thought to be a more viable environmental option, because the chemicals were not bioreactive and did not break down. But that created a problem later, because the fact that they could not be broken down meant that they stayed in the atmosphere, causing the hole in the ozone layer. So any technology has positive and negative things. We have the potential to develop new clean energy sources, such as solar, wind. But it will take time, perhaps another two or three decades, for a real transition to take place. People are used to driving big cars, and there are lobbies in many countries, including of course the US. They are trying to keep coal and oil as the main sources of energy, but we are reaching a point where even the big energy companies are recognizing the importance of investing in energy that is more sustainable and helps the environment. That is why I am optimistic.
– But all the reports say that we have to do something now.
– I am optimistic because there is no other alternative. We have no choice. I am more pessimistic on other issues, such as our ability to prevent armed conflicts like the one in Ukraine. However, in environment, I think we can work it out and make a good transition. It is true that we are already seeing many floods, how the sea level rises, wild fires or, recently, how pandemics lurk. These things are already in front of us and they are going to cause pain. For this reason, we will compulsorily have to carry out a transition towards energy sources that are less polluting and less dependent on coal. It is also true that there has been a significant loss in biodiversity; but if we take action on the matter, we can stop it and stop it from going any further. I have to believe in this, because there is no other option.
– You relate ecology to a priori fields as distant as economics, international relations, bioterrorism and health policies. How do they fit with each other?
– I was trained as a mathematician, and numbers are a way of thinking and recognizing the fact that everything around us are interrelated systems. For example, as far as human evolution is concerned, its growth causes consequences in the economy of resources or in cybersecurity. During the last decades we have learned a lot about how nature has solved many of these problems, even if it has taken millions of years; we can take example and apply it.
– What do you think of individual gestures such as recycling at home: are they really effective and can they make a difference?
– We live in complex adaptive systems. And this means that people, animals or plants are part of something bigger. Our goal must be to conserve public goods, including clean air or the biosphere. And for this we have to understand its mechanisms and cooperate with each other. Recycling and other such practices are obviously important. But we have to be careful not to use it as an excuse and say ‘I recycle my bottles and therefore I’ve already done my part’. We do not have to stay in the small actions and put aside bigger problems. Regional, state, even global agreements are necessary, in which we all contribute something for the sake of a greater good. And this is not going to be easy, because our societies are highly polarized political systems. One of my concerns has to do with the growing trends towards populism and ‘my country first’. This has been totally refuted after the pandemic: you cannot control such a situation simply by attending to your own country if your neighboring countries are also suffering the same.
– Do you think that governments have the power to reverse climate change or the key lies more with the companies and the big lobbies that I mentioned before?
– Companies have to act in their own interest. But for that very reason they have to realize that the landscape is going to be very different 20 years from now. And it is useless for an oil company, for example, to take action if the rest of its scope does not. We need to collaborate with each other. I often feel that there can be cooperation between companies rather than between countries, because they operate internationally and in the long term; however, governments operate more in the short term, and do not worry about all the problems 10 years from now. I think companies are catching on and some can get things done faster than others. Although the energy ones will take longer. And it doesn’t matter if they do it out of morality or convenience, you just have to convince them that doing things as usual won’t work tomorrow.
– And putting the focus more on the singular, on people. Do you think that society is really aware of the problem?
– The answer is that in general no; but there are surveys in different countries about people’s attitudes to climate change and whether we can do anything about it, and the answers differ a lot from state to state. For example, in the US there are surveys that say that 70 or 75 percent of the population sees climate change as a real problem. These are very high percentages, but they are not enough. And unfortunately, despite this data and the fires or the floods, I haven’t seen much change. This is where politicians and companies have to come into play.
– Do we have to live next to a melting glacier to be aware of the damage we are doing to our planet?
– If you live in Quebec, for example, you may think that warming is a good thing, because the winters are not so harsh. But if you live in the green belt area of the US, for example in California, and you see that there is not enough water and there are wild fires, the effects of all this on agriculture, you may be more aware. In fact, I think that the effects that we see in areas with warmer climates are going to have a greater effect on the population. For example, my team works with small-scale fishermen in temperate climates who are seeing fish species declining or moving to other areas. Their lives are clearly getting worse. And this will continue to happen if we don’t do something.