NationStates Jolt Archive

More good news...

The world is heading for an "ecological credit crunch" far worse than the current financial crisis because humans are over-using the natural resources of the planet, an international study warns today.

The Living Planet report calculates that humans are using 30% more resources than the Earth can replenish each year, which is leading to deforestation, degraded soils, polluted air and water, and dramatic declines in numbers of fish and other species. As a result, we are running up an ecological debt of $4tr (£2.5tr) to $4.5tr every year - double the estimated losses made by the world's financial institutions as a result of the credit crisis - say the report's authors, led by the conservation group WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund. The figure is based on a UN report which calculated the economic value of services provided by ecosystems destroyed annually, such as diminished rainfall for crops or reduced flood protection.

Interestingly, water...

For the first time the report also contains detailed information on the "water footprint" of every country, and claims 50 countries are already experiencing "moderate to severe water stress on a year-round basis". It also shows that 27 countries are "importing" more than half the water they consume - in the form of water used to produce goods from wheat to cotton - including the UK, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and the Netherlands.

The usual suspects...

In the 1960s most countries lived within their ecological resources. But the latest figures show that today three-quarters of the world's population live in countries which consume more than they can replenish.

Addressing concerns that national boundaries are an artificial way of dividing up the world's resources, Leape says: "It's another way of reminding ourselves we're living beyond our means."

The US and China account for more than two-fifths of the planet's ecological footprint, with 21% each.

A person's footprint ranges vastly across the globe, from eight or more "global hectares" (20 acres or more) for the biggest consumers in the United Arab Emirates, the US, Kuwait and Denmark, to half a hectare in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Afghanistan and Malawi. The global average consumption was 2.7 hectares a person, compared with a notional sustainable capacity of 2.1 hectares.

The UK, with an average footprint of about 5.5 hectares, ranks 15th in the world, just below Uruguay and the Czech Republic, and ahead of Finland and Belgium.

So seriously, how perturbed are we supposed to be about all this? On the one hand, the clamour from scientists seems deafening but on and on we rush, either the message is grossly overstated or we are soon going to be galactic recipients of the Darwin Awards.

What's the deal?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats)

More good news...

Interestingly, water...

The usual suspects...

So seriously, how perturbed are we supposed to be about all this? On the one hand, the clamour from scientists seems deafening but on and on we rush, either the message is grossly overstated or we are soon going to be galactic recipients of the Darwin Awards.

What's the deal?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats)

There's nothing especially new here. Unfortunately, though the received wisdom is that we're running out of.. well, just about everything... the general response to that is along the lines of "well, we'll worry about that when we actually run out".

So... galactic Darwin, I guess.

There's nothing especially new here. Unfortunately, though the received wisdom is that we're running out of.. well, just about everything... the general response to that is along the lines of "well, we'll worry about that when we actually run out".

So... galactic Darwin, I guess.

Yes, it's hard to have missed the rumours flying around over the last couple of decades...

It's just everyone seems so blase about it, especially governments and somewhere deep in my soul I still hold some faith that they're not in the business of totally screwing us over - so if they're not focusing entirely on our survival, then the threat is overblown?

It's hard to get a grip on the immediacy of the issue.

Yes, it's hard to have missed the rumours flying around over the last couple of decades...

It's just everyone seems so blase about it, especially governments and somewhere deep in my soul I still hold some faith that they're not in the business of totally screwing us over - so if they're not focusing entirely on our survival, then the threat is overblown?

It's hard to get a grip on the immediacy of the issue.If the world lacks the resources, then the world population will be reduced until it reaches a sustainable level.
The whole human species won't die off. Just a portion of it.
I know that's incredibly cruel, but nature isn't nice.

Yes, it's hard to have missed the rumours flying around over the last couple of decades...

It's just everyone seems so blase about it, especially governments and somewhere deep in my soul I still hold some faith that they're not in the business of totally screwing us over - so if they're not focusing entirely on our survival, then the threat is overblown?

It's hard to get a grip on the immediacy of the issue.

The 'problem' is, it's not immediate.

At some point we will reach, or have already reached, a point at which sufficient damage is done that something bad is going to happen.

Having never watched a planet get raped to death before, we're not entirely sure what it's going to look like. Global iceage? ELE? Humans reduced to barbarism, but generally most stuff is going to work out?

We don't know how long the punitive effects will take to materialise. Are we going to get a sudden come-uppance in some remote future time... or is the climate instability of the moment a precursor to something coming?

And we don't even know how far we are down the road to nowhere. Can we turn back. Is it already too late?


All of which means that politicians and big business can just wave their hands at it, and keep borrowing now, against the future of our children or grandchildren.

The threat isn't really overblown. We know how we use resources, and we know what can be replaced and how well it replaces. Knowing all that - we're accelerating towards it. The threat is 'under-blown', if anything.

If the world lacks the resources, then the world population will be reduced until it reaches a sustainable level.
The whole human species won't die off. Just a portion of it.
I know that's incredibly cruel, but nature isn't nice.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Let's look at one resource. Let's assume the world runs out of trees. What proportion of the species, roughly, will it impact?

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Let's look at one resource. Let's assume the world runs out of trees. What proportion of the species, roughly, will it impact?At a guess, 85 to 90%.
Assuming you meant for the purpose of photosynthesis.

I blame the Chinese.

also its a good thing we have another planet otherwise I'd really be worried

Let's look at one resource. Let's assume the world runs out of trees. What proportion of the species, roughly, will it impact?

about 1/3 because oceans kickarse

about 1/3 because oceans kickarse

Entirely unrelated but I am amazed, simply amazed, that we haven't built an underwater city yet.

What have we been doing with our time as a species, honestly,

Entirely unrelated but I am amazed, simply amazed, that we haven't built an underwater city yet.

What have we been doing with our time as a species, honestly,Inventing other useless things.
Like porn. :p

Entirely unrelated but I am amazed, simply amazed, that we haven't built an underwater city yet.

well despite mans best efforts it seems that we are not in fact equipped with gills

shocking I know.

Inventing other useless things.
Like porn. :p

I think it has more to do with these "books" everyone keeps wasting time reading

I think it has more to do with these "books" everyone keeps wasting time readingTree-killers! :eek:

...OK, I need to get my "take seriously/don't take seriously" switch fxt. :p

well despite mans best efforts it seems that we are not in fact equipped with gills

shocking I know.

I'm thinking we could start with Northampton actually.

See the ease at which we're distracted, it's symbolic I tell you.

I'm thinking we could start with Northampton actually.

tried it in 97 and all that happened was I laughed at those lowlanders

See the ease at which we're distracted, it's symbolic I tell you.

well we clearly have better things to do like pop bubble wrap (http://www.puffgames.com/bubblewrap/)

Time to get another planet or build a ton of water treatment and desalinization plants to reduce waste and increase supplies.

More good news...



Interestingly, water...



The usual suspects...



So seriously, how perturbed are we supposed to be about all this? On the one hand, the clamour from scientists seems deafening but on and on we rush, either the message is grossly overstated or we are soon going to be galactic recipients of the Darwin Awards.

What's the deal?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats)

Well, Yeah. That's what happens when you have increased lifespans and more births. It's called overpopulation.


*Looks around, stocks water in the basement*

I'd like to think we'll pull some Treknobabble out of our ass at the last minute, but...

Finland is after the UK!

Bah! On December 21 2012 the world will complete its 5,600 year cycle and 'wobble' to face in a different direction. The poles will shift, there will be floods, famines, mass weather cycle changes, and massive city destroying earthquakes. And maybe a super volcano or tow! Who cares about resources!


(I'm actually pretty sceptacle about the polar shift.)

A fair amount of people say things like 'isn't it strange how we as a species haven't managed to do this or that...' but what do we have to measure our own progress against? Nothing on our own planet has developed like we have and whilst I agree that it seems shameful that we haven't accomplished a lot more than we actually have done so far... why is it that (considering we have nothing to measure our own species against) a lot of people feel so negatively about our own development I wonder?

A fair amount of people say things like 'isn't it strange how we as a species haven't managed to do this or that...' but what do we have to measure our own progress against? Nothing on our own planet has developed like we have and whilst I agree that it seems shameful that we haven't accomplished a lot more than we actually have done so far... why is it that (considering we have nothing to measure our own species against) a lot of people feel so negatively about our own development I wonder?

Because resources are finite on this rock, humanity as a whole is acting like it's not, and is making no real push to get off this rock.

Because resources are finite on this rock, humanity as a whole is acting like it's not, and is making no real push to get off this rock.

The key to survival is expansion!

The key to survival is expansion!

Except we're doing a whole lot of stagnation instead. Thank the small minded, get-rich-quick mentalities that have more or less taken over global politics/economics.

If massive economic breaks were given to orbital industries, I imagine there'd be a great deal more investment into getting there and expansion.

Because resources are finite on this rock, humanity as a whole is acting like it's not, and is making no real push to get off this rock.

Couldn't agree with you more tbh, I just think it's interesting how a lot of people feel as though our species is failing yet don't do anything about it - I find especially interesting how many people are just content with plodding along in the world as we have made it today. Finances, commercialism and politics seemingly not really driving much along at all except their own interests and sometimes not even that.

I also find it interesting how so many people think it's impossible to change anything in the world we live in that we have made.

:p

I also find it interesting how so many people think it's impossible to change anything in the world we live in that we have made.

:p

It's possible, but no one is seriously making an effort in resources and investment to making any real change, because that would hurt their immediate bottom line. And when it becomes a matter of extinction to those who have the ability and resources to do so now, by then, they usually lack the resources to do so then. That's why the pessimism is warranted.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg

Platinum is a vital component not only of catalytic converters but also of fuel cells - and supplies are running out. It has been estimated that if all the 500 million vehicles in use today were re-equipped with fuel cells, operating losses would mean that all the world's sources of platinum would be exhausted within 15 years. Unlike with oil or diamonds, there is no synthetic alternative: platinum is a chemical element, and once we have used it all there is no way on earth of getting any more. What price then pollution-free cities?

It's not just the world's platinum that is being used up at an alarming rate. The same goes for many other rare metals such as indium, which is being consumed in unprecedented quantities for making LCDs for flat-screen TVs, and the tantalum needed to make compact electronic devices like cellphones. How long will global reserves of uranium last in a new nuclear age? Even reserves of such commonplace elements as zinc, copper, nickel and the phosphorus used in fertiliser will run out in the not-too-distant future.

...

Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany, and his colleagues are among the few groups who have been investigating the problem. He estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium. Its impending scarcity could already be reflected in its price: in January 2003 the metal sold for around $60 per kilogram; by August 2006 the price had shot up to over $1000 per kilogram.

...

Without more recycling, antimony, which is used to make flame retardant materials, will run out in 15 years, silver in 10 and indium in under five. In a more sophisticated analysis, Reller has included the effects of new technologies, and projects how many years we have left for some key metals. He estimates that zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be gone by 2017, and terbium - used to make the green phosphors in fluorescent light bulbs - could run out before 2012.

...

based on 2006 figures for per capita consumption he calculates that by 2100 global demand for copper will outstrip the amount extractable from the ground.

Even if one assumes that the science behind these figures is faulty, we are on too short of a timeframe...even if one doubles, or even triples these estimates, the outlook for technological society is grim.

In short, we're fucked...

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg



Even if one assumes that the science behind these figures is faulty, we are on too short of a timeframe...even if one doubles, or even triples these estimates, the outlook for technological society is grim.

In short, we're fucked...

And yet this topic is at the bottom of the pile, tsk tsk, apathy.

See what's really going to suck is that when those in power decide it's time to go to space, there's not going to be any materials left to build the proper vehicles.

Riots, and tarring and feathering of politicians everywhere will ensue.

I'd just like to point out that platinum or any other material doesn't just cease to exist, passing from our plane of existence for all time. It doesn't even leave the planet. It just moves around. all the platinum we've ever dug up and slapped into a car is still there. In the cars, the junkyards and slowly being leached back into the ground where it will eventually end up in our water supplies. It will migrate into our bodies and there it will stay until we die and are buried and rot away ourselves. It seems clear that if sources of platinum begin to dry up, then by the time our shortage becomes desperate, we will have a new viable source by then: Grandma. Dig her up, extract the minerals and make a car. Then name it after her. :D

I'm of course being silly, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Except for nuclear power, elements don't just go away, we just have to find new ways of recovering them for reuse. This includes water.

We need another planet, let's move to Mars. The poor people first, gotta let them terraform it, or maybe we'll just ship them all to that frozen rock and let us first worlders be literally from our first world.

Well it's about time large chunks of the population start to kick it. Moving to another planet, building underwater cities or hell, driving that Prius doesn't solve the problems we've created, it merely extends our timeline of existence as a whole. That may be one of the few things that separates us from the rest of the planet; our ability to problem solve to an extent and act outside of natural boundaries such as instinct. It won't be our saving grace however. However much we like to think it, we don't have the handle we think we have on issues that affect this planet and we are more merely just pawns on the whole cosmic plane thing.

Basically what I mean to say is we've created problems way over our head and in the grand scheme of things it's just another day in the universe as we know it.

Plus who can't wait to slap on some hockey gear, carve their selves a mohawk and go hunt down some guzzolene?

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg



Even if one assumes that the science behind these figures is faulty, we are on too short of a timeframe...even if one doubles, or even triples these estimates, the outlook for technological society is grim.

In short, we're fucked...

What LG said, they don't just go away. By the time we need more platinum for new technologies, we could get it out of the old, obsolete ones.

I suggest we move to Uranus. Its large enough, though its a bit cold and full of gas.

At a guess, 85 to 90%.
Assuming you meant for the purpose of photosynthesis.

I was thinking mainly in terms of oxygen production, yes.

If the world lacks the resources, then the world population will be reduced until it reaches a sustainable level.
The whole human species won't die off. Just a portion of it.

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

the diversity of life in our universe needs a near infinity of planets. and has them.

if the human species of planet earth destroys the web of life on the only planet known to produce an atmosphere their own particular life form can breathe, tough cookies.

the rest of the universe has each its own diversity of problems and doesn't owe those 'human' idiots a damd thing.

either they get their heads out of you know where, or they don't. and kill themselves by not doing so.

yes i'm stuck in one of their bodies, because i thought their species and their planet was worth saving when eveyone else thought the rest of the universe would be better off without them.

but there's only so much one of their number, and far from the brightest light among them can do about it, so all i can really do is hope. and rant.

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

Yeah, but for those of us that don't like death, and I can guarantee you that most of us posting here would die quite unpleasantly, that's sort of the worst option.

There's a typo in your poll. The second option should read: "Political pressure group just wants money and power - don't sweat it."

Just creat a couple of O'Neil Cylinder Colonies, reduce the population to 3 billion people, move the rest of Earth's population , institute a No-child policy, Convert the world into a massive supermarket, send probes to other Galaxies and search for resource rich planets, teraform Mars and the moon to fit our means, and problem solved. Its just that simple.

Yeah, but for those of us that don't like death, and I can guarantee you that most of us posting here would die quite unpleasantly, that's sort of the worst option.

I agree.

Not sure why you included the 'but'. I was simply agreeing with the cause-effect relationship hypothesized. I didn't advocate a position for you to argue against. :confused:

I agree.

Not sure why you included the 'but'. I was simply agreeing with the cause-effect relationship hypothesized. I didn't advocate a position for you to argue against. :confused:

I was more answering the original post, which seemed to be pretty cavalier about mass death as a way of solving resource problems.

I was more answering the original post, which seemed to be pretty cavalier about mass death as a way of solving resource problems.

I see.

It has nothing to do with the economy, or worse yet, suggest that we should rethink our economy.

In other words, the peope with all the money (i.e. the people with all the power) are not going to do anything about it.

I select the 3rd option because we're fucked, just not totally fucked. This stuff is old news from all directions.

It's as old as the first people who first pointed out that the resources that were being consumed by the industrial age were not infinite.

Both then and now there are those who point it out and those who don't want to stop believing in their infinite-resource fantasy.

No reason why we have to die out or our civilization collapse. We just need competant leaders and the willingness to accept living in comparative poverty and hardship as a bunch of shit runs out.

Having a President who doesn't shit on science would be another step in the right direction.

It has nothing to do with the economy, or worse yet, suggest that we should rethink our economy.

In other words, the peope with all the money (i.e. the people with all the power) are not going to do anything about it.
Could you tell me what they should actually do? Actual, real-life policies and actions? Or is this just another one of those directionless rants that have driven me away from the green movement?

Could you tell me what they should actually do? Actual, real-life policies and actions? Or is this just another one of those directionless rants that have driven me away from the green movement?

For a start, a concerted global campaign (I know, I'm fantasising here) should be made to at least try to "audit" the resources we do have, and a concerted campaign should try and bring our consumption of these resources in line with the rate they're being replenished. Eventually we're going to die off. But if we don't do this soon, the collapse of civilisation will be a lot sooner than perhaps preferable (and having used the abundant resources we had when we started out, it's unlikely civilisation will be coming back. Even if it did, why would it fair any better than we did?)

In short, we need to start living within our means, drastically.

Entirely unrelated but I am amazed, simply amazed, that we haven't built an underwater city yet.

This will happen, The Netherlands will be then called The wetterlands, although technically they won't be lands anymore (or at least a good portion of it). We just have to find a way to preserve everything under water and then, hey why not? No need for showers any more :)

For a start, a concerted global campaign (I know, I'm fantasising here) should be made to at least try to "audit" the resources we do have, and a concerted campaign should try and bring our consumption of these resources in line with the rate they're being replenished.
Well, the auditing part isn't too bad, though that'll take ages to start with, and the assumptions specified in the valuations would have to be argued over for months or even years. For that matter, what value would you attach to a rare, dying species of gorilla? They don't really provide mankind with anything other than what they call "existence value" - some sort of pleasure derived from knowing they exist. That number can be approximated in a survey - but do you really think some poor person in a South American slum will answer a survey like that having done a deep introspection on how much they like the idea of gorillas being alive somewhere?

But how can you modify consumption? Brazil is a great example of this: for them domestically, allowing parts of the Amazon to be destroyed for the sake of economic growth and social peace is a reasonable deal. For the globe, it's a bad thing. So the obvious solution might be to pay Brazil in exchange for it not destroying the Amazon - but you try and organise that on a worldwide scale!

In short, we need to start living within our means, drastically.
And I'd agree. I'm just not sure anyone can actually make a reasonable fist of specifying things any further than you are right now. The people who talk loudest are the green lobby, who have a tendency to be unreasonable. The people who have the skills to find solutions are economists, who tend to get ignored. And the people with the power to do things are politicians, who won't use them.

It's just like climate change - it's happening, we know it and we can tell that the consequences are going to suck. But we don't do anything meaningful on a global level, the most energetic response comes in sacrificing sports cars to the environmentalists - positive results: zero. And so there is little for me to do but sit back and be glad that I don't live in Bangladesh. We put up with a lot of shit from the institution of government, because it exists for a reason: situations like this, where you need some coordinating body to solve a problem. And now we find that they are incapable of doing so.

Just creat a couple of O'Neil Cylinder Colonies, reduce the population to 3 billion people, move the rest of Earth's population , institute a No-child policy, Convert the world into a massive supermarket, send probes to other Galaxies and search for resource rich planets, teraform Mars and the moon to fit our means, and problem solved. Its just that simple.

A couple of O'Neil Colonies would do nothing. Reducing the population that much would take either to long, or genocide. No child policies probably cannot be properly enforced without horribly violating people's rights.

Devoting more of our resources to food production would help, but might require a command economy or at least heavy rationing. Terraforming Mars is a good idea (though the moon is impossible), but it would be impractical to ship food back to earth, and impossible to do it quickly enough or relocate people their fast enough to overcome the population growth rate. The main advantage would be having a long term home for our species off world, so in a mass extinction some of our gene pool might survive. That, and the knowledge gained from terraforming Mars could be applied to Earth.

At least we don't have to go to other Galaxies to get resource rich planets. We should be strip mining asteroids for metals and minerals, and the Gas Giant's atmospheres contain potential sources of fuel for nuclear reactors.

Well, the auditing part isn't too bad, though that'll take ages to start with, and the assumptions specified in the valuations would have to be argued over for months or even years. For that matter, what value would you attach to a rare, dying species of gorilla? They don't really provide mankind with anything other than what they call "existence value" - some sort of pleasure derived from knowing they exist. That number can be approximated in a survey - but do you really think some poor person in a South American slum will answer a survey like that having done a deep introspection on how much they like the idea of gorillas being alive somewhere?

But how can you modify consumption? Brazil is a great example of this: for them domestically, allowing parts of the Amazon to be destroyed for the sake of economic growth and social peace is a reasonable deal. For the globe, it's a bad thing. So the obvious solution might be to pay Brazil in exchange for it not destroying the Amazon - but you try and organise that on a worldwide scale!


And I'd agree. I'm just not sure anyone can actually make a reasonable fist of specifying things any further than you are right now. The people who talk loudest are the green lobby, who have a tendency to be unreasonable. The people who have the skills to find solutions are economists, who tend to get ignored. And the people with the power to do things are politicians, who won't use them.

It's just like climate change - it's happening, we know it and we can tell that the consequences are going to suck. But we don't do anything meaningful on a global level, the most energetic response comes in sacrificing sports cars to the environmentalists - positive results: zero. And so there is little for me to do but sit back and be glad that I don't live in Bangladesh. We put up with a lot of shit from the institution of government, because it exists for a reason: situations like this, where you need some coordinating body to solve a problem. And now we find that they are incapable of doing so.

Well, there have been some recent attempts to put monetary value on environmental destruction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7696197.stm). Maybe that won't go anywhere, but I do find myself hoping that actually financial arguments like these are the beginning to the solution.

Because ultimately, I think saving individual species (like gorillas) has been an unnecessary distraction, and has made the environmental movement an irrelevant fringe seemingly unconcerned about actual human beings. I would say if a single change needs to be made to the message it is that this isn't about saving gorillas or pandas. It's about saving us - there isn't anywhere on earth I think that would benefit from an environmental catastrophe, only those so technologically undeveloped their lives wouldn't change. We, whether we care what the world looks like or not, need biodiversity to maintain our standard of living. We depend on it for disease resistant crops, pollination, new drugs, flood control, apparently even water purification. And the extent of our interdependence isn't even well understood yet.

And I would hope that if this were to become a big concern before it's too late, and politicians (who are normally very short sighted about things) became aware what the stakes were, they would be forced into global co-operation. It isn't the first time a threat of some kind has made them do so.

Also near in mind that while in many places, harming the environment profits in the short term, very often in the long term it does not. Iceland for example, used to be covered in forest, the Vikings then eroded away the soil with over-intensive farming, and the whole island is now largely barren wasteland, meaning there isn't much money to be made in farming today. So often its not even forcing people to act against their own self-interest, just to act against their short term self interest, (Brazil then can be persuaded this way, to an extent perhaps).

It might still be quite difficult, (to take another example) look at fisherman, they do everything they can to block and dodge quotas, yet if anyone in the world were to benefit from there being fish in the ocean, it would be them. And if that is any indication of how the rest of us will act in similar circumstances, oh dear :(

I'm of course being silly, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Except for nuclear power, elements don't just go away, we just have to find new ways of recovering them for reuse. This includes water.

I'm well aware of that, but I have zero confidence in mankinds ability to organize such efforts on the scale necessary to maintain current or even drastically reduced rates of usage.

I guess I'm just a pessimist today... :(

Wasnt there a tale of two tribes on an island competing to build the biggest statue to appease their god. They killed all the trees and thus themeselves to achieve their goal or being the best people on the island. I forget the name of it but it was stated in an ecology course. I see a very simular scenario happening today

everyone wants more. More technology, money, sex, power, or whatever. If we surpass the natural world and realize too late their will be mass extinction. In a way we are just following the natural population curve of a species such as the kangaroo.

We build up and up and up and then most of us die. Good news for you tho, your in the first world so it probably wont be you

Wasnt there a tale of two tribes on an island competing to build the biggest statue to appease their god. They killed all the trees and thus themeselves to achieve their goal or being the best people on the island. I forget the name of it but it was stated in an ecology course. I see a very simular scenario happening today

everyone wants more. More technology, money, sex, power, or whatever. If we surpass the natural world and realize too late their will be mass extinction. In a way we are just following the natural population curve of a species such as the kangaroo.

We build up and up and up and then most of us die. Good news for you tho, your in the first world so it probably wont be you

Easter Island - I can't remember the exact phrasing but Jared Diamond's book opens with, or at least the premise is: what was going through the mind of the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree on the island?

Could always just make exclusion zones for fishing vessels, something that's been done in the North Sea with outstandingly high effectiveness IIRC.

Could always just make exclusion zones for fishing vessels, something that's been done in the North Sea with outstandingly high effectiveness IIRC.

Exclusion zones only work if monitored continously. illegal fishing goes on everywhere. Countries have moved into other countries to fish. The worlds fishing vessels need to be halved at least to not overfish the oceans.

Hoping that you can just say "dont fish here" and its followed by everyone is ridiculously optimistic. All it takes is one person to ingore the rules and a year of conservation can be gone.

trust me exclusion zones are mostly hype. Heres a few references I used in an assignment this semester about the issue

Morato1 T, William W. L, Cheung and Pitcher T.J (2006) “Vulnerability of seamount fish to fishing: Fuzzy analysis of life-history attributes” Journal of fish biology Volume 68 Issue 1 Pages 209 - 22
Pitcher T.J, Watson R, Forrest R , Valtýsson H and Guénette S 2000, “Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: a basis for change” Fish and Fisheries, vol 3 issue 4, pp 317 – 339

Sherman K, Hoagland P 2005, Driving forces affection resource sustainability in large marine ecosystems http://www.iwlearn.net/publications/misc/hoaglandsherman_lme.pdf last viewed 19/10/08
Sodik D,M 2007, “Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing in Indonesian waters: The need for fisheries legislative reform” University of Woolongong
United Nations 1995, “1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks” http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/274/67/PDF/N9527467.pdf?OpenElemen last viewed 19/10/08
Vince J, 2002 “Policy responses to IUU fishing in Northern Australian waters”, Ocean & Coastal Management vol 50, issue 8, pp 683-698

Easter Island - I can't remember the exact phrasing but Jared Diamond's book opens with, or at least the premise is: what was going through the mind of the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree on the island?

"There's always another island". Of course, we've got the benefit of actually being able to get that next island so things might be a lot different than the people on Easter Island. When Europe was running low on quality wood in the later part of the 16th century, coal power was developed and the problem completely averted.

However, I'd say with quite a bit of confidence that we're not running out of natural resources any time soon. People said the exact same thing in the 1970's, but they failed to take in to account technology, recycling, or flat out additional exploration; these calculations for some reason always use current estimates of proven or viable reserves while failing to take in to account the total amount of that resource available.

That's why oil production in Saudi Arabia, or for that matter the entire world production has far exceeded initial predictions based on existing reserves in individual fields as well as the entire reserves of a given region.

We could shrink ourselves, which would increase the ratio of resources to Humans. One strawberry could feed a nation!

However, I'd say with quite a bit of confidence that we're not running out of natural resources any time soon. People said the exact same thing in the 1970's, but they failed to take in to account technology, recycling, or flat out additional exploration; these calculations for some reason always use current estimates of proven or viable reserves while failing to take in to account the total amount of that resource available.

That's why oil production in Saudi Arabia, or for that matter the entire world production has far exceeded initial predictions based on existing reserves in individual fields as well as the entire reserves of a given region.

The 1970's was only 30 or so years ago, which really isn't any length of time at all to boast about surviving through. If it really takes new technology and additional exploration just to push us through another couple of decades, it says a lot about our chances in a couple of centuries.

Look at oil. As pretty much our entire economy runs on it, if it were all to disappear tomorrow, civilisation would completely and irrevocably collapse and billions of people would die. And as of yet, there is nothing anywhere near to replacing it, even partially. Yet (at least a couple of years ago when I was still in school), it is predicted that we have 40 years of oil left. The potential disaster here is bigger then any challenge mankind has ever faced ever. So even if there was only a 10% chance of the worse case scenario happening it's enough to justify shitting yourself in fear over. You might say that there will be more in reserves, but even if that figure doubled, that is there is 100% more oil in the world than currently estimated, running out is still only 80 years away, and could well be within my own lifetime. So ultimately, that won't really make much of a difference

The figures might have changed recently, I don't know. But assuming they haven't, it would seem like one of two things will happen by the end of this century (really really not far away at all).

1) We've ended our dependence on oil (but no-one seems interested in doing that at the moment)
2) Civilisation has pretty much ceased to exist

Maybe a little over-dramatic. But perhaps we should be.

oil can be replaced with technology.

Animals and plants cant

That is a far better way to judge how screwed we are. I could live without oil for decades if I went to lived a huter gatherer life style. However I couldnt live without eating for a week.

Our oceans are being fished at around 200% capacity. Billions of people are starving. Water shortages will extend to a third of the world by 2050 according to the World Health Organization.

Thoes are the types of numbers that worry me. And even at this time the poorest are giving birth to an increasingly large population and we continue to change the world in a way that will eventually bite us in the ass.

The people wanting to terraform Mars are forgetting one thing. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to protect the atmosphere from solar flares. Just one solar flare or storm, and that precious breathable atmosphere goes right out the window, and you're back at square one.

i think that this has happenneed at various times throughout life's history ..

yes we need to be anxious but not that anxious, it will happen anyway over time by itsefl , though it might now be happening faster than usual ..i say that we do the best we can without harming our natural rates of development and if we crash, we crash that is the way of nature ..

even if humans all die, so what ? life will still carry on in another form after us ?

We could shrink ourselves, which would increase the ratio of resources to Humans. One strawberry could feed a nation!

Or maybe the strawberries would eat us! Or those killer tomatoes that haunted my childhood...

The people wanting to terraform Mars are forgetting one thing. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to protect the atmosphere from solar flares. Just one solar flare or storm, and that precious breathable atmosphere goes right out the window, and you're back at square one.

By the time we have the ability to terraform Mars, I'm sure we will have force field technology, and we can shield Mars from the elements of space.


An alternative would be to make massive Bio-domes on Mars

A couple of O'Neil Colonies would do nothing. Reducing the population that much would take either to long, or genocide. No child policies probably cannot be properly enforced without horribly violating people's rights.
Remove maternity leave, put all the cost of the raising the child on the parents. Thus, only the well-off will be able to afford to have kids, and as there's always more poor people than rich people, not many will.

Of course first we should dispose of the Africa and other low-productivity zones.

hopefully we die before we get rulky screwed. otherwise im just gonna keep goin as um goin

Remove maternity leave, put all the cost of the raising the child on the parents. Thus, only the well-off will be able to afford to have kids, and as there's always more poor people than rich people, not many will.

Of course first we should dispose of the Africa and other low-productivity zones.

or have net zero migration and have a hard line against illegal migrants. The first world has an overall dropping population. And any countries first and overriding concern is to the well being of their people. Allowing too many people into an environment can destroy the whole environment including the illegal migrants.

Send women to Venus. Send men to Mars. Let transgender people have Earth. Problem solved.

So the woman would die due to cold and chemical poisoning, the men would die due to a solar flare and the transgender people will die of genetic failure. Are you after human erradication or long term survival?

More good news...



Interestingly, water...



The usual suspects...



So seriously, how perturbed are we supposed to be about all this? On the one hand, the clamour from scientists seems deafening but on and on we rush, either the message is grossly overstated or we are soon going to be galactic recipients of the Darwin Awards.

What's the deal?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats)

Ever read Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question"?

My solution is that we all take off our clothes and run in the streets, screaming, "We're all gonna DIE!"

So the woman would die due to cold and chemical poisoning, the men would die due to a solar flare and the transgender people will die of genetic failure. Are you after human erradication or long term survival?

Actually, the women would overheat rather than freeze. Not only is Venus closer to the sun than the earth, it's atmosphere is filled with greenhouse gases, making it the hottest planet in the Solar system. So, basically, the women would burn, what with Venus being hot and women getting hot flashes.

As for moving to Mars, I doubt it. It would take incredible technological improvements to be able to survive on Mars for extended periods and it's foolish for your plan A, B, or C to rely on something that might not even exist in time.

We're short-sighted. We could lower our consumption, but that would be inconvenient. People want solutions. They just don't want to be any of the ones doing any of the work. I'm trying to do my part. I walk places and don't do much exercise, which allows me to eat less food without the inconvenience of starvation or malnutrition. That's right. We have legs for a reason.

Actually, the women would overheat rather than freeze. Not only is Venus closer to the sun than the earth, it's atmosphere is filled with greenhouse gases, making it the hottest planet in the Solar system. So, basically, the women would burn, what with Venus being hot and women getting hot flashes.

Actually, they'd probably die from the pressure before they'd melt.

Or maybe both would kill them at the same time.

The key to survival is expansion!
Agreed!Makes me lament the 25yrs spent idle after the Apollo Moon landings.We should have been out there exploring more and finding more resources and new places to colonize.

are technology sucks at the moment. Its not financially viable to do anything on the moon let alone another plannet. Expansion is way off. We need to work out how to travel safely and alot quicker in a vacuum before we should even consider taking over mars

So the woman would die due to cold and chemical poisoning, the men would die due to a solar flare and the transgender people will die of genetic failure. Are you after human erradication or long term survival?

Lol, you don't understand jokes.

we dig for more water
solves water and economic problems

even if humans all die, so what ? life will still carry on in another form after us ?

Seriously, though, who gives a shit about other life? The preservation of our species is the only thing that matters...I'd wipe out every other species on Earth if it meant ensuring mankind's survival. Of course, that's an entirely ludicrous point, but the underlying theme is that no other species in existence is as important as our own. Mankind has to be preserved for as long as is possible, no matter the cost.

I claim Mars in the name of myself and hereby declare myself the first Emperor of Mars and I do hereby declare that no alien nation my counter my claims to said world.

Furthermore, all fans of 40k are automatically citizens of my world and that all nerds are welcome to reside on my planet, except Ruffy he shall never be welcome. LG you are made the supreme high lord of all things funny and are put in charge of all mental wards, e.g. Star Trek Conventions.

All these worlds are yours except europa. Attempt no landings there

Seriously, though, who gives a shit about other life? The preservation of our species is the only thing that matters...No it doesn't. My survival is the only thing that matters; the rest of mankind can go screw itself.

Mankind has to be preserved for as long as is possible, no matter the cost.Let's pickle them all; vacuum sealed and irradiated.

If we wanted to solve the problem, we'd have to:
Change from single houses to high rise apartment complexs
Food and water rationing
Moving groups of people to different locations where there is more room (US and Russia)
Building cities on water and in antartica
Ween ourselves off oil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetalia
Seriously, though, who gives a shit about other life? The preservation of our species is the only thing that matters...

No it doesn't. My survival is the only thing that matters; the rest of mankind can go screw itself.

And both your surivals are based upon other species. Unless you dont eat and vegetables, fruit, grains or meat.