State of our planet today

[Ricky12]

Saddened to see that greed and power are ruining our planet eg the Amazon being cut down for agriculture. What does the future hold? Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

[dimreepr]

Saddened to see that greed and power are ruining our planet eg the Amazon being cut down for agriculture.

 

 

I don’t wish to be trite but you are using a by-product of that greed and power to post this topic.

 

Edit/ IOW “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”

 

What does the future hold?

 

 

No one can ever know what’s in the future, even when what the future holds seems so obvious .

 

Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

 

 

We can but hope.

Edited May 24, 2015 by dimreepr

[swansont]

Saddened to see that greed and power are ruining our planet eg the Amazon being cut down for agriculture. What does the future hold? Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

 

Maybe someday, but it's not like we've had this in the past and today is an aberration resulting from some new behavioral paradigm shift.

[Ricky12]

 

 

I don’t wish to be trite but you are using a by-product of that greed and power to post this topic.

 

Edit/ IOW “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”

 

.

Yes well said.Just hurts when I see so much destruction.

 

Maybe someday, but it's not like we've had this in the past and today is an aberration resulting from some new behavioral paradigm shift.

Iam a optimist and hope someday things will improve for the better and large parts of the Amazon will be protected.Cant believe though how much damage we have done to it already

Edited May 25, 2015 by Ricky12

[dimreepr]

Yes well said.Just hurts when I see so much destruction.

Iam a optimist and hope someday things will improve for the better and large parts of the Amazon will be protected.Cant believe though how much damage we have done to it already

 

 

 

Does it hurt enough to give up the comfort?

 

To be optimistic that your contribution will someday help towards a better world; is to be admired.

 

To be optimistic that hope will provide the answer; is to throw your penny into the well and wish.

 

Which would you want to be remembered for?

 

Often the greatest/strongest hurricanes starts little more than a dust devil.

Edited May 25, 2015 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Has it ever occurred to you, Ricky12, that Brazil's population is increasing, and they need to be able to cultivate land to feed the people. Unfortunately that means clearing land of rain forests and jungles.

 

We've done it in North America, Europe, and other parts of the world. And now that we are set, we want to tell other people that they cannot do the same, to achieve a level of agricultural sustainability and feed their people.

 

Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

[Ricky12]

Yes and that was completely wrong and hopefully we have learnt the lessons of past misdemeanours .The other thing is climate change is a real phenomena that maybe wasn't as serious as first thought 30-40 years ago.With all the scientific data out now though there is a need to act.The state of our planet has to come first because without a sustainable planet to live on how can future generations thrive.As for the population problem it may need to be better managed in the future similar to what happens in China if things keep going the way they are in some parts of the world. Hence population growth is one of the main reasons why environmental problems occur in the first place.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Ricky12

[Graeme M]

Given that the earth and its inhabitants have no intrinsic value beyond what we ascribe, does it matter?

If we found a way to run the planet with all landmasses covered by human habitation, and it worked more or less, why would that be a bad outcome?

Why does a 'sustainable planet' require an Amazonian rainforest or a balance with nature?

Or even more to the point, if we just continue on our merry way, have a good time, and destroy the planet in the process, again, what does it matter? One more deserted planet in a universe of trillions of deserted planets doesn't seem such a big deal, now does it?

[StringJunky]

 

...Why does a 'sustainable planet' require an Amazonian rainforest or a balance with nature?

If we negatively impact the planet's natural homeostatic mechanisms then we will have to manually maintain them ourselves... I don't think we are capable of that.

[Graeme M]

Maybe... I am not suggesting we *should* do this. But technology so often finds a way. I am simply asking why the idea of a 'balance' with nature is necessarily critical. If in time we figured out a way to overcome those limitations, what would be so wrong with a planet covered in human beings? How likely is it that this is NOT the future? What constraint will prevent such an outcome in time? Perhaps we will need several goes at it, but really, what's the odds we will all die out, or decide on a sustainable future with say just 2 billion people, or head off into space in large numbers?

 

Or put another way, why should that not be the end result of the evolutionary process? A single, ubiquitous, completely dominant organism?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Graeme M

[Sensei]

Saddened to see that greed and power are ruining our planet eg the Amazon being cut down for agriculture. What does the future hold? Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

Money and greedy must stop ruling the World first..

 

Western people must realize what not civilized tribe people were saying for centuries: we just lend things (in one version "from our children").

If we lend something, we want to return it in as good condition as possible to original owner.

While with what we "own" we do whatever we want..

Edited June 1, 2015 by Sensei

[Nicholas Kang]

Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

 

Yes. By obeying the three principles of sustainability. In a sustainable earth, economic decisions are not dominated but they must share equal importance with ecological decisions. When you cut down trees, you have to think of its ecological impacts to the environment. When you fight for Green Campaign, you have to think of the poor. Perhaps money donated and used by the poor can help them survive, and maybe if they are well-educated, they can make the Earth a greener place. Many factors must be considered. Usually, when you learn economics, you learn capitalism, accounting and making financial decisions, and when you learn ecology, you learn conserving energy, preserving floras and faunas, keeping the earth green and anti-plastic movements.

 

But when you learn sustainability, you learn both, and most importantly, to balance both aspects, both economy and ecology. Be wise, be prudent and be green, be far-sighted at the same time. Take oil magnates. They are rich but they aren`t far-sighted, though. Automobile makers are far-sighted, Nissan, Toyota, Honda are competing to launch green, hydrogen fuel-powered vehicles or perhaps electric cars like Tesla Model S (my favourite). If oil peters out, who win the game? BP? Shell? No, it is those who will foresee a day when oil extinct from Earth and most importantly, take actions.

 

Sustainability is not saying that you cannot use oil or cut down trees but you have to think of its replenishment rate. Say you cut down 5 trees per day. But the trees replenish at a rate of 10 trees per day. Net replenishment rate? 5 trees per day. Do you terminate trees? No, because 5 more are left per day. But the problems kick in when you cut down 20 trees per day. You gain Net loss of 10 trees per day. The same can be said about oil drilling. Most people think of crude oil as non-renewable energy source. In fact, oil replenishes over years, millions of years, perhaps at a slow rate. Organism die every day and earth plates move beneath you silently (except volcanic activities, earthquake and tsunami), oil forms under immense pressure and temperature. The problem? Simple. We use more than they form. If we could use less, they will have enough time to replenish.

 

Less. When do you consider less? When do you consider more? Check these facts and numbers out.

 

Resources: Biodiversity

Rate of replenishment: 20,000 years for evolution to create 20 species

Rate of Use or Degradation by Humans: 20 species of mammal extinct in 20th century

Ratio of Use to Replenishment: 1000:1

 

Resources:Crude oil

Rate of replenishment: 0.8 million barrels per year created by geologic processes

Rate of Use or Degradation by Humans: 30 billion barrels per year used by global economy

Ratio of Use to Replenishment: 31000:1

 

Resources: Tropical forests

Rate of replenishment: 1 million hectares of humid tropical forest regrowth per year

Rate of Use or Degradation by Humans: 5.8 million hectares oh humid forests cut per year

Ratio of Use to Replenishment: 5.8:1

 

Resources: Fertile soil

Rate of replenishment: 1 ton/hectare of new soil created

Rate of Use or Degradation by Humans: 16 ton/hectares eroded from US farmland per hectare per year

Ratio of Use to Replenishment: 16:1

 

Source: Kaufmann,R. and Cleveland, C. (2008). Environmental Science. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill

 

From the data above, we can conclude that we rarely think rigidly in terms of ecological decisions. We use those resources, albeit not environmentally sustainable.

 

This is the state of our planet, seen through numbers and statistics, not just mere words.

 

 

Or put another way, why should that not be the end result of the evolutionary process? A single, ubiquitous, completely dominant organism?

 

Talking about evolution? Evolution is a change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. (Wikipedia) Now, organisms and living things evolve over time. In that period, physical and chemical settings alter their biological state and when genes are passed down, their heirs will inherit them. The problem is humans are greedy and selfish for many years. Even evolution couldn`t have stopped them. But don`t forget about animals and plants, even though they don`t exhibit humanlike characteristics, they are important in the ecosystem. We, human should therefore, think of consequences. it is cruel to dominate this planet, for you won`t find something to eat, unless you prefer synthetic burgers to McChickens. You won`t be mesmerised by the beauty of nature, for no more trees exist, unless you fold some paper trees, giant paper trees behind your yard or garden. Would you imagine such a world without living beauty, not to mention botanists and zoologists would be jobless as we, people don`t need them (except from studying their fossils in museum)?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nicholas Kang

[StringJunky]

Maybe... I am not suggesting we *should* do this. But technology so often finds a way. I am simply asking why the idea of a 'balance' with nature is necessarily critical. If in time we figured out a way to overcome those limitations, what would be so wrong with a planet covered in human beings? How likely is it that this is NOT the future? What constraint will prevent such an outcome in time? Perhaps we will need several goes at it, but really, what's the odds we will all die out, or decide on a sustainable future with say just 2 billion people, or head off into space in large numbers?

 

Or put another way, why should that not be the end result of the evolutionary process? A single, ubiquitous, completely dominant organism?

We don't know what we don't know, so, we don't know how important those things are that we don't know. I think one of the secrets of the success of life on Earth is it's diversity, if you imagine it as a single collective organism. We are part of a bigger interdependent system and not a closed system unto ourselves. You are a walking ecosystem yourself, with each part of your body a 'country' to different species of symbiotic micro-organsms that you need to function properly. To preserve our existence, it seems necessary to fully understand the chain of interdependence.

Edited June 1, 2015 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

 

 

Or put another way, why should that not be the end result of the evolutionary process? A single, ubiquitous, completely dominant organism?

 

In addition to what StringJunky said, evolution has no end product per se. If it ends it just means that we essentially have a static gene pool.

Has it ever occurred to you, Ricky12, that Brazil's population is increasing, and they need to be able to cultivate land to feed the people. Unfortunately that means clearing land of rain forests and jungles.

 

We've done it in North America, Europe, and other parts of the world. And now that we are set, we want to tell other people that they cannot do the same, to achieve a level of agricultural sustainability and feed their people.

 

Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

 

 

Indeed, it is hypocritical to criticize others that try to obtain the same standard of living that one already enjoys. It is easy to see to state that "oh, we have seen the error of our ways and enjoy the cool breeze of an AC (the USA and Canada produce about 8-9x the amount of CO2 per capita as Brazillians, South Korea and most European countries ~ 5x, using 2010 values). Of course growth is not the only issue, but also use and infrastructure.

 

One issue is that few see ecological issues as a global problem that has to be solved on a global level. Biodiversity, functioning ecosystems and associated fluxes affect us globally. If we seriously wanted to preserve them, wealthy nations should invest more heavily into raising the standard of living of other countries using sustainable means. While there are projects in place, they seem to be incredibly small compared to the challenges.

[Graeme M]

I'm not suggesting that there is a goal to evolution, merely suggesting that it doesn't seem unreasonable for evolution (or put in a better way, the natural processes of selection) to lead to a single dominant organism. Remember that the network of interdependence did not arise through an intelligent process - there is no natural requirement for a diverse natural ecosystem. Presumably at the earliest times there was limited diversity and the planet did just fine. The 'planet' will do just fine without life as well.

 

I am questioning the assumption that the present state of the planet, with so much diversity, this chain of interdependence, is any more valid or necessary than any other state.

 

If human beings learn to dominate the entire planet, maintaining if necessary small parks of natural environment for recreation or interest, how would that be a problem? Or if all that was left was a wild windswept wasteland covered in huge sprawling buildings containing human beings living in controlled environments complete with nature parks?

 

The OP's lament is a purely human value derived notion. It has no basis in any framework of natural laws that I am aware of.

[CharonY]

I'm not suggesting that there is a goal to evolution, merely suggesting that it doesn't seem unreasonable for evolution (or put in a better way, the natural processes of selection) to lead to a single dominant organism. Remember that the network of interdependence did not arise through an intelligent process - there is no natural requirement for a diverse natural ecosystem. Presumably at the earliest times there was limited diversity and the planet did just fine. The 'planet' will do just fine without life as well.

 

I am questioning the assumption that the present state of the planet, with so much diversity, this chain of interdependence, is any more valid or necessary than any other state.

 

If human beings learn to dominate the entire planet, maintaining if necessary small parks of natural environment for recreation or interest, how would that be a problem? Or if all that was left was a wild windswept wasteland covered in huge sprawling buildings containing human beings living in controlled environments complete with nature parks?

 

The OP's lament is a purely human value derived notion. It has no basis in any framework of natural laws that I am aware of.

 

Dominance is a concept that is basically a value judgement and has nothing to do with evolution. If you think in terms of success I think bacteria are pretty much on top. If all organisms die out, there will still be a viable ecosystem for bacteria (after all, they came before any other species). As Stringjunky already mentioned, we are actually walking ecosystems for a host of bacteria. Yet we have not the inkling of a clue how to maintain a livable, sustainable environment without the presence of other organisms. Of course, if you propose that some day there will be magic technology to enable us to do so, maybe. But this is still far in the realm of science fiction.

[Ricky12]

Graeme M

"why does a sustainable planet require a Amazonian rainforest or balance with nature"

 

Because I feel balance is key to life.Its something that is intrinsic to all human kind be it on a personal level or international if things are to ultimately flourish for all.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Ricky12

[Graeme M]

I don't disagree Ricky12, in fact that is my own personal philosophy. I am simply asking why your idea of balance is necessarily the aim. It's just something I ponder on when people start arguing that the status quo is somehow what we should preserve. Why should it be?

 

CharonY, I suppose I am being sloppy in terminology. I just mean - if generally speaking, human beings were in the vast preponderance. There is always likely to be bacteria and viruses and many lower order forms of life, but if we had far fewer forests, mammals, fish and so on, why would that intrinsically be a Bad Thing? I assume that if that were so it might change the environment substantially, but if we had dwellings and technology that reduce the impact on humans it shouldn't be a great drama. The Great Extinctions certainly reduced diversity so diversity is not necessarily a critical requirement for life on earth.

[StringJunky]

I don't disagree Ricky12, in fact that is my own personal philosophy. I am simply asking why your idea of balance is necessarily the aim. It's just something I ponder on when people start arguing that the status quo is somehow what we should preserve. Why should it be?

 

CharonY, I suppose I am being sloppy in terminology. I just mean - if generally speaking, human beings were in the vast preponderance. There is always likely to be bacteria and viruses and many lower order forms of life, but if we had far fewer forests, mammals, fish and so on, why would that intrinsically be a Bad Thing? I assume that if that were so it might change the environment substantially, but if we had dwellings and technology that reduce the impact on humans it shouldn't be a great drama. The Great Extinctions certainly reduced diversity so diversity is not necessarily a critical requirement for life on earth.

Every organism that becomes extinct, through our activities, is information lost, a potential resource lost, as well as the effect on the interdependence I mentioned. I suppose one could ask: "Do we want to take the risk of finding out if we can, or can't, achieve independence without those other organisms?"

 

On the moral/ethical side of things there is no reason why we can't do as we like, we are not beholden to any higher authority other than our own arbitrary rules..

[kisai]

Will we ever live in a peaceful environment where man and nature naturally cohabit without us doing any more damage to the ecosystem

 

Where are all those megafauna and homo erectus?

[dimreepr]

Every organism that becomes extinct, through our activities, is information lost, a potential resource lost, as well as the effect on the interdependence I mentioned. I suppose one could ask: "Do we want to take the risk of finding out if we can, or can't, achieve independence without those other organisms?"

 

On the moral/ethical side of things there is no reason why we can't do as we like, we are not beholden to any higher authority other than our own arbitrary rules..

 

 

To add to this:

 

Every year the western world spends billions on trying to eradicate one pest or another; suppose we were successful, in at least one pest?

 

Let’s say, for instance, the cockroach; there is no way to know that wouldn’t lead to the end of humanity.

 

Emergent qualities are present in every complex system.

Edited June 2, 2015 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

 

 

To add to this:

 

Every year the western world spends billions on trying to eradicate one pest or another; suppose we were successful, in at least one pest?

 

Let’s say, for instance, the cockroach; there is no way to know that wouldn’t lead to the end of humanity.

 

Emergent qualities are present in every complex system.

Absolutely. As time passes we seem to increase our autonomy from Nature but I think we'll always be dependent on it.

[dimreepr]

Absolutely. As time passes we seem to increase our autonomy from Nature but I think we'll always be dependent on it.

 

 

“One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it”

[Phi for All]

Absolutely. As time passes we seem to increase our autonomy from Nature but I think we'll always be dependent on it.

 

Some people start with a definition of nature that emphasizes the "natural" aspect. I think this is a mistake, since we've invented that concept to exclude ourselves purposely. Natural (untouched by humans) is not what nature intended if humans are part of nature.

 

With that said, some still seem to harbor the idea of this ideal Earth where all the other animals live in harmony, free from the pressures of evolution's dalliance with high intelligence. It seems the smarter an animal is, the more it learns to adapt to its environment, the more it learns to utilize the resources available to it, the less "natural" it must be.

 

I think we need to acknowledge our interdependence with other life, and rather than setting ourselves apart, I think we need to figure out how we best fit in to our environments, for the most benefit to the most living things. We can't do that if we consider ourselves separate from nature.

 

I look at it this way. Eventually, when our sun goes red giant, it can burn up an Earth full of natural animals ignorant of their plight, or it can burn up an Earth where one highly intelligent species left while they could, taking everything they could, and at least tried to spread as much of Earth's biodiversity to other planets as possible.

[Bill Angel]

The other thing is climate change is a real phenomena that maybe wasn't as serious as first thought 30-40 years ago.With all the scientific data out now though there is a need to act.The state of our planet has to come first because without a sustainable planet to live on how can future generations thrive.

Anyone care to comment on the assertion that climate change is making Siberia more agriculturally productive?