Friday, July 06, 2012

when scientists predict calamity, politicians plug their ears...,


LATimes | If life were a movie, the president of the United States (probably played by Will Smith) would be leaping into action to save humankind from the calamity that a new scientific report says is about to befall the Earth.

A paper prepared by 22 international scientists and just published in the journal Nature warns that overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change have pushed the world toward a tipping point beyond which lie irreversible, frightening alterations in the biosphere that supports life on this lonely planet.

Of course, since this is not a movie and is, instead, just another surreal election year, the scientists’ alarming analysis will go unheeded. If the report is addressed at all by Republicans, it will be dismissed as another attempt by fiendish environmentalists to destroy the American economy by reining in polluting industries. If Democrats take note, they will tout their green jobs program as a panacea and quickly move on to a different, less disturbing, subject.

The fact is the scope of the problem as described by the scientists is so immense and so intractable that denial is a natural response. Here is what is happening as we cling to our ignorant bliss and bicker about the president’s birth certificate:

• The world population has passed 7 billion and will hit 9 billion before the middle of the century. To make room for all these people, 40% of the Earth’s surface will be cleared for farms and cities.

• Continued burning of fossil fuels will spew more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that will make the oceans more and more acidic and literally lethal for sea life.

• All that CO2 will continue to push up global temperatures at a rate too quick for species to adapt. That, combined with the loss of habitat, will result in a massive extermination of bugs and birds and plants and fish and other links in the chain of life that humans depend on.

In an interview for a story by Los Angeles Times reporter Bettina Boxall, the report’s lead author, Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, seemed to resist sounding too alarmist, but it was obviously hard for him to hold back.

14 comments:

umbrarchist said...

The trouble with tipping points is that you probably can't figure out where it is until you're passed it.

DD said...

Actually the problem is that people calling for population control are first-world gluttons with multiple cars (Priuses! Prii?) 3000 square foot houses for their (childless) family, and exotic taste in vacation locales.

People who shove 1000s of energy units in their worthless, effette, non-productive pieholes everyday are quick to be anti-child and anti-population growth. While I am not pro-growth per se, the issue is an insatiable desire for energy. We could double the population if we all just accepted the middle class lifestyle--of Moldovians.

No, the people who want population control are fat racists with 10,000 rounds of ammo and 3 trucks, and skinny classists with thousands of bottles of wine and 3 vacation homes. I hope they all burn in the revolution.

DD said...

To keep ranting, all the childless couples I know, who justify it at least partially with population arguments, use far more energy annually than my entire family does, and I am no ascetic. New Zealand! Trips to the City! Eating out every meal! New clothes. Clueless.

umbrarchist said...

I do not disagree. But the tipping points are largely about physics and ecology and they don't give a damn about humanity or vacations. My suspicion is, there will be war. That will reduce the population.

DD said...

And the real question comes into focus--when it's time to get down, will you be a reducer or a reducee?

John Kurman said...

What makes you think the categories are mutually exclusive? Cue Gahan Wilson's "I think I won!"

CNu said...

As long as the nuclear exchanges are regional and don't exceed 1000 weapons, it's all Zardozian goodness.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnPopulationControl.htm

Dale Asberry said...

I saw a more recent paper (which I no longer have the link to) that said as few as 10 weapons detonated in a localized area could cause significant 'collateral' damage covering the entire planet.

DD said...

Well, they aren't, and I know plenty of wannabe cops who will think their are the pig-men until they're turned into bacon themselves. Lots of cannon fodder available to do God's work.

John Kurman said...

If you are assuming, to get to your lovely post-apocalyptic idyll where everyone wears bikini onesies, restraint... well, good luck with that. Luck being the operative word for those not stuck in the swelter-skelter of their fallout shelter. Remember the Soviet Protocol to War Fighting, If you going to fuck with people, don't do it half-ass, go balls-out batshit crazy. I can't help but feel this (referent URL) is classic unicorn-and-rainbow American stupidity, the whole arrogant idiocy of somehow Rising Above and Prevailing, while blithely ignoring the fact that in actuality, most everyone would be watching everything they love melt into blood from some weaponized biological horror - or something far, far worse that was, hush now! is strictly on a need to know dealie-o.

CNu said...

Restraint would arise as an intended consequence of first strike, and I sincerely believe that there are significant terrajoule first-strike capabilities that operate at the speed of electrons through conductive (atmospheric) media. That said, what's left will be duked out with remaining conventional and tactical nuclear capabilities. Since we no longer have massive forces on the ground, all the remaining highly mobile Russian tactical nuclear capability won't mean shit. Whatever the PROC has under the ground likely as not won't get off the ground. As far as the rest goes, non-radiological toxic chemicals and biologicals don't weaponize for shit, don't have much in the way of a shelf-life, and that's why they've mostly been abandoned as hypothetical WMD. Frankly, I don't even think they're considered weapons of "mass" destruction anymore. Doing shit to peoples' agricultural production OTOH is a whole other ball of wax...., (good thing we have significant overcapacity in that area and lead the world in the study of that particular strain of the unspeakable.

Dale Asberry said...

good thing we have significant overcapacity in that area
Not really. The truth is that most of that prime farmland which used to have gorgeous healthy soils is now completely depleted. It's only high producing still due to fossil-fuel based fertilizer and pesticides. Even those aren't keeping up with soil depletion and pests. That doesn't even take into account about how almost all of the land west of the Mississippi used to be considered marginal because of frequent drought. Take away that gigantic aquifer... On top of it all, those 'foods' we're growing aren't even meant for human consumption. Enjoy those tasty KC ribs while you can!

CNu said...

What food is Indiana noted for? I'm thinking Indianapolis 500 funnel cakes or some such....,

Dale Asberry said...

Don't forget elephant ears!


Nah, we're known for sweet corn and cantaloupes. Not as exciting as BBQ KC ribs, huh?

Master Arbitrageur Nancy Pelosi Is At It Again....,

🇺🇸TUCKER: HOW DID NANCY PELOSI GET SO RICH? Tucker: "I have no clue at all how Nancy Pelosi is just so rich or how her stock picks ar...