quote:Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
I don't know how valid this study is but, if it's true than it's very scary.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that number dependent on a steady increase in the rate of stripping/overuse etc? Or does it asssume a steady number based on what we have today?
Problem with this is, India and China are going to explode in their rate of resource using. I actually expect that by 2050, the US will be using up resources at a fraction of the rate we are now, and I hope that we can sell/subsidize that technology for the rest of the world.
I was told in biology class that once the population of some species fall to too low a number, the species is doomed to die out, regardless of repopulating efforts. Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death. They'll interbreed themselves to death. We can't let those numbers fall to unsustainable rates, or we might as well just give up once they are, all we're doing is stemming the tide for a moment in time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, what the article says is humanity has been living unsustainably for about 10 or so years (as in we were using over 100% of the planet's capability to replenish itself).
That the article is saying is that by 2050, we'll be using two earth's worth of resources (200% over what can be renewed).
We're already so far past being sustainabile it isn't even funny.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death
I don't know if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is far more genetic variation in all those animals than there is in humans.
Humans are incredibly homogeneous. A average tribe of 25 chimpanzees in the wild has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death
I don't know if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is far more genetic variation in all those animals than there is in humans.
Humans are incredibly homogeneous. A average tribe of 25 chimpanzees in the wild has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
That's what my AP Bio teacher (who had four degrees, only two of which were in biology) told me in high school.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. I don't trust reports put out by wrestlers. I mean, their "sport" is fake--why should their "science" be any different?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'd hate to see tigers and rhinos go, if it really comes to a crunch, they are expendable. Mineral resources and food species are a lot more critical.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Meh. I don't trust reports put out by wrestlers. I mean, their "sport" is fake--why should their "science" be any different?
posted
Ah, which only backs up the point that it happened to cheetahs, and will happen to other animals in confined areas with small numbers. Just because it happened 20,000 years ago doesn't mean it isn't a problem today, or will be in the future.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was a Yahoo news "most popular" story today. It's things like this that make it hard for me to plan for the future.
Well, if I live to 2050, I'll have passed "threescore years and ten" (Psalms 90:10), which, to paraphrase the apocryphal Bill Gates line, ought to be enough for anybody.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is fine if you don't mind your grandchildren/grandnephews/grandnieces/etc starving to death along with you.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sky is falling Hogwash is all I can say. We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The sky is falling Hogwash is all I can say. We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
I'm so far from a conservationalist it's almost funny, but the fact that this is still the prevailing attitude turns my stomach.
The reason we've been capable of still living and still consuming is because the earth had one hell of head start on us. The truth is that we're in a car that just ran out of gas on the interstate, and everything looks great to the masses because we're still moving.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious about how they came about their numbers. The fact that they are defining units of measure and using them in their own calculations is really...odd. The article doesn't get very specific about things, so it just seems like they are throwing numbers around.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I'd hate to see tigers and rhinos go, if it really comes to a crunch, they are expendable. Mineral resources and food species are a lot more critical.
Except that the more species you lose, the more unstable their ecosystems become. Take the wolves out of the northeast of the US, for instance, and you have severe overpopulations of deer to jump out into highways. Encroach on the feeding territory of bears, and they'll just eat your garbage and break into your houses for food. Kill off the coyotes and you'll get praire dogs burrowing throughout all your farmland.
Balance is key, as in everything.
quote:We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
So, I'm guessing you don't consider us any more rational than, say, locusts.
Animal populations expand until their environment can't sustain them, and then they fall back. It's cyclical and natural.
Human populations will reach the point where the environment will not be able to sustain them, as well. At that point, the population will fall off - either through war, famine, or disease... you know, those Horseman people mention from time to time. The other options are to either a) reduce consumption/increase efficiency (which, really, would only cause more population growth and delay the inevitable) or b) move offplanet.
We can't keep growing in population and expect this planet to sustain us. 3 billion people in 1960, 6.5 billion now, projections of 9 billion in 2050, and then what... 12 billion in 2100? 15 billion in 2150?
At some point, if we don't slow down our population expansion (actually, if we don't stop it), we will grow too big for this planet to sustain us.
In ancient times, when a population grew too large because of its prosperity, it expanded its territory. This might have caused wars with neighbors, but there was always a frontier to push into and tame.
There will come a point where the only territory to expand into is offplanet. Whether we somehow terraform mars or the moon or whatever, we're going to run out of space on Earth.
Unless, of course, a big enough war/plague/famine doesn't severely curtail the population before we get to that point.
The sky is falling? Hardly. Whether 2050 is the date we grow too big or not is up for debate... but it will happen eventually.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, I'm guessing you don't consider us any more rational than, say, locusts.
To be honest? No. If we were rational than we would find a way to survive with only those animals we find sufficiant for our means. I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
I look forward to being dead before this future.
EDIT: Note, I don't disagree with the assessment at all. I think it's the more likely candidate at this point (than war, or plague, or famine eliminating 50%-75% of humanity).
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: you were kidding about the "wrestlers" thing, right? (my sarcasm-meter is acting up today)
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm glad it was the entertainment industry that changed their name, I kind of wish it had been the wildlife foundation so they could avoid this stigmata for the next 20 years until no one remembers the WWE used to be the WWF.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we were rational than we would find a way to survive with only those animals we find sufficiant for our means. I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
Even if all the life on the planet is domesticated, and all wild places are replaced with hyper-efficient farmland populated only by food animals, if we don't stop our population growth we'll still outgrow our environment.
When locusts run out of food, they move on to the next field, and then the next, until there is no more food left... then they die in massive numbers.
Even with a "humans = intelligent locusts" model, where we make maximum food production efficiency of the surface area of the planet, we'll still keep eating and breeding until there is no possible way our planet can sustain us.
At some point we'll have to a) stop our population growth, or b) find another planet to expand onto.
The amount of time involved before we are forced to do one or the other to survive is debatable, but the ultimate result is not. So, is 2050 the zero hour? Who knows.
But the day is coming.
As an addendum: The time approaches more rapidly due to our inefficient use of natural resources and unchecked population growth. If we increase efficiency, we extend our time. If we slow population growth, we extend our time. If we disregard all warnings and continue our wanton consumption and rampant population growth, we are just hastening the process.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either that or learn to control our population and cut back on our consumption habits.
If what the article says is true, we've already gone past the breaking point for the earth to sustain us indefinitely. We're using resources faster than the planet can replinish them, and creating waste faster than the planet can turn that waste back into resources.
Even if we totally stop consumption growth right now, our species is in a decaying orbit. Eventually, our consumption will consume all resources on the planet - though, if we halt increased consumption today, that may take hundreds or thousands of years.
Thing is, we're not halting consumption - we're accelerating it. More people = more consumption. More industrialization = more consumption. More consumption = greater imbalance between consumption and replenishment.
We also need to halt population growth. As harsh as it may sound, every family with more than two children is increasing the global population. Ender's Game's child restriction laws are not too far from a necessary reality - and, as in the books, the only release on those restrictions came with the ability to colonize other worlds.
So, the way I see it, we have three options:
1. Cut back on consumption, increase consumption efficiency, stop population growth, and actually even cut back on the world's population, or
2. Find somewhere else we can start expanding into and develop the technology to expand there, or
3. Do nothing. Let the population increase to the point that famine/war/disease cuts it back naturally.
The argument can be made that we could optimize the oceans of the world for food output and settlement, but this would also just be delaying the inevitable. Eventually, our population will grow past the ability for the planet - land and ocean - to support it.
Option 2 is the best for humans to survive/thrive in the long term - meaning 500 or 1000 years or more into the future.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of colonisation, I would certainly like to see it done for its own sake. But as a means of reducing the Earth's population? Come, now. Right now it takes the work of several thousand people over some months to put a man in Low Earth Orbit. Even granting improvements in the technology, how are we going to be putting several hundred thousand people per month on another planet? That's what it would take just to remove the population growth. Short of magical teleporters that work over several light-years with almost zero energy cost, this just won't happen. Especially when you consider that the current means of removing several hundred thousand people from the population on a monthly basis are very cheap, and large industrial interests make money off 'em.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
We absolutely do need to set up a self-sustaining colony on another planet. But transporting people to accomplish that as living breathing human beings is going to be impractical for a long while, if not forever. Not to mention that any colony established more than likley will include many other living creatures than humans. The easier way the shipping all these items steerage would be to send a smaller group on a ship with embryos of whatever species they care to cultivate on the new world (this includes humans of course). This is also a way to assure a decent genetic sample for several generations into its life. (Titan AE actually had this idea down, aside from the instant terraforming tool).
Even if that happens, Earth is still on it's own to balance it's own population. And it will be nearly as impractical to import large supplies of food / materials from another world as it would be to export human beings. The energy and time delay costs would be parituclarly prohibitive.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you are going for balance in any complex system I really think you will fall flat on your face. Assuming the INCREDIBLE task was suddenly accomplished, its nature's way to keep moving and your balance would be toppled by completely natural variables.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if you were directing that at me or at Architraz, BlackBlade, but it was a very interesting article.
He could have just as easily used australia or the everglades or any other ecosystem, and shown how efforts to help have only made things worse. I understand complex systems cannot be adjusted without causing unforeseen complications down the line.
However.
Human population has grown pretty significantly in a relatively short period of geographic time:
That's pretty impressive. And if you notice, we've been gaining about half a billion every decade, roughly, since 1950. We had a pretty steady rise in population going into about 1900, then a pretty steady (though markedly faster) rise in the last 50 years.
Unless that tapers off to a plateau at some point - which is highly unlikely, though I suppose possible - the numbers will keep on growing. They may grow more slowly, or more rapidly, but they'll keep growing.
That population is also growing more industrialized on the average, with each human consuming more and creating more waste. What happens when China and India become as industrialized as the US, with comparable consumption and waste production?
As for moving to another planet, you're right in that it's totally unfeasible, with science and economics the way we understand them, to significantly impact the current population of the earth.
Likely the population will be checked in some other way. My vote is for diseases/viruses being the likely culprits, though global war isn't out of the realm of possibility, or famine (being of Irish heritage, I know that can be pretty swift and brutal).
The complex system of human population will balance itself given time - but personally, I'm not a fan of the way nature normally culls its populations (disease/starvation/predators).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer can be found in high school biology. The population rises exponentially until it reaches a carrying capacity, then it just hovers around that amount for the rest of the species life span.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong. That may happen in idealised models, but even then, only if you set it up right. It is quite trivial - they teach you this in your first year of college - to set up much more realistic equations that have boom-bust cycles. Which is what we observe in nature.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: it happens in real life, too. There are lots of populations that follow convergence to carrying capacity expectations.
Of course, there are empirical reasons to believe the human species won't be one of them, but our uniquely large propensity to change our own environment (particularly including technological advancement) means there is no model from another species likely to fit.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at any historical models of a human population reaching carrying capacity... this is followed immediately by a disastrous collapse. Easter Island is the classic model, but most civilization collapses seem to happen as the result of a domino effect once carrying capacity has been slightly exceeded.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Look out America! You're the heaviest nation on the planet, and if you're not careful, the whole continent will give out right under your feet. California alone has been living with the threat of falling into the Pacific for decades. Why do you think they care about dieting so much? Take the hint!
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful, there could be some Palauans on this board that wouldn't take too kindly for that kind of talk.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easter Island's problem was not reaching their carrying capacity, it was destroying the ecosystem of the island by, among other things, systematic deforestation, such that the carrying capacity of the island was markedly decreased.
It is not at all clear that humans will do this in the rest of the world. Many things humans do increase the carrying capacity of the earth, such as by increasing the productivity of agriculture. Perhaps we will do something equivalent, but merely approaching, reaching, or mildly surpassing whatever the current carrying capacity is is in no way equivalent to what happened on Easter Island.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, fugu, strip-mining the environment is one of the dominoes; this is also known as "eating your seed corn", and other things in other parts of the world. Basically, you reach a break-over point where you start consuming your infrastructure rather than its products. Once you've reached that point you are well and truly doomed, as with each passing day your ability to meet your needs in the future decreases geometrically.
We haven't reached that point... yet...
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difficulty is that many people don't even foresee this is as a problem, or don't care, or feel it's not *their* problem because they'll be well and dead by then.
For every person who's preaching conservation and sensible use of resources, there is another saying all such talk is hogwash. It seems many times those preaching moderation and conservation are far outweighed by their opponents.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But strip-mining the environment is both not associated with merely reaching carrying capacity and not necessarily an outcome of the human race surpassing carrying capacity -- we've increased the carrying capacity of the world significantly so far, we may well do it in the future.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recommended reading: Collapse, Jared Diamond. I thought the chapters on Montana and Oz were a little silly (Montana, on the verge of societal collapse? Really?), but liked the chapters on Easter Island, the Maya Empire, medeival Iceland (collapse averted) and Greenland.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Increasing carrying capacity without doing anything to stop population growth just delays the inevitable. It just means we'll take longer to exceed carrying capacity, not that we won't reach it.
Granted, the rate of population growth has slowed in recent years. It's down from more than an 85 million people per year increase in 1990 to about a 75 million people per year increase in 2005. (link with projections)
Still, though, that's 75 million people per year more than what we had before - if the trend continues to slow at the same rate, we'll be down to a 65 million a year increase by 2020 and a 55 million a year increase by 2035. That's another 2 billion people or so in 30 years.
While we may increase carrying capacity, we're also increasing the amount that needs to be carried. At some point there will be a limit reached.
Now, the UN has projections for world population in 2150 everywhere from a 28 billion to 4.3 billion. Personally, I'd assume somewhere between those two extremes is likely closest to the truth - and their median of 11.5 billion doesn't seem unrealistic.
So, can we almost double the carrying capacity of the planet in 150 years?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
