Who is looking out for the EARTH as a whole

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Integrating all of these systems and processes mathematically is no small feat, but the collaborative scientific community is gradually approaching a point at which comprehensive models accurately (depending on your definition of accurate) represent and simulate the entire Earth system. This could take decades or centuries, but it gives us something to do in the meantime, doesn't it? : )

 

Thanks for your comments. It does not bode well at the moment though if NOBODY is looking at the whole picture.

I know James Lovelock was and he has been trying to alert people. But a) he is aging (90's) and b) he has sort of been 'a voice in the wilderness'

Not that individuals have not read his books, but there does not seem to be a World Organisation/Institution that is taking up his Concern and the challenges in haste !.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Maybe now that the met office in Exeter is getting a 100,000,000 pound computer to model the earth and it's weather , .. Somebody .. may be able to look at the whole Earth Eco system . Then somebody may be able to answer the call :-

 

" Who is looking out for the EARTH as a whole. " ?

 

 

Mike

Edited July 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[barfbag]

There is no set organization to police the globe however many politicians and scientists will lobby for changes in political behaviors that affect the environment such as with the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol.

 

Politics of the world are mostly geared for short term. If a United states president wanted to enforce The Kyoto Protocol then he might not get re-elected and the next president might get a few extra votes if he cancels the pricey protocols.

 

Politics are fueled by voters who care more about what the pay for gas than who care for the health of our planet in 25 years.

[Dekan]

Maybe now that the met office in Exeter is getting a 100,000,000 pound computer to model the earth and it's weather , .. Somebody .. may be able to look at the whole Earth Eco system . Then somebody may be able to answer the call :-

 

" Who is looking out for the EARTH as a whole. " ?

 

 

Mike

Does the Earth really need anyone to "look out for it"? It's been doing its own thing, very successfully, for the last 4 billion years.

 

During those years, the Earth had to cope with all manner of misfortunes. Such as biosphere-smashing asteroid impacts, and continent-wide volcanic eruptions. Which caused, or contributed to, violent global climatic fluctuations. Leading to alternations of freezing Ice-Ages and sweltering-hot Carboniferous-type periods with bizarre giant dragonflies.

 

Yet, these vicissitudes didn't knock out Mother Earth. She continued on her way, undaunted.

She is a tough and resilient Mother. Who will survive whatever puny mauling her latest children, the humans, try on her.

 

What if the political humans vote for cheaper gas, and cover China with coal-fired power stations! It doesn't matter. The C02 emissions from such stations will never heat the Earth into a second hot-house Venus.

Earth is secure. Even if the humans start a global nuclear war, the radiation will completely decay after a few million years, and the Earth will carry on as before.

 

Let's not get too conceited! The Earth doesn't actually need humans to run it. It manages by itself.

[barfbag]

@ Dekan,

 

Does the Earth really need anyone to "look out for it"? It's been doing its own thing, very successfully, for the last 4 billion years.

 

 

The Earth will be fine as you say, but can it sustain mankind without someone to "look out for it".

 

Nature has never been so connected with mankind before, and possibly keeping some species of animals around might play a role. I suppose we could ignore things like extinction, Ozone, GW, etc, but that will not help us much.

 

But I do agree. The Earth does not need any of us. Maybe in a few million years Humans can evolve again?

 

http://www.whyte.org/bears/mitigate.html

Attempts to reduce the negative effects of roads and railways on bears and other wildlife can be broadly grouped into two categories: structural mitigation and other types of mitigation. Examples of structural mitigation include the use of specially designed, strategically located crossing-structures intended to provide wildlife with access to habitats on either side of busy roadways, and road alignments that minimize destruction of quality habitat. Other types of mitigation that are not directly related to physical structures include managing human-use levels around important wildlife crossing areas, and educating people as to proper behaviour when viewing wildlife along roads or railways. Evaluating the efficacy of these measures, and identifying additional or improved approaches to mitigation is an important focus of current research in the Canadian Rockies.

 

 

is an example though of us "looking out".

 

Funny point Dekan, but I'm hoping the OP was speaking of "Life" on Earth.

[Dekan]

@barfbag #30:

 

Thanks for your kind reply. I offer these thoughts:

 

1. On the quotation from the Canadian site, about bears. This seems to be written in a kind of pseudo-scientific management-speak . As revealed by the almost hypnotic repetition of the vague word "mitigation" .And by convoluted and abstract expressions such as "managing human-use levels". It's not easy to work out what that actually means, in concrete terms.

I was especially intrigued, and disconcerted, by this slightly ominous bit: "Educating people as to proper behaviour when viewing wildlife along roads or railways." What exactly is the "proper behaviour" demanded of us?

It sounds almost Orwellian!

 

2. On your point about humans evolving again in a few million years - that might happen. But would the "new humans" be able to recreate an advanced industrial civilisation like ours? Probably not, because our civilisation has used up most of the easily-available close-to-the-surface natural resources like iron-ore, coal and oil. With these gone, the new humans would be in a kind of "Catch-22" predicament. They have to dig deep for their metal and coal And they can't dig until they build machines. But the machines can't be built, until they get the metal and coal. So they'd be stuffed.

 

3. Which is why I get a bit disappointed with people who, from the best of intentions, keep harping on about "conservation", "protecting the environment" and such like.. These are backward-looking ideas. Going back isn't an option.

Human industrial civilisation is a strictly "one-off" endeavour. It can't be repeated on Earth - not at least until geological aeons have passed, and new coal has accumulated, and crustal upheavals have moved ore to the surface.

 

4. So shouldn't we make the best use of this present opportunity? Exploit the Earth for everything we can get out of it! Build hundreds of atomic power-stations, and, as soon as we can, starships, to go out and explore the Universe. The Earth won't mind. It will go on after we've left. And the bears will roam the Rockies unmitigated.

[Acme]

...

1. On the quotation from the Canadian site, about bears. This seems to be written in a kind of pseudo-scientific management-speak . As revealed by the almost hypnotic repetition of the vague word "mitigation" .And by convoluted and abstract expressions such as "managing human-use levels". It's not easy to work out what that actually means, in concrete terms.

I was especially intrigued, and disconcerted, by this slightly ominous bit: "Educating people as to proper behaviour when viewing wildlife along roads or railways." What exactly is the "proper behaviour" demanded of us?

It sounds almost Orwellian!

Proper behavior is not getting out of your vehicle and/or feeding the bears. Hardly Orwellian or ominous, it is actually simple good advice that protects the bears and the people.

 

2. On your point about humans evolving again in a few million years - that might happen. But would the "new humans" be able to recreate an advanced industrial civilisation like ours? Probably not, because our civilisation has used up most of the easily-available close-to-the-surface natural resources like iron-ore, coal and oil. With these gone, the new humans would be in a kind of "Catch-22" predicament. They have to dig deep for their metal and coal And they can't dig until they build machines. But the machines can't be built, until they get the metal and coal. So they'd be stuffed.

Nonsense. The rusted/oxidized remnants of our machinery is the ore of future humans. While coke from coal is more efficient for smelting iron, charcoal from wood works fine.

 

3. Which is why I get a bit disappointed with people who, from the best of intentions, keep harping on about "conservation", "protecting the environment" and such like.. These are backward-looking ideas. Going back isn't an option.

Human industrial civilisation is a strictly "one-off" endeavour. It can't be repeated on Earth - not at least until geological aeons have passed, and new coal has accumulated, and crustal upheavals have moved ore to the surface.

More nonsense. The minerals, elements, and materials made from them remain and can be reused at any time. The elapsed time before the repurposing/reprocessing only dictates the means & methods of the reuse.

 

4. So shouldn't we make the best use of this present opportunity? Exploit the Earth for everything we can get out of it! Build hundreds of atomic power-stations, and, as soon as we can, starships, to go out and explore the Universe. The Earth won't mind. It will go on after we've left. And the bears will roam the Rockies unmitigated.

Waste not, want not. Yes we can -and I think should- go out and explore, but there's no doing that if we kill ourselves (and the bears) before we get the chance.

[Johnny Electriglide]

There are many who are looking after the biosphere's future well being. The sad fact of the matter is that it is too few.

Most likely, the needed emissions reductions will not happen in time.

Then there are only two choices; let the biosphere go to like Venus, or blow Yellowstone, and possibly Toba, too.

Population bottleneck with less than a total of 50% extinction, or extinction of all life on Earth forever.

Those that have a couple decades or more of supplies can make it until the effects of the long volcanic winter are over, in underground fortresses.

The escape to a new planet in a multi-generational spaceship has less of a chance of success.

http://www.ameg.me/index.php/2-ameg/53-urgent-message-to-governments-from-the-arctic-methane-emergency-group-ameg

Urgent Message to Governments from the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, AMEG

AMEG’s Declaration

"Governments must get a grip on a situation which IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has ignored. A strategy of mitigation and adaptation is doomed to fail. It will be impossible to adapt to the worst consequences of global warming, as IPCC suggests.

The Arctic must be cooled, ASAP, to prevent the sea ice disappearing with disastrous global consequences. Rapid warming in the Arctic, as sea ice retreats, has already disrupted the jet stream. The resulting escalation in weather extremes is causing a food crisis which must be addressed before the existing conflicts in Asia and Africa spread more widely.

Dangerous global warming and ocean acidification must be prevented by reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially by improved agricultural practice, thereby addressing the food crisis at the same time.

This is an unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration for common purpose."

http://www.ameg.me/index.php/2-ameg/53-urgent-message-to-governments-from-the-arctic-methane-emergency-group-ameg

[Essay]

Short of "nuclear geoengineering" ...there are still "unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration for common purpose."

 

Soils are a reservoir of carbon that is large enough to solve the problem, if the soils can be managed in the most appropriate way ...to build up more carbon richness.

 

Plus, that effort would help solve many other global-scale problems.

 

~

[Dekan]

Mulling over the above posts, I'm amazed at the sheer chutzpah of some human beings. Who seem to think that the Earth is here solely in order to provide us with a comfortable environment.

And that - if the environment changes - in any way which inconveniences us - such changes are "dangerous". And must be resisted . No matter how beneficial the changes might to other life-forms on Earth.

 

For example, suppose the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice-caps completely melt. That will raise ocean-levels by some hundreds of feet, and greatly benefit marine organisms - they'll have more warm water to live in.

 

Of course, such a rise in the ocean will be very troublesome to us. It'll flood many of our big coastal cities, like New York and Washington. Such cities will have to be rebuilt further inland, on higher ground. At huge expense. And the expense will be even greater for low-lying countries like the Netherlands. The Dutch will have to abandon their whole country, and migrate en masse to the Urals or something.

 

But surely that doesn't matter, except from a strictly human perspective. Global warming won't turn the Earth into a second Venus and end all life on Earth! More likely, it will actually increase the amount of life on Earth. It may cause a decrease in the human population, but is that automatically a bad thing?

Edited August 3, 2014 by Dekan

[Essay]

I'm amazed at the sheer presumption of other human beings. Media hype makes it sound as if this is mainly about rising sea levels or storms, but we can run away from the oceans and hide from storms. However, it's a bit more involved than the sea level, or more drought and storminess, or more unpredictability in general....

 

The June 2009 New Scientist mentions, “When Earth warms to the point that it no longer has cold poles and warm tropics, as the result of geologically released greenhouse gases,

the oceans stop mixing. Without mixing, only the uppermost layer of the ocean remains oxygenated, and anaerobic bacteria that produce poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas thrive. Before long, the level of hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere becomes lethal.”

...or you could search 'ocean anoxic events' to see the patterns in geologic history ...before the poles developed enough ice to prevent that process.

===

 

It is presumptious to think we can acidify the oceans, as well as stagnate their circulation, and then not disrupt the planetary food web.

If chutzpah is about choosing life everlasting (biodiversity's perpetuation) and hopefully maintaining some continuity in our global civilization or any civilization, rather than maintaining our Western notion of comfort while condemning future generations into a sulfuorus hades, then guilty as charged.

 

~

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm amazed at the sheer presumption of other human beings. Media hype makes it sound as if this is mainly about rising sea levels or storms, but we can run away from the oceans and hide from storms. However, it's a bit more involved than the sea level, or more drought and storminess, or more unpredictability in general....

 

[

 

Has anybody identified , who is looking out for the Earth as a whole , as things are getting pretty desperate at the moment !

 

Mike

[Essay]

Has anybody identified , who is looking out for the Earth as a whole , as things are getting pretty desperate at the moment !

 

Mike

 

Who is looking out for The Earth, as a whole?

 

The UN is trying, with its various arms and instruments; and the IPCC is an “inter-governmental” effort, though they focus mostly on climate, which is just a symptom of the overall “whole” problem. The UN had its 8 Millennium Development Goals, which seem to have now evolved into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. But however they are defined, they are still the usual goals of conquering poverty, hunger, disease, and war, while providing education, empowerment, equity, and environmental justice; just the basics.

 

“In September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets - with a deadline of 2015 - that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals.”

 

But most people still see the world from the perspective of individual Nation-States, based on 17^th-century notions and considerations, with special focus on their tribe; rather than seeing today’s globalized civilization with a much longer-term, or sustainable, global view ...so not too many people are aware of these efforts by the United Nations.

===

 

But don’t despair! There is a workable path appearing. In attempting to manage the global carbon budget, to prevent global acidification (and climate revving), many efforts are underway to cut carbon emissions. While these provide technological advances that can stimulate the economy, finding a way to reduce existing levels of CO2, by “pulling” existing CO2 out of the air, is the key to managing the global carbon budget, which is the most fundamental way we can be “looking out for the Earth as a whole.”

 

That is because “growing good soil” is the answer to reversing the already too high levels of atmospheric CO2.

But growing good soil, globally, is also the answer to those other problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and war, as well as facilitating education, empowerment, equity, and environmental sustainability.

 

People are beginning to figure out that this is the simplest and cheapest and most comprehensive, single solution to a wide array of historically intractable problems. And as usual, not until all the other alternatives have been tried, will we do the right thing; but we’re getting closer to recognizing the fundamental realities of global resources, especially the significance of good soil. See: "How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World"

 

See also:

“2015 has been declared the International Year of the Soil. Learn how healthy soil can help us reverse climate change and heal the planet.”

 

...as well as The Atlantic magazine that has this recent article:

“Before the arrival of Europeans, Native communities in the Americas had been burning forest fires for millennia to support the growth of desirable plants ...to manage ecosystems. In other words, humanity has been “geoengineering” with trees for a very long time.”

 

We need to get back to this sort of “geoengineering,” which billions of people can do locally, as we’ve been doing since agriculture came to predominate our species’ niche, imho. Nowadays, however, we will be doing this with robotics and with genomic and remote sensing, to make it much more tolerable, as well as more effective, work that is integrated with a high-tech economy.

===

 

“…the United Nations is once again sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system. That was the key point of a new publication from the UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled “Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” which included contributions from more than 60 experts around the world.”

 

~

Edited March 8, 2015 by Essay

[Harold Squared]

NASA has a Planetary Protection officer, as I understand. Protects all the planets, all the time. So nobody is outside his jurisdiction, in theory.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have had a good think and a good chat about this with the powers that be.

 

It would appear there is a great deal of interest with the system as a whole that operates on earth. More so than individual circumstances. Although these are felt very personally . The system as a whole , worldwide is of greater significance. Of course an individuals circumstances is all they have , and thus very significant to them personally. However solving their individual problem , will not solve the world's functioning systems. However considering the world as a whole system , and dealing with problems of the whole world .. Will. ( it is hoped )

 

Mike

Edited August 11, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have had a good think and a good chat about this with the powers that be.

It would appear there is a great deal of interest with the system as a whole that operates on earth. More so than individual circumstances. Although these are felt very personally . The system as a whole , worldwide is of greater significance. Of course an individuals circumstances is all they have , and thus very significant to them personally. However solving their individual problem , will not solve the world's functioning systems. However considering the world as a whole system , and dealing with problems of the whole world .. Will. ( it is hoped )

Mike

Whole systems of the world , seem to be, coming to the fore !

 

Mike

[Ophiolite]

Mike, three years and one month ago I said this to you:

 

....as I tried to convey in an earlier post we have not evolved political machinery to the point where decisions between competing and diverse cultures can be made on a global level in a short space of time. The demands that we do something now are being expressed by individuals, organisations and governments. It does seem as if you are as unaware of these appeals as the key decision makers. Perhaps you and they should both try harder.

 

Today you said this:

Whole systems of the world , seem to be, coming to the fore !

Mike

It seems you have tried harder and now recognise the accuracy of what I said then.

[reasonmclucus]

I attempt to look out for the earth as a whole, although I don't devote much time to it because no one is interested in the subject. Most people prefer to look at only a small part of the earth situation. For example, the diagrams produced by the global warming crowd totally ignore the huge amounts of solar energy used in the biosphere. All the energy we use to move our bodies by walking and picking things up comes from the sun. Plants convert solar radiation into the electron bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together. Humans and other animals can use this energy. The sun is also the original source of the substantial amount of energy that evporates water from the oceans and moves it thousands of miles inland.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It's great to hear your comments. From you as an individual !

 

James Lovelock spent a great deal of effort trying to persuade , that the system works as a whole , in his Hypothesis . Recently David Waltham ( University of London lecturer 2008- 2012 ) in his Book " Lucky Planet " ( Isbn 978-184831656-0 ) , supported in comments by Richard Fortey of Trilobite Fame . Both feeling that the photosynthetic mechanisms Carbon Dioxide - Oxygen and of oxygen - Carbon Dioxide systems have a key roll to play in our Planets , Health. As do , also on this site . ( Otheolite and Essay ).

 

Obviously , this latest Conference , shows that there is a growing concern , world wide to what is happening . ( but that may be coming a bit late ) . The climate seems to be giving England and the USA , a bit of a battering as we speak . I have , just put sand bags at my door , just ," in case" we get it down here in S.W . England as we did a year or two ago. We had an ancient Stone Bridge washed away in the Village where I live, in fact , I saw it washed away , as I was on my way to an Art Group . Yesterday the media showed similar happenings in Northern England .

 

 

Mike

Edited December 31, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

For example, the diagrams produced by the global warming crowd totally ignore the huge amounts of solar energy used in the biosphere.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying this is not my experience. Can you provide a citation to an example of such a diagram, lacking recognition of the importance of the biosphere, from a peer reviewed published article in a reputable science journal?

[Alan Watson]

Hi Mike

Time has moved on again. Nothing has changed much.

The fact that things are moving slowly and will take time to resolve into our sustainable distant future is probably a good thing.

Rapid change rarely takes a permanent form.

Allowing the management of the planet by a multitude of individual nations and organisations with diverse and competing agendas is the communal human consciousness ' s way of reducing long term downside risks posed by single entity management principles.

Regarding the short term, we are probably in for a rough ride.

Kind regards

Alan

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Hi Mike

Time has moved on again. Nothing has changed much.

The fact that things are moving slowly and will take time to resolve into our sustainable distant future is probably a good thing.

Rapid change rarely takes a permanent form.

Allowing the management of the planet by a multitude of individual nations and organisations with diverse and competing agendas is the communal human consciousness ' s way of reducing long term downside risks posed by single entity management principles.

Regarding the short term, we are probably in for a rough ride.

Kind regards

Alan

.

 

I enjoyed reading your comments Alan . I once lived and worked up in thelakedistrict area.

 

There are issues around the Globe that alarm me and I am sure millions of individuals likewise. What has troubled me in the past and currently , is:- with some of these issues why is not somebody doing the 'obvious thing ' .

 

Like currently the world appears absolutely full to bursting with manufacturing machinery , churning out products ' left right and centre' without ,hardly a human being in sight. Yet other data shows we have an employment problem worldwide. ( with some parts of the world people roaming rubbish tips, in droves ) . The solution seems obvious to me , but nobody seems to have their eye on the big picture and doing anything about it ? I find in quite incredible .

 

Similarly with other Huge issues ? With all this ' fighting and killing ' and ' migration issues' this last 100 years has been quite horrific , and still not a solution ?

 

Mike

Edited May 9, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Alan Watson]

Yes, Mike, I agree and fully sympathise.

 

If there is one single factor which would make a significant difference it is how we manage global economics.

 

Currently wealth creation is arbitrary. The wealthiest people are engaged in the accumulation of arbitrary monetary wealth.

 

It is the Fiat currencies which are the problem. The currencies no longer relate to the value of the environment.

 

We need a global currency which is calibrated to environmental health, quality and well-being.

 

Then the accumulation of wealth would change from arbitrary monetary accumulation to what we really need which is environmental wealth.

 

This would maintain the opportunity for capitalism ( ie environmental capitalism ) and it's attendant motivational qualities whilst ensuring our environmental well being.

 

Who could be the first Environmental Billionaires? They would be remembered for Millenia.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, Mike, I agree and fully sympathise.

 

If there is one single factor which would make a significant difference it is how we manage global economics.

 

Currently wealth creation is arbitrary. The wealthiest people are engaged in the accumulation of arbitrary monetary wealth.

 

It is the Fiat currencies which are the problem. The currencies no longer relate to the value of the environment.

 

We need a global currency which is calibrated to environmental health, quality and well-being.

 

Then the accumulation of wealth would change from arbitrary monetary accumulation to what we really need which is environmental wealth.

 

This would maintain the opportunity for capitalism ( ie environmental capitalism ) and it's attendant motivational qualities whilst ensuring our environmental well being.

 

Who could be the first Environmental Billionaires? They would be remembered for Millenia.

.

I think we have allowed machinery in manufacture ang all sorts of activity , to take over , or replace humans as producing or doing anything and everything. Whether this be food , equipment , transport , or just making bits and pieces. It's all done by machines ( nearly all) . So whereas in the past humans would make something or do something and receive money or a reward for making something , or doing something . The money now goes to the machine owners NOT to the people .

 

Somehow the money or reward needs to find a way back to the human population in quite a large proportion. The machines can still do the work and some people can own them , but a reasonable , large proportion of the earnings from the machines must go to the human population , worldwide to every person .

 

Then we would not have this huge gulf between the ' haves' and the ' have nots' ( the rich and the poor )

 

Mike

Edited May 11, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Alan Watson]

Yes Mike, exactly.

 

The health and well being of the human population would form one component ( of a multitude of components ) of the total environmental health / quality of the whole planetary ecosystem.

 

Naturally, if all things ( I mean all things ) were measured by a proper global environmental currency then things like, for example, machines which had a measurable detrimental impact on the environmental quality of the planet by virtue of their adverse influence on poor humans then the machines would be assigned a negative environmental value. In time they would be phased out as the New Environmental Capitalism ran it's course.

 

I envisage news reports where leading environmentalists would be able to call for the free market dynamics to be left alone and insisting on environmental capitalism to dictate outcomes. The environmentalists would at last see competition working in favour of the planet rather than against it.

 

The first step in all this of course, is to value the whole planet and for that we will need an army of environmental accountants. Their profession would be subject to regulation by the World Green Bank an executive arm of the United Nations.

 

And ultimately, the guiding principle in all this would be that benefits and downsides for the planet as a whole would be considered before the benefits and downsides of individual businesses, or even nation states. That way your concern about machines would be solved.