March 30, 2005
MALTHUSIANS NEVER GIVE UP (via Rick Turley):
Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up' (Tim Radford, March 30, 2005, The Guardian)
The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure.The study contains what its authors call "a stark warning" for the entire world. The wetlands, forests, savannahs, estuaries, coastal fisheries and other habitats that recycle air, water and nutrients for all living creatures are being irretrievably damaged. In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself.
"Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says.
The intense competition for dwindling resources would certainly explain how much speciation we observe.
MORE (via Mike Daley)::
Shaping the Future: Scientific uncertainty often becomes an excuse to ignore long-term problems, such as climate change. It doesn't have to be so (Steven W. Popper, Robert J. Lempert and Steven C. Bankes, 3/28/05, Scientific American)
Striking a balance between the economy and the environment is one leading example of the difficulty in using science to inform long-term decisions. In his 2002 book The Future of Life, Edward O. Wilson described the debate between economists and environmental scientists [see "The Bottleneck," by Edward O. Wilson; Scientific American, February 2002]. The former group frequently argues that present policies will guide society successfully through the coming century. Technological innovation will reduce pollution and improve energy efficiency, and changes in commodity prices will ensure timely switching from scarce to more plentiful resources. The latter group argues that society's present course will prove unsustainable. By the time the signs of environmental stress become unambiguous, society may have passed the point of easy recovery. Better to apply the brakes now rather than jam them on later when it may be too late.Posted by Orrin Judd at March 30, 2005 12:01 PMNo matter how compelling their arguments, both sides' detailed predictions are surely wrong. Decisions made today will affect the world 50 to 100 years hence, but no one can credibly predict what life will be like then, regardless of the quality of the science. Interested parties view the same incomplete data, apply different values and assumptions, and arrive at different conclusions. The result can be static and acrimonious debate: "Tree hugger!" "Eco-criminal!"
The (in)famous report The Limits to Growth from the early 1970s is the perfect example of how the standard tools of analysis often fail to mediate such debates. A group of scientists and opinion leaders called the Club of Rome predicted that the world would soon exhaust its natural resources unless it took immediate action to slow their use. This conclusion flowed from a then state-of-the-art computer model of the dynamics of resource use. The report met with great skepticism. Since the days of Thomas Malthus, impending resource shortages have melted away as new technologies have made production more efficient and provided alternatives to dwindling resources.
Let's see, we've used up 2/3's of Earths resources over 10,000 years of human civilization. Therefore, we've got about 5000 years to go. I say we give it anouther 3 or 4000 years and then get right down to figuring out a solution.
[Obviously, no one who believes this report can have any problem at all with straight-line projections.]
Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2005 4:14 PMWell, there's an easy way for the Guardian to lower the destruction of trees, and they could ease pollution and oil use problems through lower electricity generation requirements by shutting down their online edition as well.
Posted by: John at March 30, 2005 4:24 PMThere is a long list of books by distinguished scientists predicting imminent eco-disaster, going back at least to 1962's Silent Spring. Not to mention the Club of Rome and "Limits to Growth" (1972).
Given their projections the world population should be about negative 2 billion by now.
Posted by: Gideon at March 30, 2005 4:40 PM"An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated."
As I noted to OJ when I sent him the link, does the above statement make any sense at all? Just think about the vast stretches of deserts, mountains, rainforests. Not to mention Siberia, northern Canada, etc.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 30, 2005 4:45 PM1962? They've been wrong since at least Malthus and Darwin.
Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 4:46 PMThe catastrophists have been a bit off in their predictions. It kind of calls into question the value they add to any discussion. Why do their solutions to unconfirmed crisis always seem to revolve around collectivization and statism? Does power and control have anything to do with it?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at March 30, 2005 8:04 PM"The intense competition for dwindling resources would certainly explain how much speciation we observe."
Why do you have such a difficult time grasping the time spans involved in evolution, especially that which you're willing to accept as speciation? It's not going to happen over a couple of hundred years.
Posted by: creeper at March 31, 2005 6:41 AM"The catastrophists have been a bit off in their predictions. It kind of calls into question the value they add to any discussion."
Does that mean that creationists should sit in a corner and keep their mouths shut, too?
Posted by: creeper at March 31, 2005 6:43 AM"Obviously, no one who believes this report can have any problem at all with straight-line projections."
David, if you read up on this a little, you'll find it's hardly about straight-line projections. Quite the contrary.
Posted by: creeper at March 31, 2005 6:55 AMRick,
"An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated."As I noted to OJ when I sent him the link, does the above statement make any sense at all? Just think about the vast stretches of deserts, mountains, rainforests. Not to mention Siberia, northern Canada, etc.
Unless those make up over 76%, I don't see this as making the above statement nonsensical.
Posted by: creeper at March 31, 2005 6:57 AMI wonder what the Earth's population would be had there never been any fossil fuels, or if they were to run out tomorrow.
One just might have a different take on Malthus ...
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 31, 2005 7:23 AMThat is an outstanding example of a non-sequitor.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 31, 2005 11:02 AMJeff: So someone writing in the late 19th century about the coming collapse of civilization because whales would soon be hunted to extinction and lobbying for a high whale oil tax in order to promote conservation and develop alternative body fat fuels would have been ... ?
Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2005 1:21 PMDavid:
I am not in any way supporting the article--that study will be no more relevant in 30 years than The Limits to Growth was.
I was merely pointing out that the only thing making it easy to mock Malthus is fossil fuels.
We may yet find some altogether superior and more abundant alternative.
But if we don't, and only a Pollyanna will take it for granted we will, Malthus will make himself known in a big, big, way.
In this respect, adopting some penurious conservation regime is utterly beside the point.
There is an answer out there, or there isn't. Conservation won't change that one bit.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 31, 2005 2:47 PMJeff: Biotech (both through traditional cross-pollination and genetic manipulation) has already driven a stake through Malthus' heart. Whatever the next crunch is, it won't be famine caused by natural factors.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2005 6:44 PM