Marcus -
While I DO believe that we (industrialized humans for sure, all humans
probably, large mammals maybe, all mammals possibly, all life for sure
by some measure) are a blight upon the land, I think this article and
specifically the table in question are specious.
Corollary arguments could then be made that purveyors of war and even
(especially?) genocide are doing the survivors a great favor, and in
fact, I think that might have been as significant of a factor in the
(relative) slow growth of population in pre-industrial times. By
ending war, we destroy the biosphere. Forget "drill baby drill", let's
play "nuke baby nuke!"? Hussein's WMDs (had they been found or even
existed) might have been tools of salvation for the human race,
especially if used against populations with a high per-capita Carbon
Footprint? Seems like an argument for genetic modification of the human
genome? *How* small can one human being be viable? Perhaps a 30lb
human could cut their footprint by up to a factor of 5 or so? Maybe
only having *small* children would help? Fitting them with baleen and
high density hemoglobin and flukes (e.g. whales) could allow our
children to live in the ocean and by eating algae, create a *negative*
carbon footprint?
Looking at Fig. 6, it would be easy to conclude that anything but 0
reproduction is completely irresponsible. It is possible this is true?
We can either have 0 children, increase mortality rates significantly,
or we can establish a carbon footprint 1/10 the size of our present
footprint? I don't quite get Fig 6.'s lines. "Optimistic" seems to
imply 0 reproduction, what does "Constant" and "Pessimistic" represent
(2 children and 3 children per couple? or 2.03 children and
optimistic/pessimistic assumptions about carbon footprints in the future?)
Comparing the amount of C02 released/produced by of the sum of one's
offspring to adjustments to lifestyle seems like Apples and
Orangatans. It seems like there is a normalization factor left out?
It seems enough to say that your C02 legacy is many times your personal
C02 footprint in your lifetime if you have children (is that any
surprise that your Carbon footprint *plus* that of your children and
their children, etc. is *much* larger than just your own?)?
An important number is what rate of C02 production by humans is
"sustainable"? Is there a well agreed upon number? C02 is not the
*only* measure of our threat to the biosphere but by some measures it
might be the most significant one for the moment. Have targets been set
that are reasonable to achieve without a massive human population
die-off? The ones I hear sound based on what Industrialized countries
*think* they can do if they put their mind to it, or gloom and doom
scenarios that sound likely biased by a factor of 2 or 10?
I *do* have children and in fact 1 grandchild (all I expect to have, in
fact), partly for these very reasons. My daughters perceive that
reproducing is categorically risky to their legacy (kind of a
paradox?)... While I think this kind of thinking has it's own risks, I
can't provide a legitimate counter-argument.
While my initial reaction was negative to both the assumptions and
conclusions of the paper, I think the point should be well considered.
Maybe the Shakers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers> had it right?
At least in terms of furniture design and reproduction. There are
apparently 3 living Shakers (all women?) I suppose we could interview
them and see how it is working out?
- Steve
Pamela wrote:
Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we
have to put our kids through college like everyone else.
Having a child is not so charitable, so far as the planet is
concerned, e.g. table 3.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
