Not too long back we were talking about population density and concerns that humanity is completely overrunning the available space on the planet. The first thought that came to mind were those satellite pictures at night of the United States that show intense light activity along the east and west coast and smattered throughout...but with huge expanses completely dark. anyway...thought this article was interesting...particularly what it takes to qualify as wildnerness!!! http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/4662024.htm 46 percent of Earth is still wilderness, researchers report By Paul Rogers Mercury News Despite population growth, logging and other environmental threats, nearly half the land on Earth remains wilderness -- undeveloped and nearly unpopulated, according to a study released today. The study by 200 international scientists, the most comprehensive analysis ever done on Earth's wild places and population trends, was seen by some experts as a surprising cause for optimism. Biologists also viewed it as a warning, since only 7 percent of the wilderness is protected. ``A lot of the planet is still in pretty decent shape,'' said Russell Mittermeier, a Harvard primatologist and president of Conservation International, an environmental group in Washington, D.C., that organized the study. ``We should be happy about that, but we should do everything we can to maintain it. A lot of areas, particularly tropical forests, are under the gun.'' Using databases, computer maps and satellite photos, the study found that 46 percent of the Earth's land can be classified as wilderness -- from the forests of Russia, Canada and Alaska to the Congo, the Amazon, the Sahara and New Guinea. That area, totaling 68 million square kilometers -- more than seven times the size of the United States -- is home to only 2.4 percent of world population, or 144 million people. Antarctica and the Arctic tundra make up roughly a third of that wilderness, or 23 million square kilometers. To qualify as wilderness, researchers required areas to have fewer than five people per square kilometer, or 247 acres; at least 70 percent of their original vegetation; and a size of least 10,000 square kilometers, about the equivalent of Yellowstone National Park. The research was done over two years by scientists from such institutions as the World Bank; Cambridge and Harvard universities; Zimbabwe's Biodiversity Foundation for Africa; and the National Amazon Research Institute in Brazil. The results will be published in a 500-page book next year: ``Wilderness: Earth's Last Wild Places,'' by the University of Chicago Press. The study was bankrolled in part by donations from Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, of Woodside, a major donor to Conservation International. The developed world should do more to safeguard wilderness, said Thomas Lovejoy, president of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington, D.C. ``There is also an ethical and moral reason,'' Lovejoy said. ``We are all -- every amoeba, every person, every rhinoceros -- the end point of 4 billion years of evolution. You just don't snuff that out.'' Others noted that civilization's footprint is worldwide. ``There's not a square centimeter on Earth that's not affected by humans and what we produce, from chemicals in the atmosphere to global warming,'' said Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. ``But this is interesting. It makes the point that there are lots of little-affected areas, more than most people might think.''
So if you exclude Antartica and the Artic Circle which are both uninhabitable and The Deserts I would think also would fall under this category the number is pobably onlybetween 8-15 percent of the world is still wilderness.
Interesting article, MadMax. The reporter is actually a top notch science journalist. What can I say? ... "Let's go get it, boys! Yeeeee-hooo!"
See, we're great stewards of the land. We haven't overrun Antartica, the Arctic or the Sahara. You know, deserts of ice, or deserts of sand. Maybe the additional ocean that we create in the next few centuries can raise the headline "new oceanic wilderness created by destroying the poles, the eastern seaboard, the western seaboard, the Gulf States including Florida...", on and on. The infectious diseases of the Congo and the Amazon and the headhunters of New Guinea have also sparked our conservational interests. We're a good species.
wait wait wait!!! the land left as wilderness (which by the way, isn't an easy qualification to reach quite frankly!) is 7X the size of the United States!!!! I'm the last person to say that mankind is good...in fact my theology is in direct contradiction with that. It just seems that the sky isn't falling as rapidly as we've been led to believe. Here are guys who are environmentalists saying we may not be having as big an impact as we've thought. You can roll your eyes and throw in all the sarcastic wit you wish...it's pretty typical anytime an article like this is posted, anyway.
lol 7x? do you have any idea how big the ice caps and the Saharan desert are? They slate the ice caps as 1/3 of their study ~2 of your 2x, and the Saharan desert is the size of the US. There's ~3x of your 7x. Those areas are biologically "rich", relatively to Mars. I threw in the joke about the Congo/New Guinea/Amazon... b/c those areas really are ****ed up. When Coca Cola tames New Guinea and geneticists take the Congo, we'll have a whole new area opened up. Either way, those jokes don't address what many American environmentalists care about. It's nice to know, that man hasn't been able to pollute all of God's creation yet, but a lot of us are concerned that <u>we</u> breath clean air, drink clean water, see the occassional non domesticated animal in our own neck of the woods (this is why being a bird watcher is the stable strategy). Frankly, I'm always amazed that the fundamentalist sect of Christianity has so much animosity towards environmentalism. I would think that you guys actually respected God's house. Instead you're like a bunch of frat daddies talking about how much dad loves you while you tear the building down w/ your vomit and stench. Pay some ****ing respect.
So ... how 'bout that Yao Ming. Ain't he somethin' else! Anyway, want to point out something before the ice caps become an even larger focus of this debate. The North Pole's ice cap never counts as land mass, because there's essentially no land under it. The South Pole's ice cap sits on top of an entire land mass, so that one counts. Antarctica is part of the 46% for sure, but it's not enormous. The fifth largest continent, it has the area of 1.5 times the mainland US. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I don't think MM posted this in the spirit of "see, you environmentalist whackos are all wrong! !" He even highlighted the part of the article where the Harvard smarty-pants was saying we need to take care of what's left as best we can, etc. I'll reiterate, the writer of this article (Rogers) is not so prone to bias, and he's incredibly good at what he does, in terms of getting facts and delivering a balanced view. He published it in the SF Bay Area, and if this was an anti-environmental piece, he'd be hanging from one of the bridges by now, believe me. edit: I know I'm missing some history here ... like the time MadMax intentionally ran over Achebe's Pomeranian with a huge SUV.
If you are including deserts, and other barely inhabitable areas (unless, perhaps, they're irrigated... whoops, where would we get the water??), then remember that the Sahara is merely the largest and most famous desert area. Check out the Middle East, Central Asia, large tracks of China, Parts of S. America, southern Africa and, lest we forget, huge areas of our good friend Australia. Not to mention enormous semi-artic stretches of tundra in Canada and Siberia. Yes, tons of folks will be moving there in no time. (Ming IS a stud, ain't he? )
why the animosity, achebe? what did i post here that you are reacting to so vehmently? the guy quoted in the article simply says, "maybe we haven't done as much damage as we previously thought." that's it. i didn't post an article from newsmax, here, achebe. i don't understand your reaction at all.
Ouch! The rest of the quote was actually quite brilliant and well thought out, but this is by far my favorite bit
