>It is estimated that Indonesia will be
>deforested before 2100.
>...
>deforestation in South America,
>...
>and with projections that by 2075 they will be incapable
>of recovering.
Do these projections envision a mass human dieoff, the end of big oil, etc.? If
things continue at the current rate, we will indeed cut down all forests,
exterminate most species, etc. but will they continue at current rates for that
long? It's like this bell-like curve thing for oil. Depletion should slow down for
economic reasons before it stops. Or is there a crucial difference?
>1) We are living on an island, Julien, that's the point. (Ricardo applies
>here ...
I wasn't trying to say that the whole world isn't beign depleted. The fact that we
aren't living on an actual island implies that there are very remote places and
places with few ressources, etc. We aren't going to plunder every bit of earth's
surface, right? At worst, you could argue that a few ressources will be depleted
99%+ but at that point the depletion of other ressources will not be able to be
systematized that far because of the lack of the previously depleted
ressources. For example, if oil runs out it will be less economical to cut down
remote forests. You could imagine wood-consuming settlements moving
farther in the unexploited forests but if people do that and are pretty much cut
off from the rest of the world they will want to keep much of the forest where they
are, isn't it?
>The idea that we could be
>harvesting the plankton at the very foundation of the food chain is terribly
>frightening.
Why? Is it better to eat the fishes?
>We just have to render a small part of the oceans sterile -- a
>certain small unknown percentage more than can be adapted to by species.
I'm obviously no biologist. Does it mean that sterilizing a small percentage of
a specie's habitat can make it extinct??? You see, if was educated to these
things with the idea that big natural reserves were enough to preserve the
species which have this habitat (not all of course, but most). I might be
completey wrong in that respect.
Of course, the atmosphere and the oceans have no borders and these kinds
of pollution can be globally lethal as you say lower. However I think that if this
was happening, I would see the effects with my own eyes and I don't see them.
Maybe this is a stupid attitude. Obviously many species can die globally
because they are sensitive to some kind of pollution without me noticing, but
not most species I guess.
>Go read E.O. Wilson about it.
You got a more precise reference, preferably something short and
summarizing? I'm not going to look for all his books in the local library.
>The evidence is becoming increasingly clear that our assault on the ozone
>layer has now damaged a whole ORDER of species beyond repair.
>(amphibians).
Good point. But what do you mean "beyond repair"? You're saying that
whatever happens in the near future, this order will disapear??? That would be
news! I heard that story about male frogs lacking mates but I heard it was
geographically limited.
>The Green
>Revolution is at its foundation possible only via petrochemical fertilizers.
Good point again. But there are better alternatives to those at least for some
kinds of soils as has been demonstrated by local victories of organic
agriculture. Do you have a figure similar to Hanson (what's the amount of
petrochemicals expended in that part of production relative to the other). Do
you have a figure as to the percentage of petrochemicals consumed in food
production relative to total consumption today?
>>What do you mean by speciation here? ...
>
>... we can endanger
>or render extinct most species on the planet above the level of bacteria ...
OK. I thought speciation meant the differenciation of a specie into new ones.
But with your definition I don't see the difference between speciation and
biodiversity.
>>>natural resource debt
>>
>>What's that?
>
>... In purely
>monetary terms it�s calculated that the natural environment contributes about
>US$30 trillion a year to the global economy. It would cost at least that much to
>replace what gets used up for free.
I don't understand the point in doing a monetary calculation. Besides, isn't *all*
economic activity built on the natural envitonment anyway? BTW, it isn't really
used up for free even in the cases where no cost comes up formally (you
could argue that a business pays the price of polluting the ground when it pays
taxes, buys the land for its plant, etc.). But it's much too cheap.
>The debt becomes
>apparent when the water runs out, the oil runs out, etc etc etc ad nauseum.
>In local economies one begins to see these costs added into economic
>calculations ...
I'm curious as to how this concept of natural debt is applied. You have an
example or a reference for us?
>Enough?
Obviously not as my questions above showed.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
