$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')No, human population will crash to levels probably below natural carrying capacity due to our degree of overshoot.
PeakOil is You
Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts
Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts
by MrBean » Tue 24 Jun 2008, 07:28:02
That is the most likely outcome. However, natural carrying capacity is not a fixed number but a dynamic consept depending on countless variables. Hence, natural carrying capacity is unknown and unknowable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It will not decline due to a dropping fertility rate as the Benign Demographic Transition is over.
Huh? BDT is not over but still continues - in some locations.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You confuse overshoot with exceeding carrying capacity. It would behoove you to grasp the difference. Otherwise, your statements become non-sensical.
Then I'm not the only one: "In ecology, overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. The consequence of overshoot is called a crash or die-off. For a classic application of this concept to human experience, see Catton.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot
Catton himself defines the noun as: "The condition of having exceeded for the time being the permanent carrying capacity of the habitat."
So, could you please enlighten me, what is the difference?
As for permanent carrying capacity, that is the point of my criticism, it is a misleading concept as carrying capacity is a dynamic variable: e.g. human technocratic civilization by it's actions has been and keeps on eroding natural carrying capacity (biodiversity, fertility of soil etc.) at increasing speed, as you well know - and a radical paradigm change of not interfering with natural processes but allowing them and supporting them (e.g. natural farming, agroforestry etc.) would in turn increase the natural carrying capacity (something you seem to deny?).
-
MrBean - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts
by BigTex » Tue 24 Jun 2008, 13:39:08
It's worth noting that one way of increasing the underlying carrying capacity with respect to one species is to exterminate other species.
We have been using this approach successfully for centuries. For example, up until 10,000 years ago, the next largest population of large land-based predator mammals behind humans was the lion. Now, lions are a tiny population. Because the lion population was dramatically reduced, it made more room for humans and other predators.
The problem with this approach is that the world depends upon a certain degree of biodiversity in order for life in general to survive over very long periods of time.
For example, let's say that the climate changes in a way that causes all of the humans to die (sort of like the dinosaurs). If there is rich biodiversity, then another life form may be able to step into the void and continue the evolutionary life process that has been occurring for millions of years.
However, if when the human population dies as a result of the climate change in my example, and the species that would otherwise step into the void has been exterminated because humans considered them a pest or liked the way they tasted, then the continuation of life in any form on earth may be at risk.
The point is simply that exterminating competitors for food and habitat may not be the risk-free proposition that some suggest it is, putting aside the issue of the ethics and morality of this approach.
Fundamentally, most people take it as a given that environmental conquest is acceptable, so long as it is done for the purpose of providing more habitat and critical resources for humans. This unquestioned assumption may be less sound than some people imagine. In fact, this assumption and its flaws may be the basis for much of our mythology.
It's interesting to think about the religious traditions that posit man as a fundamentally evil creature. I've never really understood this, since humans have about equal measures of good and bad in them most of the time. When you look at the matter from an ecological perspective, however, perhaps there is a deep insight about our nature in the "Fallen Man" mythology--perhaps what is evil in our nature is that we do not see that there is any harm in using the world as a piece of stone from which we are carving our imagined destiny.
It is this same insight that was touched upon in the Tower of Babel story and in much Greek mythology--i.e., the idea that when Man attempts to make himself god-like bad things happen. I never really understood the problem with this either--I didn't see why God would have a problem with some people building a big tower. Viewed from an ecological perspective, however, and as I note above, the matter looks a little different, and there may be some profound insights in those stories, and maybe that's why they have endured for so long.
If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.
***
(Credit to Daniel Quinn for some of these ideas that are still floating around my head after recently reading "Ishmael".)
We have been using this approach successfully for centuries. For example, up until 10,000 years ago, the next largest population of large land-based predator mammals behind humans was the lion. Now, lions are a tiny population. Because the lion population was dramatically reduced, it made more room for humans and other predators.
The problem with this approach is that the world depends upon a certain degree of biodiversity in order for life in general to survive over very long periods of time.
For example, let's say that the climate changes in a way that causes all of the humans to die (sort of like the dinosaurs). If there is rich biodiversity, then another life form may be able to step into the void and continue the evolutionary life process that has been occurring for millions of years.
However, if when the human population dies as a result of the climate change in my example, and the species that would otherwise step into the void has been exterminated because humans considered them a pest or liked the way they tasted, then the continuation of life in any form on earth may be at risk.
The point is simply that exterminating competitors for food and habitat may not be the risk-free proposition that some suggest it is, putting aside the issue of the ethics and morality of this approach.
Fundamentally, most people take it as a given that environmental conquest is acceptable, so long as it is done for the purpose of providing more habitat and critical resources for humans. This unquestioned assumption may be less sound than some people imagine. In fact, this assumption and its flaws may be the basis for much of our mythology.
It's interesting to think about the religious traditions that posit man as a fundamentally evil creature. I've never really understood this, since humans have about equal measures of good and bad in them most of the time. When you look at the matter from an ecological perspective, however, perhaps there is a deep insight about our nature in the "Fallen Man" mythology--perhaps what is evil in our nature is that we do not see that there is any harm in using the world as a piece of stone from which we are carving our imagined destiny.
It is this same insight that was touched upon in the Tower of Babel story and in much Greek mythology--i.e., the idea that when Man attempts to make himself god-like bad things happen. I never really understood the problem with this either--I didn't see why God would have a problem with some people building a big tower. Viewed from an ecological perspective, however, and as I note above, the matter looks a little different, and there may be some profound insights in those stories, and maybe that's why they have endured for so long.
If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.
***
(Credit to Daniel Quinn for some of these ideas that are still floating around my head after recently reading "Ishmael".)
-
BigTex - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Graceland
Re: Lifting the Ban on Off-shore Drilling:The Facts
by Ludi » Tue 24 Jun 2008, 13:44:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.
')If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.
These stories may have roots in experiences peoples had when they didn't pay attention to limits and their populations collapsed to near-extinction. Perhaps some stories from the American Southwest date from the time of the collapse of the Anasazi empire. I think most myths have some basis in reality, and are stories about the past. Even prophecies of the future may be warning tales not to repeat bad behavior of the past.
- Ludi
