Earth's oceans on course for mass extinction
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, September 26, 2011 06:09
VIEWED: 3627
PAGE 3 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Population limiting as seriously suggested WOULD mean population decline. Not everyone gets married, not everyone lives long enough to have children, much less two--obviously it's not workable, I'm just point out that it WOULD create a decline in population.
We may not have to worry about that--well, if we had time, that is. Considering the rate at which some countries are populating, it's already too late. But I think Sig's remark about sperm count is right on target (it's already happening), and I agree with her every point.
Space isn't the answer. Mankind has always fucked up his environment, then either died out or moved on. We'd do the same in space, and you need raw materials to do any of that; earth only has so many, and what we DO have is being seriously depleted. How do you provide materials enough to start a colony such as suggested, much less keep it going and start others, when earth's material is less and less even with the population we have NOW?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
Niki,
You are right that limiting couples to 2 kids would bring the population down, but you are missing a key word - eventually. If we could get ZPG today, the population would continue growing for at least 20 more years before beginning to decline (and a lot can happen in those 20 years). The reason for this is that more than a third of the world's population is under 15 years of age (more than half in the countries growing most rapidly). There aren't many things in biology that you can state as a truism, but one is that when humans hit breeding age, they have kids. I tell my students that it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight or indifferent, almost everyone has kids. Putting the brakes on human population growth is very, very big job - about which little is being done.
You are also right about space not being an option, but the primary reason isn't the supply of materials - though that is by no means trivial - it's the energy cost to lift materials out of the Earth's gravity well. The only energetically feasible source would be the asteroid belt, and materials could be moved down into the suns gravity well. But then there's the small problem that we are nowhere near having the technology to do it, and as far as I can tell no one is even considering it.
Looks like we'll need to keep the Earth we've got - and try not to screw it up so much.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
much less keep it going and start others, when earth's material is less and less even with the population we have NOW?
Niki, are you aware how big space is? Are you aware how much STUFF IS IN SPACE? You're really talking to me about a lack of resources?
Space has more than enough capacity to hold one little sometimes rather dirty and messy species. Better than being on a planet now, isn't it? Plus, we're getting better about that.
As for fuel, two words: space elevator.
Quote:
obviously it's not workable, I'm just point out that it WOULD create a decline in population.
Of course it's not workable. China as far as I'm aware still has over 1.3 billion people, and they had a one child policy implemented in 1979. There's talk about ending it in 2020. Provided, of course, the Chinese government doesn't have a workers revolution on it's hands before then, and I think it might.
Zero Population Growth. I think the fact that the Chinese policy has actually FAILED to bring about ZPG is a good sign that it's never gonna happen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My sympathy is with the fishes. The oceans have more ability to recover, given the huge biomass base, but still, there's species loss. Freshwater is in much more danger at the moment. I'm distressed by the loss of freshwater fish species over the last decade, it's pretty apocalyptic. We need a major change, and that will not come from elected leaders.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I didn't miss "eventually", Perfesser, I wrote "if we had time" and "it's already too late". That's what I meant. I'm a "child of ZPG" myself, insofar as I knew Lisa Marie, his daughter, during my folkdancing years at Stanford while I was a hippie. Believe me, I got all the details! I know it's too late, it was probably too late even then, so we'll just have to suffer the consequences, and it will NOT be pretty!
You surely aren't living in a dream world where we WILL, by any stretch of the imagination, "try not to screw it up so much"? I think it's a little late to even HOPE for that, much less have any belief it might happen...I'd say "in time", but I think time is already up, we just haven't realized it yet.
Byte, sweets, there's a lot of "stuff" in space, but it wouldn't necessarily support a population...one that grows and grows and grows ad infinitum. Nothing is ACTUALLY infinite, especially when there is a heavy, unceasing demand on it. We're nowhere near the technology to even go out there, much less jetting around looking for something to eat.
My sympathies too, DT. It pretty much finished it for me when I learned what we're doing to the oceans. Given their recuperative powers and enormity, once we began destroying THEM, I gave up all hope.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think limiting couples to two kids each, and telling people who can and can't reproduce, is an answer, that concept is apalling to me. I'm choosing not to reproduce for a couple of reasons, but I can't force others not to make that choice, and I can't force, nor would I want to, anyone to only have two kids, after all its not doin much for ole China is it. We need to work with what we have, which is people having babies, that's reality. Of course making controception available to them that wants it is a good thing.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
but it wouldn't necessarily support a population...
The answer to my two previous questions was "infinite" and "infinite." Meaning infinite Nitrates, Silicon and Aluminum based soil, Carbon Dioxide, Water/ice, and photons from various stars.
In other words PLANTS.
Really, we've already developed technology to recycle water and atmosphere on the International Space Station, the only thing we'd have to do is introduce hydroponics to the same basic model.
A far bigger problem than resources (which is simply not a problem) is muscular atrophy from zero gravity, but that's easily solvable through rotating sections of any future space station.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a side note, What's WITH you guys? We're talking about SPACE TRAVEL and planet colonization for everyone. What part of Firefly did y'all like exactly?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"As a side note, What's WITH you guys? We're talking about SPACE TRAVEL and planet colonization for everyone. What part of Firefly did y'all like exactly?"
Didn't miss anything but I think we're mostly on board with it being a fantasy, not an option.
BTW - I'm not sure you realize just how MUCH earth-based resources it takes just to keep the space station going,
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kind of on a side note, I remember someone once talking about a completely artificial diet and what he said really struck home - he said that humans are exactly adapted to what earth provides.
When you think about it, maybe that means the 50ppm bromine in the air, as well as sunshine (causes white blood cells to release from blood vessel walls, better sleep and moods, and vitamin D synthesis), and gravity. Not to forget the omega-3 fatty acids and phytonutrients. I don't think we will ever get it all right.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki, I have serious doubts that the space station is even a significant drain of resources compared to the other day-to-day sinks on earth... Or that we're in danger of being unable to continue to supply the station.
Considering that we're talking about how to solve that whole drain on earth resources thing... Insignificant drain... Significant drain. I'm still weighing it.
I think also humans would be in no real danger of not getting enough sunlight in space. The real problem, of course, is getting too much.
Also, never said anything about artificial, and as previously mentioned, fish and plants can be grown, though I have doubts that fish are really the alternative we want to be looking at. If we can avoid evil tampering, might be we can produce various proteins and oils in a food source through genetic engineering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME