Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
19. Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 02:32 PM
Mar 2013

Basically, anything but a hunter-forager puts too much indirect stress on the ecosystem in one way or another. For example, we would have to mine and refine the materials and then manufacture the equipment for renewable energy technology, regardless of where we put the resulting gear. And you have to grow food to feed the extra people that result from having the energy (resulting in habitat destruction) and give them some level of infrastructure (more impact) etc. etc.

Here's how I explained it in the FB comment thread:

Ever since agriculture began, we've been strip-mining the soil. That's where the extra energy to boost the population - as well as the initial planetary damage - first came from. If we'd stuck to doing it with oxen and sticks, it might have been tens of thousands of years before the negative effects became visible. But we didn't.

I use a very strict definition of sustainability - something like, "The ability of a species to survive in perpetuity without damaging the planetary ecosystem in the process." This principle applies to a species' own actions, but not to external forces like Milankovich cycles, asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, etc. In fact, in order to completely fulfill this definition, even my numbers could be too high by up to an order of magnitude.

I've traditionally used an estimate of 1 billion. Numbers like that require much shorter time horizons for planetary damage to become visible. Remember that 1 billion people was the world population in 1800. Were we "sustainable" in 1800 by any reasonable definition of the word?

The other, unstated implication of the analysis is that if we drop from 7 to 1 billion, we'll be in population free-fall. As a result, we will likely keep falling until we hit the bottom of Olduvai Gorge again. My numbers are an attempt to define that landing point.

I figure if I'm going to draw a line in the sand, I'm going to do it on behalf of the plant's entire ecosphere.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I thought our population was 6,000 times too big. wtmusic Mar 2013 #1
G'day, mate! I wonder how many ways there are to say, GliderGuider Mar 2013 #2
What is the percentage of people across the globe LWolf Mar 2013 #3
Pretty much. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #4
To summarize: LWolf Mar 2013 #11
Pithy and succinct. I like it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #13
No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #36
Well, now... chervilant Mar 2013 #21
Yes. LWolf Mar 2013 #25
Need to start eating bugs. Neoma Mar 2013 #5
That's why they're called meal-worms, isn't it? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #6
I was being serious. Neoma Mar 2013 #9
I know, just trying to lighten up an other wise deadly-serious topic. nt GliderGuider Mar 2013 #10
Best I can do is recycle and be vegetarian. Neoma Mar 2013 #15
Recycle, Freecycle, and chervilant Mar 2013 #22
I live in a condo, no room for that stuff. Neoma Mar 2013 #23
Have you finalized which 50 million get to continue breathing? FBaggins Mar 2013 #7
Nope. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #12
I've been saying this for decades BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #8
Could I advise you to save your breath, energy and friendships? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #14
I know too. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #16
Hey!!! chervilant Mar 2013 #24
"can't hear you. They will resent you for saying it. " stuntcat Mar 2013 #17
This morning I did a little thought experiment on involuntary population decline GliderGuider Mar 2013 #20
hmm... chervilant Mar 2013 #26
I wonder if your students.. stuntcat Mar 2013 #29
Can I just point out there's no 'data' in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2013 #33
I think that if you're right, you should take it up with the OP poster. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #34
Why is your upper limit "a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners"? Jim Lane Mar 2013 #18
Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables GliderGuider Mar 2013 #19
Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology. Jim Lane Mar 2013 #31
If that turns you on, by all means go for it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #32
I think your numbers are low, but the gist is right. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #27
I'm not trying to present this as some kind of "population target". GliderGuider Mar 2013 #28
So, even the Georgia Guidestones figure of "500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", is high. NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #30
My assumption about the number that represents sustainability is just that - an assumption GliderGuider Mar 2013 #35
"1500% into overshoot" ... should be 14900%. nt eppur_se_muova Mar 2013 #37
Yeah, I realized that later. My web article has it corrected. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How overpopulated is the ...»Reply #19