http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/23/footprint.people.reut/index.html <font size=5>People use 83 percent of land surface: study </font> Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Posted: 1:43 PM EDT (1743 GMT) WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish, leaving just a few areas pristine for wildlife, according to a new report this week. <b>People also have taken advantage of 98 percent of the land that can be farmed for rice, wheat or corn, said the report, </b>produced by scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) in New York. Their map, published on the Internet at http:/www.wcs.org/humanfootprint, adds together influences from population density, access from roads and waterways, electrical power infrastructure, and the area used by cities and farms. The few remaining wild areas include the northern forests of Alaska, Canada and Russia; the high plateaus of Tibet and Mongolia; and much of the Amazon River Basin. "The map of the human footprint is a clear-eyed view of our influence on the Earth," Eric Sanderson, a landscape ecologist for the WCS, who led the report, said in a statement. "It provides a way to find opportunities to save wildlife and wild lands in pristine areas, and also to understand how conservation in wilderness, countryside, suburbs, and cities are all related." Antarctica and a few Arctic land patches were not included in the study because of the lack of data and near absence of human influences, said Malanding Jaiteh, senior staff associate at CIESIN. Copyright 2002 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [insert Soylent Green joke here]
gee whiz, fellow humans, if we can't feed all the 6.3 billion people we have now, and we're farming 98% of farm-suitable land, what happens as the population continues to grow exponentially? Hmmm. I'm going to start storing away burgers now, in the freezer.
honestly...i have a hard time believeing that we use 83% of the world's land. i have no way to counter this report...but that's the problem with a report like this...who gets to check its accuracy?
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html Innovation is the answer to your question. Malthus posed this problem 200 years ago, and similar to your statement, he worried that the arithmatic food growth would be outstripped by exponential population growth. Malthus was proved to be DEAD WRONG. Scientific and technological advances have allowed for the production of *more* than enough food to feed tomorrow's population. ahh... the dismal science....
Oddly, I think Trader Jorge is right. Malthus' predictions have not come true. The real problem is with food distribution, rather than production. We currently produce easily enough to provide adequate nourishment for everybody on the planet. Unfortunately, much is wasted. There is a resource-limit, but it should probably be defined according to energy limitations, not arable land.
I might have a new sig.... If we took one-third of the food that was doled out to already obese people at places like Golden Corral and CiCi's, we could feed small countries, as well as have more comfortable airplane rides.
That's pretty funny. Actually, the rate at which an American (even a non-obese one) uses resources compared to the rate at which your average third-world citizen uses resources is really depressing. As long as we're dropping fancy-pants sources, you might want to reference at least the highlights of the 1998 UN report on global resource consumption. The points about distribution are well-taken and familiar. However, the farmland is not in good repair. Leave food aside though. More importantly, there is simply not enough water for the world's current population, never mind the population on the horizon. facts as of 1998
I'm optimistic that improvements to the water desalination process will provide a viable way to tap into more of the earth's water supply.
Good point. I think it desalination works pretty well, but the plants are butt expensive. A few wealthy countries are making it work. Just out of curiosity, what's your take on the population growth issue? Do you think we should just keep growing as long as we can feed and water everybody?
I think space exploration is the long term solution to the population growth issue, while in the short term we could have incentives for men having vasectomies following the birth of their first child.
In China, since only one child per couple is allowed it seems, what do they do to ensure a second isn't procreated? Are mandatory vasectomies enforced after the birth of the first child? Does the government force abortion if a woman is impregnated or does this not occur? Curious.
"In my time we didn't have all these fancy birth control methods like 'pulling out.'" --George Carlin
Funny Baqui. By the way, congrats on fantasy. Are you in a NBA league already? So does China give every woman in the country birth control pills or what? It is illegal to have 2 children there isn't it? Or are there just major incentives given for only having one?
They tax you like crazy for every child you have after 1. Don't know about birth control though. Oh ya, send me an email if you're interested in our basketball league.
There will be a limit because of the continuing explosive population growth in Africa and Asia. Reducing the population table gradually once the numbers are huge is a highly difficult task because you only need 2 children to break even and sustain the high numbers already there. Eventually the table will collapse. The real answer is not science. Science in fact, might drive us to take in vitamins in order to supplement an already balanced meal http://www.humannutrition.com/BestNutritionProducts.php The answer is more intrinsic to the core of all developing third world nations: The education of women. If women are given equal opportunities to learn and take part of the career field, they will have to assess more consequences for the actions they take. They will have to plan out their future and possibly delay child bearing until their career takes off. All this is happening in modern countries, and as a result, a steadily declining birthrate. I put my faith in science to combat illnesses and to give me 5 second burritos, but for a problem so worldwide, so prevalent, this is something beyond the bounds of our technological capabilites. The richest countries constitute for less than a billion people. With a population doubling around 30-50 years, it's foolhardy to believe that we can feed the entire world by not "super sizing" at home...
Invisible -- Check out my link. There exists 200 years of data to prove you wrong. Your argument is the very same as Malthus. Nothing you told me changes my opinion. What you are advocating is education as a means of birth/population control. Not sure if there is a solid link there or not -- there very well could be. I'm all for education -- investing in human capital pays the highest returns.
I read it, but there isn't any direct evidence countering it (such as the world is <i>not</i> going to reach a limit). It just that there isn't any evidence in what Malthus says. From what I do know is that Malthus isn't highly referenced today, but his work is used as a bridge towards greater understanding that overpopulation is and will become a problem in our future. We are on an exponential curve in terms of the total world population (probably the only thing that Malthus correctly guessed). The famine going on in N. Africa might become a distant memory in the next 10 or even 5 years. I'll find more corroborating evidence in the future when I don't have a midterm to take the next day.
