And now for a completely different opinion: Sept. 7, 2010, 12:01 a.m. EDT · Recommend (20) · Post: Forget going green -- Earth doesn't care Commentary: Hybrids, recycling, solar won't halt species extinction Like massive asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs "with the power of a million 100-megaton hydrogen warheads. The damage that human activity presently inflicts, many say, is comparable." Then he reminds us that "Earth didn't replace the dinosaurs after they died, notwithstanding the improved weather conditions and 20,000 ages of Moses to make repairs. It just moved on and became something different than it had been before." The real problem? By 2050 we'll add too many cute new babies So what's Earth now telling its old friend, Nobel physicist Laughlin? Earth is exposing the real problem that's forcing us into the sixth species extinction, the elimination of toxic species threatening Earth's survival: The "real problem is human population pressure generally -- overharvesting, habitat destruction, pesticide abuse, species invasion and so forth." So what's the solution? "Slowing manmade extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world's human population. That is unlikely to happen." Get it? Population growth will continue inexorably from six billion to nine billion. Earth doesn't want 50% growth. So the sixth species extension is in progress. Whether you're an activist or a climate-denier, you can rant and rave all you want -- for or against all the politically correct campaigns to cut carbon emissions, recycle plastic water bottles, eat locally grown organic food, tax breaks for solar energy, buying hybrids or greenophying urban skyscrapers. At best, all that jockeying around may delay the endgame -- the inevitable sixth species extinction -- by a few seconds on the geologic time-clock. But it won't stop the clock. Fifty percent growth guarantees extinctions. Yes, you can delay ... but you cannot stop the inevitable Yes, you can delay Earth's endgame scenario, says Laughlin. But nothing can change the Earth's trajectory on the new path of the sixth species extinction ... as long as China, India, Africa, Asia, the Americas and the rest of the world keep adding more babies, blowing up the population bubble from roughly 6 billion today to more than 9 billion by 2050. Remember, if all 6 billion Earth inhabitants used resources and generated as much waste as America today, we'd already need six Earths. With a 2050 population of 9 billion, it's "game over." Laughlin's geologic-time equation says population is the key problem that renders all recycling-hybrid-organic-green-solar-energy solutions ineffective in stopping the inevitable species extinction. Population growth is the one key variable in the Earth's economic equation that actually accelerates all other problems. Laughlin concludes like a conductor building to the grand climax of an orchestral masterpiece: "The great ice episodes were not the only cases of natural climate change, however. Six million years ago the Mediterranean Sea dried up. Ninety million years ago alligators and turtles cavorted in the Arctic. One hundred fifty million years ago the oceans flooded the middle of North America and preserved dinosaur bones. Three hundred million years ago, northern Europe burned to a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. The great ice episodes themselves were preceded by approximately 30 smaller ones between one and two million years ago." This time is different. Why? The first 'species extinction' with people "Nobody knows why these dramatic climate changes occurred in the ancient past. ... One thing we know for sure is that people weren't involved. There weren't enough people around during the ice episodes to matter, and there weren't any people around before the ice episodes." So can we do anything to stop the "sixth species extinction?" No. Climate change "is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself," warns Laughlin. Earth "doesn't include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth's climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them ... climate ought not to concern us too much ... because it's beyond our power to control." So if climate change is "beyond our control," why not accept it and enjoy life? Yes, forget about recycling, hybrids, solar cells, wind power, clean coal, desalination and living green. They're ineffective, can't stop the "sixth species extinction" ... as long as population continues growing out of control from six billion to nine billion. In the end, however, no matter what Laughlin says, we are still masters of our fate, captains of our souls. Yes, we did light the fuse on the next "Big Bang," the population time bomb. Yes, we set in motion the "sixth species extinction." Yes, the "geologic time bomb" is ticking away. But we made the decision. Not Earth. Admit it. Take responsibility. Go enjoy life, live for today. And stop wasting time, money and energy on ineffective solutions to reverse the inevitable ending that we already set in motion. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/forget-going-green-earth-doesnt-care-2010-09-07?pagenumber=2
I agree that population control, especially in poor countries, isn't being addresses in a serious way, but the solution, better education, rejection of religious and cultural dogma, and promotion of equal rights for women just isn't practical, short term, in third world countries. There simply isn't any viable solution to doing these things soon enough to matter.
You should probably have posted the link to the first page of the article so that people could read it from the beginning: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/forget-going-green-earth-doesnt-care-2010-09-07?pagenumber=1 In addition to the article being horribly written, I have one major promise with the premise: the author essentially claims that there's no point in being "green" because we're only delaying the inevitable, while ignoring the fact that actual solutions other than drastically reducing the population may present themselves sometime during the time that we would be "pointlessly" extending human civilization. A clean, renewable energy source being implemented sometime in the next fifty to one hundred years would do a lot. Improvements to the efficiency of food production would do a lot. Driving a hybrid car may not be a "game changer," but that doesn't mean that there is no game changer.
This author assumes we are going to keep growing at the exact same rate today and for forever. Absolutely not true. Things change on an incremental day by day basis as people constantly reevaluate their situations. Humankind is not going to go extinct because there are too many humans.
He did not ignore efforts, he just extrapolated the time scale out to the point of inevitability. You can do that with anything, end of the sun, end of time/space. But look at the source, it's in Marketwatch as a backhanded approval of slash and burn economics and business ethics. It's valid or invalid by how you choose your own perspective. I vacillate.
When the Earth is full...the living will walk in Hell. The article sounds like one our past gubernatorial candidates: If rape is inevitable, sit back an enjoy it.
He also ignores the possibility of off world colonization if mankind lasts long enough. I mean damn, if conservation buys humanity 100 years, that could be the difference in the survival of the species if this old rock goes to hell. (barring some sort of cosmic catastrophe that would also eliminate other potential homes)
I think we'll have another couple of world wars before 9 billion people become any discernible problem. Future quality of life will definitely deteriorate because of our deliberate detachment away from other people's living conditions. But in the meanwhile, we can make passable lives in shanty towns. The American standard of living is unsustainable. We may very well take a more libertarian approach to justifying haves and have-nots.
I don't know, Mutually Assured Destruction has pretty much ruled out the big million death wars. Plus we have advanced to a point to where just going in and wiping out a whole people is seriously frowned upon.
Why not just start sterilizing certain people . . . . maybe make them into Solent Green. Rocket River
Here's my next science fiction screenplay: Women all over the world start having spontaneous miscarries. Our handsome young reporter starts chasing down stories of world wide contrails in circular patterns. He miraculously escapes a freak accident he thinks is intentional. He finally breaks the story, a mysterious consortium of scientist has conspired to cleanse the world of billions of people. A United Nations special force attacks and destroys the plotters. In the final scene, as he is dying, the learned old scientist wheezes, " we weren't trying to end the world, WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE IT" and "soy beans are people"
Mel Gibson will pay you a million bucks for the script if you change the last line to: "Global warming is a lie hatched by the Jewish media elite"
i believe the movie you're talking about has already been made, and is called "My Life," starring Michael Keaton.
World Wars don't kill enough people to slow population growth. It's going to be a virus, something that makes AIDS look like a common cold.
Let's compromise (it's possible in the D&D forums!).... A superbug after a world war because infrastructure's all broken up.
let me remind you: there's no good reason to leave the mall. it's comfortable. they can't get in. there's food. just stay. the boat is a really, really bad idea.
