Will Earth Expire By 2050? 1638
_josh writes: "Will overconsumption force humanity off this planet in less than 50 years? It may sound sci-fi, but according to the WWF in this story at the Observer, it's entirely possible. Maybe now I can convince my brother not to buy that SUV ..." Take with as large a grain of salt as you think appropriate.
Another option? (Score:5, Insightful)
The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.
Okay, does this strike anyone as leaving out the most likely option? It's highly unlikely we'll massively change our ways. It's also highly unlikely that we'll colonize other planets in the next 50 years.
What's that leave? Simple! Massive resource wars! Woohoo!
It just amazes me that the whole article ignores the inevitable outcome... we'll all fight over dwindling resources, thus thinning the population down to sustainable levels.
predictions... (Score:2, Insightful)
I love reading about our doom... its so funny.
rerun, over and over again (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's all throw off our clothes, turn off the lights, and eat the grass in our lawns. That will last about a week and then we'll start eating each other and soon die of all sorts of diseases normally prevented by hygiene, running water and refrigeration (and not eating human meat).
Re:Another option? (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the WWF's motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
However, when reading this, keep in mind that the WWF subsists on donations from people interested in saving the environment. As such, the WWF's existence is dependent upon people being concerned about the state and future of the planet's environment. If they release a report saying "the environment's future is looking better," then donations will decrease. So of course anything they're going to release publicly will be about how the environment is deteriorating and more donations are needed to help things out.
I don't think this necessarily invalidates their conclusions, but it certainly is germane to consider the motivations of the issuer when evaluating a report.
Re:Maybe Malthus was right (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it isn't. The developed countries are actually LOSING population.
The best way to cut back on population growth is by high technology, the very thing the greenies are trying to stop.
There's plenty of food to go around. It's just poorly distributed, and equitable distribution requires 1) Cheap energy and 2) the rule of law.
the short answer: no (Score:3, Insightful)
As the lyrics to an In Flames song goes:
Species come and species go, but the Earth stands forever fast
Re:Another option? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.
I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
Fuckin SUVs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:50 years? Or 5000 years? (Score:1, Insightful)
Similarly, the Y2K bug was hyped for a reason - to get people doing something about it so it actually went smoothly in the end. Without the hype, we probably would have problems much worse than automatic web pages printing '19100'.
Analyzing the future, and publishing the results, generally changes the described outcome as people do something about it.
it is unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting people in space will take alot of resources, and not gain us much. How much fuel would it take to bring back a useful amount of grain from Mars? The article really doesn't give justification for this claim.
They fail to note that we don't need to only use farms, in the conservative sense. If things really get that bad, there will be a massive switch to hydroponics, which would yield a huge yield per unit land. Want meat? It isn't hard to raise huge numbers of cattle and pigs in stalls that are the same size as the animals. It is considered inhumane (and illegal in the US) now, but if mass starvation is the alternative I think this will change very quick. To say that the surface of the earth cannot support us in 50 years is stupid.
This reminds me of an article that said that at the current rate of consumption, the plants chocolate comes from will be extinct by (i think) 2008. Well duh. Does that mean that it really will become extinct? No, it means we will make plant more to match the increasing rate of consumption. As I said above, space isn't close to being a limiting factor.
Another thing; it is alot easier and cheaper to mow down civilians than to set up farms on mars. Do you really doubt places like China would hesitate if they felt it was necessary?
That said, I don't thing that things like 'resource wars' will come about anytime soon (bigger than the current ones I mean; we already have had wars in the middle east over resources). People will just switch to more costly but higher yield/more efficient alternatives. It is cheaper to do so than to start a war or randomly kill people.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting they compare the United States' use of resources to that of Burundi. This comparison is truly startling. For those who enjoy startling statistics, allow me to offer a few others:
The population of Burundi is expanding at three times the rate of the United States. The percentage of people in Burundi infected with HIV/AIDS is 20 times that of the United States. The average lifespan in Burundi is 31 years shorter than that of a person living in the United States. The literacy rate of Burundi is 35%. 1 in 3000 people have Internet access. (Statistics courtesy of CIA World Factbook).
Are you still interested in reducing your resource consumption by a factor of 24? Personally, I'm not interested in selling my pickup, as I don't think it has any connection to the fact that the number of black rhinos has fallen from 65,000 to 3,100. Considering that my "extravagant lifestyle" doesn't involve poaching, I don't think I can help.
As an aside, this article brings one more thing to mind: every environmentalist needs to understand that he is not "saving the Earth." He is only saving himself and his descendants. The Earth will recover from every incosiderate act man has done to it in the blink of an eye (relative to its lifetime), and graciously replace us with other species if we destroy our way of life.
And Timothy, you might want to encourage your brother to go ahead and buy that new SUV. If his current car is more than five years old, that new SUV will be adding less pollution to the atmosphere.
Out of time? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, economics will come into play. Sooner or later, prices will increase as the resources we consume start running low. At that point, we will have no choice but to use alternate, more efficient sources of energy and farming techniques because the efficient energy sources will be cheaper.
This article? Propaganda. Of course we will not be able to continue eating up resources at this rate forever. We will stop when the resources start running low and become too expensive to be practical. I have no doubt that the creativity and pragmatism that has sustained us so far will continue to keep us alive.
~Ben
Different Solutions to the same problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chinese want to go to the Moon [slashdot.org].
And the U.S., in classic Bush-family fashion, wants to go to Iraq. The casualties on both sides, combined with whatever nearby countries Hussein manages to hit with his chemical/biological weapons should allow us to stay on Earth until at least 2055.
The rest of the world seems more or less content that we will not be forced off the planet. Those who can't find food won't be able to eat and balance will be maintained.
Re:Another option? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, This is Strange!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess this wasn't as important 18 hours ago? Ahh well, that's Slashdot journalism for you... it must have been a slow news day today. Or maybe they're just gay. I suppose it's who's at the controls at that particular time --- oh wait, it WAS timothy!
some salt, some truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it's 50 years or 500, we are currently using resources faster than they are replenished. And the U.S. does consume a disproportionate amount of the resources in the world.
100% accurate or not, reports like this aren't going to change the way the U.S. lives -- we're too comfortable in our lifestyles to make big changes. It's going to take some catastrophic change that impacts the U.S. directly to get us to wake up. Unfortunately it's developing countries which are going to feel those changes first.
Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone needs something to believe in. If it worth-while to them, then they are gonna preach to the largest group they can get. The best way is to send tripe like this to a Publisher and let them send it off. I personally believe if we get to the point to where over-consumption is starting to strip earth of it's resources, one of three things will happen (probably the 1st choice is most likely)
1:War
2:Famine
3:technology
War, because well, if enough people want something, there will be fighting over it. Human nature.
Famine, such as what we are seeing STILL in Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rowanda, etc. Although I don't believe that is a direct result of not enough resources, it's human greed/power struggle again. The UN tried to help, ended up saying screw it, die if you want to, silly fools.
Technology:
An example used in an earlier post was CFCs. Well, they turned out to be bad, so technology allowed us to move past using them into more environment friendly products. You can also thank the 80's hair styles for a lot of that pollution. My god, 1 can of hair spray an evening is too much.
I would like to see stats on whether or not paper consumption has dropped since the advent of the web and email. No one really brings it up. If anyone can find a link that would be cool if you posted it here.
This is one case where I hope that the enviro-nuts are completely wrong....but I fear we DID head down the wrong track on a lot of things, luckily it appears we have righted the ship.
P.S. get that SUV. Nice rides, and useful if you have a boat or actually use it for something other than a UAV. (Urban Assualt Vehicle)
HIV & AIDS (Score:2, Insightful)
Economics (Score:3, Insightful)
You can bet that once prices start to rise to check consumption, the government will step in "in the name of the people" and fix prices.
Hell, it happened in the 1970's with Nixon's price controls on gas and gave us long lines at the pump and gas shortages.
The truth is that, when the market gives people economic information they don't like, they try to use the political process to make it go away instead of making changes in their habits.
When prices go up, instead of conserving, they'll bitch about those "evil greedy corporations." Hey, just like on Slashdot. The fact is, people don't change unless it hits them in the wallet, and they'll do everything they can to stop that from happening.
If the market suggests they be paid less for their out-dated skills because of less demand, they'll blame someone else. It happens over and over. People want it all for nothing.
I think what will happen ultimately is that the democratic process will force us all to drown together.
Figured out why .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of helping the "third world" countries with infrastructure, stable government, and ways NOT to pollute, they want to take the "first world" countries and take wealth away from them and give it to the poorer countries (of course, they'll help do the redistribution ... one for you, one for me)
Go ahead and mod me down for this, because it is a different angle on this type of story.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. They REALLY aren't that nice, they handle like a cow, they accelerate like a brick wall, they stop like a falling piano, and they soak up gasoline like a sponge. Does that make them unuseful? No. Not at all. Granted, they're VERY useful if you tow a boat. Most people don't have boats. SOME of them have wonderful offroad capabilities, most don't. Esspecially not the really big luxury variety, which tend to do the worst off of the road. They only win awards for reasons like space for fitting your kids and groceries or number of televisions for the passengers, and not stuff like ground clearance or horsepower at the wheels. They can't be winning awards for those things, because if they WERE then the ones that would be winning you will strangely find are the ones that seem the least luxurious (the ones that have been around the longest).
You see, you say "GET THE SUV" assuming everyone is going to use it the way you do. Here's a bit of reality that I'm going to stick in your eye like a hot stick sharped to a point. ALMOST NOBODY will use it the way you do. Almost everyone WILL use it as an Urban Assult Vehicle.
I live in an area where people actually NEED these kinds of vehicles, and they STILL treat them like minivans.
It makes me sick right up until I see that one with 6 feet of ground clearance, 4 foot tall tires, a ladder to climb into the cabin, and an inch of mud all over the entire thing. Then I can't help but smile.
Re:WWF! (Score:1, Insightful)
Insightful? What a load of crap. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't use economic arguments. Why? Beacuse our current economics don't take into account the cost of pollution (externalities) -- what makes you think that things will change in 50 years? Has current pollution made us change? Please.
What we need is reasoned leadership, not to keep running towards what everyone knows is a cliff. By the time we get there we may not be able to stop... how can we bring extinct species back? how can we stop global warming... Assume for a moment that global warming is like any force, just beacuse the change is still relatively small doesn't mean that the accelleration isn't huge. Once you want to "change" it's like stopping a car... it will take a while. A long while. If it took us 200 years to start serious warming, it may very well take us 300 years to do the cooling. And by then it may be just too late.
There are four types of people: those who are ignorant and know it; those who are knowlegable and don't; those that are knowlegable and know it; and those who are ignorant but think that they are knowlegable. You my fellow biped are in the latter category; and what a dangerous person you are beacuse of this. Why a moderator would mark you as insightful is beyond me. Spreading ignorance under the guise of wisdom is the worst of all sins.
Re:Another option? (Score:5, Insightful)
*evil grin* - well-done! (I'd have tried to set up an auction system within the confines of the game. Them that has, buys. Them that can't buy, starves, leaving more for the rest of us! ;-)
In History class in high school, we had a teacher who broke us up into groups to play "Diplomacy", two moves a day, for a week. I started out as Britain - good mobility, but horrible logistical problems.
First move: Tell the French I won't take the English Channel if they don't, because Germany's the real enemy.
Actual move: Take the Channel, of course.
France to teacher: "That wasn't fair!"
Me to teacher: "Hey, Fog of War, these things happen, right?"
Teacher to class: (Brief explanation of the object lesson - things like this might be accidents, but might not be, and it's up to the players to judge their risks accordingly when they decide whom to trust.)
Second move: Apologize profusely to France in private and to players I see France hanging around. Blame the Germans for tricking me into thinking he was going to go after the Channel despite our agreement not to. Suggest he take North Africa while I withdraw from the Channel and head towards Denmark.
Actual move: Figure he's fallen for it again, and invade France. Yup, he fell for it again. Oldest trick in the "Diplomacy" playbook.
France to teacher: "That's not fair!"
Me to teacher: "Napoleon said God was on the side with the greatest battalions. Voltaire disagreed and said that God wasn't on the side with the largest battalions, but with the best shots. Thanks to my opponent not listening to his generals or his philosophers, now I have both."
Teacher to class: "Some of you weren't paying attention last turn. 'Fair' is determined by who can do what, to whom, when, and with how much materiel. [...and with that, he had an easy segue into WW2 history and Barbarossa...]"
The game got easier from there. By the end of the week, over half of Europe was mine. 2/3 of the class was at war with me and losing badly due to infighting amongst themselves, and the other 1/3 had been eliminated.
> I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...
Bummer about your econ teacher. I was lucky enough to have a cool enough History teacher that I got an "A" for my treachery :-)
Thus my idea of. . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
and if that fails?
Could somebody PLEEEEAAASSEEEE legalize strangling the motherfuckers to death? PLEASE
Yes the adoption system in America needs to be revamped, but that is no excuse for having buttloads of kids! People who cannot love a child because of the color of the child's skin should NOT be parents at all.
Re:denying the statistics, preaching to the choir (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, with only 1/3 of the earth land, and even less than that actually habitable, I think the first thing we'd run out of given enough technological innovation is a place to stand.
What will happen will be this - eventually we will run out of oil... rather - the cost of getting more oil out of the earth will outweigh the value of the barrel of oil you could extract. I hope fervently for this day, since while everyone equates this with disaster, this will solve the vast majority of our problems. This will stop the pollution that makes me wheeze. Nuclear waste is amazingly insignificant when compared with burning coal and oil. Just build a big lead thing, deposit the (amazingly, amazingly small) 30,000 tons/year, and keep it around for a thousand years, by which I'm sure some bright boy will have developed a way to use electricity to power am effecient railgun, and fire it off into space a bit at a time. Then just keep on keeping on until we either run out of room to stand, or run out of material to power a nuclear power plant. By that time (upsettingly far in the future) well, someone else can come up with another damn idea.
Re:Another option? (Score:1, Insightful)
You don't thin the population that consumes the most resources in proportion to its size. You would thin the population that consumes the most resources in proportion to HOW MUCH IT PRODUCES. That's the only logical way to compare pollution levels.
The question is: For every ton of CO2 you produce, how many dollars of "wealth" do you create for the world? If some country produces 10 tons of CO2 and creates $1000 of wealth ($100 per ton) and another country produces 20 tons of CO2 but produces $6000 of wealth ($300 per ton) then those that should be thinned is the first group--because they are not making good use of the resources.
So... let's compare the United States in that light. Take Per Capita GDP and divide it by Per Capita CO2 pollution... That gives you the Per Capita wealth created for each ton of CO2 produced. The higher the number the better. We'll start with the worst and see what countries should be "thinned" before the U.S. Some entires are omitted.
1. Papua New Guinea. $2500/person divided by 10.33 Tons CO2 per person = $242 per Ton CO2 produced.
2. North Korea. $1000 / 4.02 = $248/ton.
8. Cuba. $1700 / 2.78 = $611/ton.
18. Iraq. $2500 / 3.16 = $791/ton.
20. Poland. $8500 / 8.7 = $977/ton.
26. South Africa. $8500 / 7.39 = $1150/ton.
35. China. $3600 / 2.38 = $1512/ton.
38. Canada. $24800 / 15.05 = $1640/ton.
41. Zimbabwe. $2500 / 1.41 = $1773/ton.
47. United States. $36200 / 18.29 = $1909/ton.
So before we start criticizing Americans driving SUVs, let's look at some of the above countries first. For example, the three "major" countries that are still communist (China, Cuba, North Korea) all contaminate more than the U.S. considering their contribution to world wealth...
Let's get a grip. Contrary to popular belief, the United States isn't the world's "#1 polluter." At best, it's the #47 polluter.
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
>certain resources become scarce, they will become
>expensive, and people will be forced to stop using
>them and seek alternatives.
Okay, there's some scaremongering going on here, but it's wholly justified. The article says if we continue to exploit our resources at this rate, we'd exhaust them. The prudent person, when facing a famine, will lower their consumption in advance in order to lessen their suffering during the famine. A rainforest saved is a rainforest earned.
There will be a real, painful, human price to pay for Western consumption if we don't prepare. Millions of real people are currently starving to death because of Western selfishness. Things are going to get a hell of a lot worse in the next century, and eventually the suffering will catch up with us.
Your pickup truck runs on gasoline. Gasoline comes from oil. Oil comes from the ground. There's a finite amount of it in the world. Somebody has to find that oil and more often than not they have to displace some black rhinos to do it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every resource you use that isn't recycled must come from some part of the ecosystem. We're in the middle of one of the largest extinctions in the history of the Earth and human consumption is the cause.
I'm not particularly interested in saving the Earth for the Earth's sake. I believe in humanity and I want to see humanity survive in the long term. I want to see humanity's suffering end as soon as possible. If we screw the Earth, we're screwing ourselves. There is a real, dire human cost to unfettered materialism.
You can't prove that the Earth will spring back from our meddling. There's plenty of things we are capable of doing that could destroy the Earth. Nuclear war, for instance. Wars will be fought over whatever resources are left when they get scarce, don'tchaknow. Drinkable water, for instance, is going to be a big deal in the coming years. Water wars will make the current Middle East crisis look like a playground scuffle. We only have a raise the Earth's mean temperature by several degrees until all but the sturdiest (and least sophisticated) forms of life can survive. It's been said that Venus looked a lot like Earth until its volcanoes created a Greenhouse effect.
Pollution isn't the only thing wrong with SUVs. And there are certainly more environmentally friendly ways to get around town. God forbid people trade in their precious cars for bus passes and car sharing programs.
All the 'used' resources are still here (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, the easy to use resources will run out. Things like petroleum, fresh water, timber and such - but with enough energy we can replace those things. Sure, it's costly to such CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it to make petrochemicals, but with enough energy it certainly can be done. Sure it's hellaciously expensive to run a de-salination plant instead of diverting another river - but with cheap enough energy it becomes cost effective. Sure, we may eventually run out of easy to exploit copper mines, but all the copper we have ever mined is still out there - it might be hard to find and convert, but again, with enough energy it's doable.
It's all a problem of energy. If we have enough of it we can keep recylcing the natural resource that are already here, indefinitely. Instead of shipping our idiot progeny off to space, we should be sending up orbital power stations. If they captured just a minute fraction of the solar energy that passes between the earth and the moon's orbit we'd have absolutely no resource problems and the only waste product we'd have to worry about in the long run is heat.
-josh
Re:Consumption vs. Morality (Score:3, Insightful)
You also do not realize how immune we are to our own culture. We all know to question advertisements, we are used to them, and they are just there to make money for the company. However, people in 3rd world countries who have never been exposed to the corporate advertising machine don't realize that they are being LIED to (many of these countrys do not have regulations against mis information / mis leading ads, because they are willing to take any money they can get).
A companies only interest is in money. Making more of it, acquiring more wealth, and the end result is that the only way to regulate companies is through their proverbial wallet.
That is why nestle has stopped its ads. It started losing revenue in first world nations because of it.
Our freedom has come at the cost of others. Those others have started to strike back, and it is going to get worse. Realize the privileges that you have, and do something for the better, not for you.
Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)
my integra can tow a boat too (up to 1 1/2 tons), and get 28 mpg when it's doing it. i guarantee it rides better than the SUV, does better in bad weather and it'll get close to 40 mpg without a boat on the hitch. The integra is also a LEV (as is every car that honda makes.)
now what's so great about these SUV's? oh yea, you're much more likely to flip over and die horribly in them, which, considering the people who usually buy them, isn't that bad.
Re:In a related story... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another option? (Score:2, Insightful)
AMEN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the alarmists who think we'll run out of oil are only considering the idea that the last deposits of oil will be in the Persian Gulf.
How wrong they are! Considering the following factors of the last 12 years:
1. The oilfields of the former Soviet Union are now being exploited on a very large scale by Western oil companies. There are massive oilfields in Siberia and Kazakhstan have barely been touched, not to mention we haven't even begun to exploit the Caspian Sea oilfields on a large scale.
2. China has large oilfields in Xinjiang Province that haven't been exploited due to transportation issues.
3. Afghanistan is potentially sitting on top of a big oilfield.
4. The Gulf of Mexico--according to British Petroleum engineers--have an amazingly large amount of oil yet to be exploited. The only reason why we haven't gotten more is the high expense of drilling for oil well into the Gulf of Mexico.
5. Canada has huge tracts of oil tar sands that could yield enough oil to equal all of the Persian Gulf states combined.
6. The Saudis are only concentrating their oil production on the oilfields near the Persian Gulf, not yet exploiting oilfields in other parts of the country. Tests by ARAMCO engineers have shown there are large oil deposits in the southern part of Saudi Arabia (called the Empty Quarter), but the Saudis have yet to tap these oilfields.
As for the issue of food production, the very rapid development of farm machinery, agricultural chemicals and better means to store and transport food has increased the amount and variety of food available to everyone on a scale that is mind-boggling. Think about it: compare what is available at your local food market in 1902 versus 2002, and you can eat foodstuffs today from literally all over the world.
In short, the alarmists don't know what they're talking about--a classic case of junk science.
Enviros getting in over their head again (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you start thinking about all the unused lumber that went up in flames that would have been cut down (usable)...which really would have saved many more acres and you just get sick.
Thanks to them I'm personally out five acres of personal land and the nice camping trailer that was on it.
I'm sure the smoke was great for the air too...yah, that reminds me. The old-lady neighbor of my parents died the day after the worst forest-fire-smoke day and complaining about breathing problems.
They're extremests and nothing more. There needs to be compromise and smart management of forests...and we've been letting these whacos (with strange ideals and no knowledge of logic, reasoning, and cause-effect) tell us how to manage our natural resources.
If we continue to listen to groups like the WWF we probably will do something stupid to make the earth expire by 2050.
I vote for common sense.
Re:Figured out why .... (Score:3, Insightful)
80 years ago the Social planners were fond of claiming absurdities like "One factory could produce enough shoes for the worlds population if the greedy owners weren't so selfish" The Modern Eco movement started when it became apparent that Socalism was incapable of providing proserity for everyone. Rather than castigating the Rich for not producing enough shoes for everyone they blame them for wasting resources by producing any shoes at all, and proclaim the "moral superority" of those who go barefoot.
80 years ago the "poor" was the excuse to destroy the wealthy. Now the enviroment is the excuse. The excuse has changed, the goal (destruction of the Rich) and the real reason (Envy) remain the same.
Re:Thus my idea of. . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
And aren't you quite arrogant to assume that your view is "correct" and should be imposed?
People who have excess amounts of childern are forcing THEIR world view of "I am better then you are I don't give a shit if the world goes to hell I am going to have loads of little brats so HAH!" on everybody else. . .
Re:Past predictions were all wrong, why believe th (Score:1, Insightful)
Paul Ehrlich vs. Julian Simon (Score:3, Insightful)
The best resource for countering doomsayers is the writings of Julian Simon. People who get a perverse pleasure from proclaiming doom hate him. A good introduction to "doomslaying" is Wired Magazine's interview [wired.com] with Julian Simon.
Liberal's Delimma... (Score:4, Insightful)
About 15 years ago I remember the "Skeptical Environmentalists" saying that the temperature of the earth won't even go up one degree by 2050. Well. It appears as if they are wrong. In some parts (the artic regions) we are anywhere from 4 to 7 degrees warmer. As I remember, it may have even been Julian who made these predictions (or who re-quoted them).
It's clear that we are seeing an acceleration in global warmth which is going to dramatically change our climate (and is doing so as we speak). What are you going to do about it? Close your eyes and say that we humans will adapt? Do you have that much faith in technology... I don't. How can you be sure it doesn't warm even faster?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather err on the "conservative" side of things and take action now rather than wait till it becomes a crisis. No?
Re:Another option? (Score:2, Insightful)
Food Supply and Population Growth (Score:3, Insightful)
I will list what I know of population dynamics, in order to show you my point of view.
Even if a 50-year limit seems like an alarmist position, many conservative scientists agree that 100 years looks like the maximum timeframe. Change must happen quickly for us to save a habitat that humanity can live in.
Some possible research materials for you:
http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdf [ku.edu]1 02 6074943.htm
[sciencedaily.com]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/01
[ishmael.com]
http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Science/
---
Jt
crulx@iaxs.net
Re:Another option? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a turn lasts an hour, you'll spend 40-50 minutes talking strategy with your enemies and/or allies. (i.e. doing "diplomacy" in the real-world sense of the word). This is the meaty (and the fun) part of the game.
Then you write down your orders for your troops, and everyone reveals their orders at once (usually to cries of "you bastards!", "oops!", or both) When the orders are unsealed, it's deterministic - no random elements; things "work" or "don't work" based on whether you've been able to persuade your allies to go along with your plan, or misled your adversaries into traps.
Real-world example - History of WW2/Europe written as though it were a game of "Diplomacy":
Thankfully, all three leaders in '45 were smart enough to realize the difference between bits of wood on a cardboard map and 50 million dead (on all sides) plus another 20-30 million to "finish the game".
(And also thankfully, when you're playing Diplomacy, it is just bits of wood on a cardboard map, so you can just "go for world domination" with a clean conscience :-)
Science Fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe that enviromentalist wacko crap.
No, here again we see "enviromentalists" pulling at peoples emotions. If they were really concerned about the enviroment they would use some actual science and come up with some real answers.
Sorry but camping in trees, jumping nude in front of logging trucks, or posting sci-fi stories on the internet doesn't make anyone appear knowlegable. It certainly doesn't do anything towards presenting a solution to whatever you think the problem is.
Re:Kyoto is all politics (Score:2, Insightful)
the article says:
America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.
The UK does have hot running water, automobiles, computers, TVs and sturdy houses _and_ it is also an industrialised nation..
Germany also does quite well if these figures are to be believed..
So does the EU want to 'cripple' the US so it can 'catch up'? (see discussion above)
I find the US patriotism in these discussions
a bit scary - does any criticism of the US have to be dismissed as an 'Unamerican' threat?
what does the US EPA think?
US Climate Action Report 2002 - chapter 6:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications
"Based on studies to date, unless there is inadequate or poorly distributed precipitation, the net effects of climate change on the agricultural segment of the U.S. economy over the 21st century are generally projected to be positive"
I live in Australia which is following the US lead not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and is also up there with the US in the per capita greenhouse emissions.. & I don't interpret environmental concern as an "attack" on my country.
Re:some salt, some truth (Score:5, Insightful)
We aren't sitting in the dark. Alternative sources of light were developed. The distillation of Kerosene from Petroleum turned worthless black goo into a valued resource. The development of Coal gas created a new source of lighting, gas lights that were better than the oil lamps and used a resource that was far more plentiful than Whales. Natural Gas replaced Coal gas, turning a hazzardous substance that was found while looking for oil into a resource. The electric light turned waterfalls into a resource that could be used for lighting.
Before these developments Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Waterfalls were NOT resources. The first two were natural hazzards that decreased the value of land that they were found on, and the last decreased the value of rivers as transportation sources.
This is nothing new. In the Stone age Flint was the prefered material to make tools out of. Copper Ore was a worthless rock that didn't have the properity of flaking evenly that was needed to make tools. The discovery of smelting turned those worthless greenish rocks into a resource and averted a tool shortage caused by flint being a finate resource.
Today having a full landfill on your properity is NOT viewed as a resource. It's a nucance that decreases the value of the land. That landfill may be like having oil on your land in 1850. New technology may transform that worthless land full of garbage into a new resource.
New evidence that we're doing better.... (Score:1, Insightful)
More seriously though, do they really advocate us trying to move to another planet? Launching a space ship is one of the most polluting things we do. Seriously, the indsutry required to build and launch enough space ships to colonize other planets would dramatically increase the pollution (and presumably hugely accelerate the death of the earth). It would seem that they really haven't thought through this at all, but are just using it as a scare tactic and give them something to do.
They tend to do that a lot. If we were to listen to all the environmental groups, we'd quite cutting down trees and start making all our buildings out of metal and concrete, which require far more pollution and resources to produce than does timber. One of the former heads of green peace actually admitted that timber is our most renewable resource and perhaps the one we least have to worry about. But save the iron just doesn't have the same appeal as save the trees!
Re:Another option? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the most likely thing is that the report is complete tosh. We will continue our "extravagant" lifestyles, but the planet will remain perfectly habitable. 30 years ago, there was another group of pompous, solemn pseudo-scientists called the "Club of Rome" who predicted that if trends continued, the earth would experience eco-disasters (pollution, exhausted resources) within about 25 years. What actually happened is that developed countries burn less coal, eliminated leaded gasoline, developed better catalytic converters, use resources more efficiently, etc.