Earth 'at risk of ecological breakdown'

[EdEarl]

 

phys.org

 

Earth 'at risk of ecological breakdown' November 7, 2016

 

The Earth is risking a major ecological breakdown that could eventually render it largely uninhabitable.

This is one of the warnings contained in "Surviving the 21st Century," a powerful new book released recently by global science publisher Springer International.

Author and science writer Julian Cribb says "In the past week alone has come news that global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles declined by 58 per cent between 1970 and 2012. From 20-30 per cent of known species now appear at risk of extinction."

I haven't read the book. Is this news or undue alarm? I know a few scientists believe we have already gone past the point of no return on climate change, but this book may be more encompassing than climate change.

[Ken Fabian]

I would say it's extremely unlikely we can make this planet uninhabitable without some serious intent to do so involved. With climate change I think it's not a matter of going past the point of no return, but that there is a progression of tipping points that could be seen as points of no return, each with consequences that are effectively irreversible; a lot of change is already unstoppable but we can still make more.

[Itoero]

The Earth is risking a major ecological breakdown that could eventually render it largely uninhabitable.

How can the Earth become largely uninhabitable? Can you give an example?

[EdEarl]

How can the Earth become largely uninhabitable? Can you give an example?

That statement, "The Earth is risking a major ecological breakdown that could eventually render it largely uninhabitable," must not mean uninhabitable as the Moon, rather uninhabitable for man. We have polluted extensively, and vast swaths of farm land have become too salty to grow food because of irrigation. Perhaps the statement means we are poisoning the Earth enough to make it incapable of supporting humanity. That's my guess.

Edited November 14, 2016 by EdEarl

[Itoero]

That statement, "The Earth is risking a major ecological breakdown that could eventually render it largely uninhabitable," must not mean uninhabitable as the Moon, rather uninhabitable for man. We have polluted extensively, and vast swaths of farm land have become too salty to grow food because of irrigation. Perhaps the statement means we are poisoning the Earth enough to make it incapable of supporting humanity. That's my guess.

That's probably true. But nature recovers and adapts pretty fast.

30 years after what happened in Tsjernobyl, the area is a refuge for all kinds of animals.

Wildlife is thriving despite high radiation levels.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

[EdEarl]

That's probably true. But nature recovers and adapts pretty fast.

30 years after what happened in Tsjernobyl, the area is a refuge for all kinds of animals.

Wildlife is thriving despite high radiation levels.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

That's true, and people might be able to live there; although, radiation would kill many prematurely. Animals, with shorter lives aren't much affected. On the other hand, salt in farmland does not recover quickly, and heavy metals like lead and chromium in soil may remain forever, and eventually be covered by additional soil being deposited, which might take eons. However, it is unimaginable that the entire Earth would be affected to make it uninhabitable. The Limits to Growth suggested half the world's population might die from starvation, but I think that will not happen. The worst I've heard is the Earth warming enough to release incredible amounts of methane from methane hydrate under the ocean, which might cause a 95% extinction.

[Memammal]

It is a simple matter re sustainability of natural resources, including fauna and flora, in the wake of seemingly uncontrollable- and excessive exploitation thereof by humanity while climate change further dampens any chance of survival, or recovery. But then we were told in circa 1980 that humanity would never make it to the year 2000...yet here we are.

[EdEarl]

I watched Isaac Arthur's Post Scarcity Civilizations on youtube this morning, which tells how a civilization might grow to inhabit a galaxy. I read an article on phys.org about a Japanese company growing lettuce in a factory that will not be touched by human hands until it is opened by someone in their kitchen; their first factory will produce 100,000 heads per day, and they intend to grow to more than a million heads per day. If this is the future of agriculture, then we will be able to survive anywhere including space. I think it is too soon to toll the death bell on humanity.

[Ken Fabian]

That we are creating and experiencing a cumulative ecological disaster appears well documented and that will impact humanity, but humans remain tough and resourceful so it's not likely to lead to human extinction.

 

EdEarl, I'm not convinced about Post Scarcity and even less convinced Space can provide it - not without some extraordinary technological advances. Whilst improved technologies can squeeze more from finite resources on a finite world they remain finite - and the technologies themselves rely upon can be highly dependent on availability, at reasonable cost, of those finite resources in turn, but there are high costs involved in exploiting resources that are in abundance in space. I would say extreme costs; it takes a lot of technological capital to become independent of natural systems here on Earth and space resources currently exceed the capabilities of the most technologically advanced economies on Earth to exploit even in small ways; that may change but I suspect a continuing, healthy global economy down here on Earth is essential for any serious attempts to do - and I don't think we have ever had, or are likely to achieve a healthy, sustainable global economy. Looks a lot like we are already overshooting boundaries in ways that have serious, irrevocable consequences.

 

My own view is there is a very large - excessively large - pre-investment in hypothetical, difficult to achieve and unproven technologies needed to do anything at scale in space - unlike past colonisations that were done with existing, economically proven and widely available technologies, often using the leftover, destined for scrap stuff on shoestring budgets by the marginalised and desperate. With destinations that were rich in readily exploitable resources.

 

Even though more food than ever is grown in controlled, technology dependent environments most global food supply is still reliant on soils made but no longer sustained by natural processes, including biological ones that are interupted by deforestation and conversion to agriculture, on water reliably falling from the sky, on climatic conditions that remain within usable bounds. Failure of those nature dependent systems will tend to destabilise nations and economies and desperate people can be less inclined to engage productively, with long range forethought in building the kinds of sustainable systems that can support those high tech solutions.

[EdEarl]

I graduated university with an engineering degree and always took tests with a slide rule, because pocket calculators didn't exist. Within two years of Texas Instruments hiring me, they introduced the first under $100 desk calculator, and integrated circuits contained half a dozen transistors.

 

I've lost count of how many transistors are in ICs today, millions. Houses are being 3D printed, robots are still a bit clumsy but improving rapidly, and AlphaGo is a general purpose learning system with hardware steadily improving. We will have automated systems to build things in space. The military industrial complex is already building AI and robots. Capitalists want automation to reduce costs and the military want it to avoid sending soldiers into harm's way.

 

There is a race to provide clean energy for the world, the technology is ready, implementation is just beginning. A semi-automated lettuce factory is already producing heads of lettuce. Not only will that factory be automated, but the one that produces parts for that factory will be fully automated, at this time it is partly automated. It is the process started by the industrial revolution, and the changes to processes are changing faster than ever.

 

If climate change killed half the population tomorrow, the process of automating industry would continue, but slower. However, with half the people, environmental damage would slow down too. I don't think citizens can significantly threaten the US military, and they will assure automation efforts continue.

[Ken Fabian]

EdEarl, I think exploitation of space resources requires a lot, lot more than better automation with AI - and automation that can mine, refine, manufacture and replicate the most advanced technologies, including itself, in such a hostile environment are a long way off. Accessible resources are either deep in gravity wells or so far out from the sun that nuclear power is the only viable energy option. Fissionable ores in concentrations that are usable tend to arise as a consequence of hydrogeothermal processes and are going to be scarce in asteroids - the tech as well as fuel for that will be an Earth export for a long time to come. Fusion that is reliable and usable remains a significant technological challenge, let alone fusion that an automated, self assembling factory can produce fusion power plants on demand. And your faith in the enduring ability of the US military industrial complex to drive the innovation that successful, economically viable exploitation of space resources requires could well end up looking like wishful thinking if not hubris in a changing world well on the way to ecological disaster.

 

I think if we fail to rise to the near term challenges of living sustainably within the limits of world as resource rich as our own we will fail to lay the foundations for successfully extending human civilisation beyond Earth. Rather than the resources of space being what saves civilisation on Earth, an enduring, prosperous and well managed global economy on Earth is the only thing that can realise hopes and dreams of colonising space. And I think that we are running out of time whilst collectively refusing to face our near term, Earthly problems head on with our eyes open.

[EdEarl]

Ken,

Recently the rate of CO2 release changed.

 

economist.com

 

The drop in that country's coal consumption means that in 2014 its emissions of the gas grew by only 1.2%—in contrast to an average annual growth rate over the ten previous years of 6.7%. Total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry around the world grew just 0.6% in 2014.

On the other hand, the rate of automation is increasing.

 

cnn

 

Five million jobs in the world's leading economies could disappear over the next five years because of advances in technology.

 

Developments in artificial intelligence, robotics, and biotechnology, would disrupt the business world in a similar way to previous industrial revolutions, the World Economic Forum said in a report published Monday.

Automation will help us restore the environment, in the not too distant future.

 

bussinessinsider

Tiny Flying Robots Are Being Built To Pollinate Crops Instead Of Real Bees

 

I agree with you in principle. If the environment deteriorates faster than technology can respond, then we may have a bleak outcome. On the other hand, if automation improves quickly enough it can assure a rosy outcome. I'm betting automation will win the race.