To me, Charles Darwin was always one of the good guys. Growing up, the knowledge of evolution offered all the creative wonder I needed, thank you very much, and in conversation with pals I’d play Clarence Darrow to anyone’s William Jennings Bryan. In my little heathen mind, I naturally most often won the day. (Some kids liked cowboys and Indians. I liked Inherit the Wind. Go figure.)

As I got older, however, I was dismayed to discover how robber barons, past and present, had used the “survival of the fittest” argument to justify all kinds of vile behavior. From turn-of-the-century monopolists to today’s slum-lording real estate magnates, the Great Man’s concepts have been co-opted for evil purposes. (And I use the word “evil” advisedly. We are, in fact, talking Evil here.) Would Darwin see these thieves, oligarchs and social criminals as part of a natural order? Is it simply an evolutionary principle that the weak are taken advantage of and are, as they say, weeded out?

Then one day, someone added a phrase to my lexicon: “It’s just as much “˜survival of the luckiest.’” This explains how “acts of god” (so to speak) could wipe out otherwise “fit” populations. An asteroid? A political or economic system gone awry? Take your pick. Yes, the fittest survive – sometimes. And yes, the not-necessarily-more-fit-than-anyone-else take advantage of situations. Often.

Now, a new study offers another angle (or perhaps layer) to Darwin’s original theory. It not only helps put the Rockefellers in their evolutionary place, but should also give us all pause to think again about how we view our world, and how we use it.

Here’s the headline (from the BBC this past Monday): “Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims - Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.”

Aw, those Brits and their headlines. Indeed, “wrong” is the wrong word here, but this certainly is interesting news. Here’s the rub: Recent research from the University of Bristol shows “the availability of “˜living space,’” along with competition, as centrally important to evolution.

Studying patterns and fossil records covering more than 400 million years of land-animal biological history, the scientists, says the story, “showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of “˜living space’ through time.”

Living space – that’s the area where an animal and its species survive in a fairly comfortable way. What this study shows, say the researchers, is that important evolutionary advancements occur when a group gets more elbow room that’s free from predators and competitors.

Two examples they provide are birds and mammals. The former, once they took to the unoccupied air, made explosive strides. The latter waited for the Dinosaurs to get out of the way before making their evolutionary move. “This concept,” notes the story, “challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.”

Now whether or not the study’s more radical conclusions hold up over time remains to be seen. (Co-author Professor Mike Benton goes so far as to say that “competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution.”)

Of course, there are already those who question those conclusions, including Yale Professor and evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns who says he “found the patterns interesting, but the interpretation problematic,” and asks, “What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?”

But the point is made that living space rocks a species’ world and the lack thereof can keep (or bring) it down.

I’m left with two thoughts from this bit of news. First, it offers a rebuttal to the Trump-esque, entitled egos of the world who gloat over their gets and glories. Consider their “living space” – an environment cleared of true competition, where skids are greased, incumbents bought, arenas cleared of threat or responsibility. Maybe that’s a stretch, but what the hell, there is surely more at play in these folks’ “landscapes” than pure smarts and fitness.

The second takeaway, I think, is something to consider as we gobble up habitats and witness subsequent extinctions. We ought to note that we’re not immune from gobbling up our own living space, whether we poison it with chemicals, rip open its arteries of oil or simply pave it over at every opportunity in the name of “development.” This might be a study to remember if we truly want to make sure our ultra-fit species will ultimately have a place to live.

Says Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Try adapting to having no place to go.

Images: Simon Welsh and shehal

Can you imagine your grandchildren visiting a museum to look at the mere bones of animals that are alive today? We all expect to see a T-Rex in ancient, skeletal form, but an orangutan? When we were kids and we heard about animals becoming extinct in science class, the finality seemed grave but distant, like there was still hope and time, and their impending doom was so far off into the future we didn’t really need to worry about it.

Cut to twenty-five years later, and these endangered species are truly on the brink of being wiped off the planet. So let your kids get a good look at that polar bear at your local zoo, because they may not be around for another generation to see in the flesh. Here are five animals that will probably become extinct in your child’s lifetime.

Sumatran Orangutan

The Sumatran Orangutan seen above is threatened due to poaching and habitat destruction of the rainforests in Indonesia, where this species makes their home. Only about 6,500 remain in the wild, and they are poised to become the first great ape species to become extinct. Visit the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program website or Sumatran Orangutan Society to learn more.

Black Rhinoceros

During the 1970s half of the world’s rhino population disappeared. There are fewer than 2,500 Black Rhinos left on the earth. Considered the world’s most endangered mammal, the Black Rhinoceros faces severe endangerment due to poaching for his horn, which can fetch up to $24,000 in the Far East. The rhino’s horn is used in folk medicine in India and China as it is believed to cure headaches, and as a weapon and status symbol among men in North Yemen. Learn how you can help save rhinos in the wild.

Bactrian Camel

The Bactrian Camel is critically endangered due to habitat loss and drought. There are approximately only 950 Bactrian Camels left in the wild, struggling to survive in their native desert habitat in northwest China and Mongolia, which used to be used as a Chinese nuclear test range. These animals are also hunted for sport and killed because they are competition to domestic livestock for food and water resources. Learn more at the Wild Camel Protection Foundation.

Polar Bear

Iconic images of the polar bear swimming and sometimes drowning between melting patches of ice in his dwindling habitat have become synonymous with the case for global warming. Currently, between 20-25,000 polar bears still roam the wild, but if climate change trends continue, scientists predict that polar bears will be extinct within the next 100 years. Visit Polar Bears International to learn more.

Mountain Gorilla

Forest clearing and degradation are main contributing factors to the Mountain Gorilla’s pending extinction, and only 720 animals of this species remain on the planet. Additionally, in 2007, there were 10 Mountain Gorilla killings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which severely threatened the conservation progress that had been made on their behalf. Visit the International Gorilla Conservation Program to learn more.

Images: Kabie Bakie, Matthew Field, Jeff Kubina, ltshears, Zouavman Le Zouave, and d_proffer

Their good friends, the fuzzy white polar bears, are losing their icy homes. Rising sea levels will wash away those nice pastel houses along the beach. Some day, every moving thing that relies on gas -  cars, trains, ships and planes – will come to a screeching halt and the world will be in shock because people won’t know how to live, work, feed themselves or get around.

These are real fears being shared with children – and not just around my own dinner table.

Adults who are well informed, card-carrying conservationists often articulate these concerns with the greatest of intentions. They believe we are deep in the trenches in the war against global warming and the over-consumption of resources, and the time to act is now. We are amiss if we don’t warn the next generation.

But should we be drawing better boundaries when it comes to coloring the picture for the under-18 crowd?

Children who already lack the freedom we enjoyed to jump on bikes and go exploring until dark might be further impaired by negative messages that often accompany environmental concerns -  messages that convey their future looks frighteningly grim.

“When I have children, I worry that the world will be ruined and we won’t have a good life if people keep littering and polluting,” says my own 10-year-old, Lauren Bradley. “That might happen.”

Clearly, there’s a right way and a wrong way to prepare our youth to become the stewards of the planet without robbing them of the short-lived innocence of childhood.

For guidance, I went to Daniel Meyer, renowned Bay Area Environmental Educator and classroom science professor. He has spent the past 20 years teaching children about their relationship with nature, including outdoor adventures in the Yosemite Valley.

“Kids don’t have the perspective to understand some issues and tend to  internalize them,” observes Meyer. “You can have informative discussions with them about doing their part without making it a doomsday discussion.”

Here are some of Meyer’s do’s and don’ts for preparing, rather than scaring, the next generation of conservationists.

Image: Earthfirst

Do: Put the big picture in perspective. Geologically speaking, we are insignificant in terms of the earth’s existence. Many things have come and gone before us and will after us. And the only true thing we can do is live responsibly and respect and embrace the environment and everything in it and on it.

Don’t: Dump problems on children they cannot solve. Children can’t prevent an animal from going extinct. That’s the job of scientists, governments and big business.

Image: Brzegowiec

Do: Keep it simple. Responsible stewardship starts with light bulbs, composting and recycling. Give kids issues they can tackle so that they feel connected to repairing the earth: They can re-plant. They can fix the trail systems at the Golden Gate Park. They can make posters at school about composting. They can learn to become smart consumers. Child-geared, educational tools, such as The Story of Stuff video by Annie Leonard can help.

Don’t: Take away their innocence by focusing on the negative. The downside is kids can become fixated when they aren’t fully educated about global warming and pollution. Kids who are innocent can still come up with solutions.

Image: Incase Designs

Do: Investigate how they can do their part in responsible philanthropic giving by researching various causes and how money is directed. Let them select the cause. This empowers them in doing their part.

Don’t: Miss the opportunity to spend time with your children outdoors. It’s one things to talk trash around the dinner table and another to experience with them the beauty of the nature you strive to protect. Check out the Nature Rocks Campaign for tips.

Image: National Geographic

Main image: Zanastardust