SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Living beyond our means: second earth needed

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Living beyond our means: second earth needed (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143794)

Ignore, double post.

Living beyond our means: second earth needed

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf

Quote:

The recent downturn in the global economy is a stark
reminder of the consequences of living beyond our
means. But the possibility of financial recession pales in
comparison to the looming ecological credit crunch.

Whether we live on the edge of the forest or in the heart of the
city, our livelihoods and indeed our lives depend on the services
provided by the Earth’s natural systems. The Living Planet
Report 2008 tells us that we are consuming the resources that
underpin those services much too fast – faster than they can be
replenished. Just as reckless spending is causing recession, so
reckless consumption is depleting the world’s natural capital to
a point where we are endangering our future prosperity. The
Living Planet Index shows that over the past 35 years alone the
Earth’s wildlife populations have declined by a third.

Yet our demands continue to escalate, driven by the relentless
growth in human population and in individual consumption.
Our global footprint now exceeds the world’s capacity to
regenerate by about 30 per cent. If our demands on the planet
continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the
equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles. And
this year’s report captures, for the first time, the impact of
our consumption on the Earth’s water resources and our
vulnerability to water scarcity in many areas.

These overall trends have very concrete consequences, and
we have seen them this year in daily headlines. Global prices
for many crops have hit record highs, in large part due to
surging demand for food, feed and biofuels, and, in some
places, dwindling water supplies. For the first time in recorded
history, this past summer the Arctic ice cap was surrounded by
open water – literally disappearing under the impact of our
carbon footprint.

The ecological credit crunch is a global challenge. The Living
Planet Report 2008 tells us that more than three quarters of
the world’s people live in nations that are ecological debtors
– their national consumption has outstripped their country’s
biocapacity. Thus, most of us are propping up our current
lifestyles, and our economic growth, by drawing (and
increasingly overdrawing) upon the ecological capital of other
parts of the world.

The good news is that we have the means to reverse the
ecological credit crunch – it is not too late to prevent an
irreversible ecological recession setting in. This report identifies
the key areas where we need to transform our lifestyles and
economies to put us on a more sustainable trajectory.

The scale of the challenge at times seems overwhelming, which
is why we have introduced the concept of “sustainability
wedges” to tackle ecological overshoot across different sectors
and drivers. This wedge analysis enables us to break down the
various contributing factors of overshoot and propose different
solutions for each. For the single most important challenge, the
WWF Climate Solutions Model uses a wedge analysis to
illustrate how it is possible to meet the projected growth in
demand for global energy services in 2050 while achieving
significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Crucially, this model highlights the need to take immediate
action to curb dangerous climate change.

As we act to reduce our footprint – our impact on the Earth’s
services – we must also get better at managing the ecosystems
that provide those services. Success requires that we manage
resources on nature’s terms and at nature’s scale. This means
that decisions in each sector, such as agriculture or fisheries,
must be taken with an eye to broader ecological consequences.
It also means that we must find ways to manage across our own
boundaries – across property lines and political borders – to
take care of the ecosystem as a whole.

It is nearly four decades since the Apollo 8 astronauts
photographed the famous “Earth Rise”, providing the first ever
view of Planet Earth. In the two generations since, the world
has moved from ecological credit to ecological deficit. The
human species has a remarkable track record of ingenuity and
problem solving. The same spirit that took man to the moon
must now be harnessed to free future generations from crippling
ecological debt.

A second thread too? :hmm: ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

A second thread too? :hmm: ;)

The other is a backup. In case this one goes up in flames. :D

I demand a merge:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

panda.org LOL seriously... LOL

There's not much I can say except that I agree completely. We are going the dangerous route, we are destroying the earth, and that will have a payback sooner or later. Go put your head in a hole, or fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalala I didn't hear anything", but that will not change a thing.

Second earth?

No problem! We're already messing up a Third World ...

:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman

By our record so far, this seems to be what it most likely is coming down to. But no other mammal goes down the drain so well-entertained like we are. So keep on smiling while we fall - you are on TV!

As a good friend of mine once said, "Save the planet? More like save the humans! The planet has survived worse than us and will again."

To quote A.C. Clarke, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

And Ripley in Aliens II: "You know, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them screwing each other over for a fu*king percentage."

Humans deserve to perish. In accordance with even the most basic tenets found in Darwinism, the successful will adapt and survive. I guess that means cockroaches...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Reminds me of the Romans :hmm:

One thing that has always struck me was the following quote from The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells:

Quote:

And before we judge them too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Reminds me of the Romans :hmm:

One thing that has always struck me was the following quote from The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells:

Quote:

Yes, and this one by Johannes Kepler:

Quote:

“But who shall dwell in these worlds if they be inhabited?....Are we or they Lords of the World?....And how are all things made for man?”

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I disagree with just about everything in this post except what your good friend said.

Edit: Oh and I had some bison steak just the other night. Not bad eating for a "vanished" animal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I disagree with just about everything in this post except what your good friend said.

Edit: Oh and I had some bison steak just the other night. Not bad eating for a "vanished" animal...

:lol: Well my friend was waxing sarcastic at the time and he doesn't see any long-term continuation of the Human species either. Humans will come and humans will go, but the planet will continue on...

As for Clarke's observation: That certainly remains to be seen doesn't it? Our "intelligence" is at the root of the problem IMO. We "intelligently" bend nature to our will to benefit our race but we evidently don't know (or don't care as the case may be) about the long term consequences. The current belief is that we're "trashing the planet". Now, is that anyway for a truly intelligent race to act?

I just really like Ripley's quote as I believe it rings true more frequently than we'd like to admit. Exxon made record profits last quarter and US taxpayers will foot the bill for the $700B Bailout. I can't think of two more shining examples of being "screwed" over for a percentage.

Anyway, the whole point is, ummm... pointless... It's highly doubtful that any of us participating in this forum will be around to see the end of it anyway... ;)

(But personally, I look forward to Revelations 21:1-4 myself)

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

The only animal that seeks to change it's environment is Man... And by the looks of things, it's not going along too well...

As for the second: The connection is that I feel I've been screwed in both instances. Concerning Exxon, I've paid much higher prices at the pump while their percentage of profit skyrocketed. In the second, while perhaps not technically a "percentage" figure, I see the bailout as a vehicle whereby someone else will profit by screwing me, and I'm sure a huge number of Americans, over for their personal gain... :shifty:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

And I agree, we have relied upon our intelligence to make up to the lack of "natural ablility" we would have needed to survive otherwise. Thinking in Darwinistic terms, our intelligence has made us the dominant species on the planet by dint of our evolution of the brain... We subjugate everything that confronts or opposes us by sheer intellect and willpower.

Here's the catch, where has this application of intelligence led us to? Certainly, Man's ability to make fire, flint tools and stone weapons and engaging in primitive agriculture would have little effect on the earth in millenia past. Man's early populations would have been a trifle to support in a natural ecosystem. But, it just wasn't enough... Man wanted more...

So, in the long run, has Man's "superior intellect" saved him from inevitable extinction? Taking the current state of affairs (social, political, ecological) at face value (for there are many arguments one might raise for and against) my position is no. We're merely prolonging the inevitable.

I love reading Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." ;)

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

Now, if we had not, for example, learnt to dress warmly or control fire, we would've stayed in the warmer areas. The regions which suited us, comparable to a shark staying in water which is the 'region' which suits it. We'd probably be still around without "intelligence", but we'd be simply another type of great ape.

There is no proof on the other hand that "intelligence" will be our demise. Sure, we've created weapons that can do this, etc, but we haven't done it. There is every possibility that we have attained in Homo Sapiens the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and that we as a species will continue indefinately.

Pragmatically speaking, Homo Sapiens must eventually die out. Almost every single species has. Perhaps a new genus (is that the right word, I can't remember) of human will emerge, perhaps not. but nothing is eternal! (please don't open the religion can of worms there)

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Not really. Their design has not changed since millions of years. It reached perfection relatively early on. They are one of the most well-adapted to their environment lifeforms on this planet.