Julien asks:
>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?
Nah, the projections envision the �status quo�.
I guess it depends upon your viewpoint. If you assume that everything goes
along fine until we cross some threshold and then there is an immediate
collapse, that�s one thing; if you assume that a slow-down roughly mirrors
the descent into the abyss, the slow-down is not important. IMHO, that�s an
area we should focus more projections upon.
>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?
Yes. I take your point. I can see that scenario you describe, and it works
to limit the damage. Loss of lots of oil could mean protecting some
forests. However, the idea is not that everything gets depleted and all at
the same time. There are two considerations: 1) Levels of depletion don�t
have to be linked or on a 1:1 ratio. 99%+ of oil depletion may be required
to plunge us into the abyss, but only perhaps the depletion of forests at a
level of 60% or something, which might occur BEFORE the oil depletion, or
vice versa. (complicated sentence, hope it is slightly clear.)
2) Despite what comfort we can take from the above, we seem to have done
tremendous damage, and it�s depleting more than a �few� resources. I won�t
quibble about levels. There might be enough of some resources left over, but
with the collapse of civilization, what comfort is it to humans? Ahhhh, it
might make the whales feel better. True! ;-) (can�t forget
anti-anthropocentrism!)
> >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?
Um, Julien sometimes I think you dissect and deconstruct in a disconnected
way. Taking apart an argument sentence by sentence sometimes leads you down
some very dark alleys. If we deplete the plankton, EVERYTHING dies. Yes it
is better to eat the fishes. �who eat smaller fishes, � who eat plankton �.
see?
>I'm obviously no biologist. Does it mean that sterilizing a small
>percentage of
>a specie's habitat can make it extinct???
Yes.
(You see the words �critical habitat� floating around these days. That is
what is important about preserving them.)
>However I think that if this
>was happening, I would see the effects with my own eyes and I don't see
>them.
You didn�t read Mark�s post about over-fishing, I take it?
>Obviously many species can die globally
>because they are sensitive to some kind of pollution without me noticing,
>but
>not most species I guess.
See below
> >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.
Well you could have started with the Wilson links I sent you on that
off-list FAQ, but here is something short and summarizing:
�There is no way to measure the absolute amount of biological diversity
vanishing year by year in the rain forests around the world, as opposed to
percentage losses, even in groups well known as birds. Nevertheless, to give
an idea of the dimension of the hemorrhaging, let me provide the most
conservative estimate that can be reasonably based upon our current
knowledge of the extinction process. I will consider only species being lost
by reduction in forest area, taking the lowest z value [as in S=CAz. Tom]
permissable. (0.15) I will not include over-harvesting or invasion by alien
organisms. I will assume a number of species living in the rain forests, 10
million (on the low side), and I will further suppose that many of the
species enjoy wide geographical ranges. Even with these cautious parameters,
selected in a biased manner to draw a maximally optimistic conclusion, the
number of species doomed each year is 27,000. Each day it is 74, and each
hour 3.
�If past species have lived on the order of a million years in the absence
of human interference, a common figure for some groups documented in the
fossil record, it follows that the normal �background� extinction rate is
about one species per one million species a year. Human activity has
increased extinction between 1,000 and 10,000 times over this level in the
rain forest by reduction in area alone. Clearly we are in the midst of one
of the great extinction spasms in geological history.� -- E.O Wilson, �The
Diversity of Life� Belnap / Harvard U. Press, 1992, ISBN 0-674-21298-3, page
280.
So, if you accept Wilson who is talking in 1992 and just about rainforests,
you must remember that we have to add to that other kinds of habitats, ie
oceans, steppes, alpine meadows, river bottoms, suburbs, etc etc. each with
its own expert observing roughly the same extinction rates as Wilson. It
adds up to better than a thousand a day, very conservatively.
>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.
Probably too strong on my part. I should have said �many species in the
order will disappear� or something like that. But keep watching the news,
conservative caution has prevented field biologists studying the problem
from announcing this �alarmist� projection, seeing as it is so tied to the
controversy of global warming.
>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?
Yes. But I have expended all my energy transcribing Wilson above, and am too
tired to go hunting the references. Try the dieoff website, I think I once
saw some figures there. Lacking those, you would have to make a rough
estimate in your head.
>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.
Semantics. Not a major point to debate, is it?
>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.
That�s close enough for me, Julien. If you see that it is much too cheap,
then you see more clearly than 99% of economists, who NEED the calculations
converted to money in order to recognize their existence.
>I'm curious as to how this concept of natural debt is applied. You have an
>example or a reference for us?
Okay � let�s use the familiar one. What is the production cost of converting
fresh biomass into oil? Who paid those production costs before using up the
current supply of converted biomass? Who will invest in converting some more
biomass into petroleum to supply the market demand for same in 2035? How
much will it cost? Since the capital invested in the original biomass
conversion operation is not available to us, who finances the � here it
comes � natural debt �? How will it be financed? What are the terms?
Reference? www.dieoff.com or the University of Maryland�s bioeconomics
forum.
What is the cost of producing an ozone layer? � a fresh water lake � a
salmon run? � a whale steak on a table in the Ginza? An old growth forest �
a � a � (tap, tap, �. enough Tom� end your rant.)
Huh? Oh.
Okay.
Tom
"If everywhere the survival of "just one more" species continues to be held
in balance with some local economic advantage, we'll have more and more of
what we already had. Conservation of biodiversity is in the interests of
everyone." -- Julien Pierrehumbert
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
