🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ffb7b2c_3@newspeer2.tds.net>, Don Libby 
<never.spam@tds.net> writes
>"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:u1MLBoF3b0+$EwSh@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <3ffa1d92_1@newspeer2.tds.net>, Don Libby
>> >  Scale matters.
>>
>> So does ultimate destination.
>
>Ultimate destination is extinction.

Well, the ecosystem and its various gene pools never stand still - 
that's for sure.

However, there is an alternative to extinction, and that's evolution - 
the choice is ours.


>  It is just a matter of time.  Relevant
>time scale for species' extinction: 4 Million years on average, 4 Billion,
>max.

And at present rates of extinction ?


>> >Today's Easter Island lesson learned: don't put all your Easter eggs in
>one
>> >Easter basket.
>>
>> I see you don't refer to
>>
>>      http://www.apj.co.uk/rapanui/display_article.asp?specifier=history
>>
>> which includes a section reading
>>
>>      "64 square miles with a carrying capacity of 2000 persons,
>>      about one-tenth of what is considered to be its peak
>>      population".
>
>Carrying capacity depends on technology and organization.  Again, here's how
>scientists see it:
>ECONOMIC-GROWTH, CARRYING-CAPACITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
>
>   ARROW K, BOLIN B, COSTANZA R, DASGUPTA P, FOLKE C, HOLLING CS,
>
>   JANSSON BO, LEVIN S, MALER KG, PERRINGS C, PIMENTEL D
>
>   SCIENCE
>
>   268: (5210) 520-521 APR 28 1995
>
>               "A single number for human carrying capacity would be
>meaningless because the consequences of both human innovation and biological
>evolution are inherently unknowable"...  "A more useful index of
>environmental sustainability is ecosystem resilience"...

That's an interesting view, but the technology the islanders had is 
known, so it seems reasonable to work out a carrying capacity for the 
resources and technology available.

Of course, the islanders might have evolved into huge flying apes, split 
the atom, got nuclear fusion going and invented the nuclear powered oil 
tanker in the six months before the population crash.  As you say "the 
consequences of both human innovation and biological evolution are 
inherently unknowable".  None the less, in a small population with 
limited time to avert disaster, those scenarios are quite UNLIKELY. 
They were more likely to make short term adaptations that would trash 
their ecosystem utterly than innovate their way out of the crisis.

Your quote above acknowledges that the gift innovation brings us are 
"unknowable", though a more pejorative view might say it was 
'undependable'.

Perhaps the key issue here is the extent to which we should depend on 
unknown future innovation.

There is not doubt that we've made enormous technological progress in 
the last 100 years, but technologies have a habit of biting back in 
terms of things like global warming, nuclear waste, antibiotic 
resistance etc.

Don't get me wrong -  I'm a huge fan of technology with a hard science 
background, and I've spent my working life to date in technical 
development of one kind or another, but the fact remains that two thirds 
of the world can't eat our computers.  The areas where we happen to 
innovate do not necessarily correspond to the areas where there is the 
bulk of human need, and technology while able and adept, has a piss poor 
history of meeting the basic needs of the bulk of the people.


>> Keep in mind that if you are at ten times your carrying capacity, you
>> need to do a lot of trade to survive, and that 'lot of trade' has a lot
>> of overheads including environmental demands.
><...>
>Keep in mind that the polynesians linked in trade did at least enough trade
>to sustain their populations longer than the isolated Easter Island
>population.

Yes, though maybe they also lived more sustainably in other respects. We 
don't know most of the social or biological factors, so ultimately there 
is only limited point in dwelling on this example.


>  The trading culture was more sustainable because trade enhanced
>their resilience to local supply shocks.

For sure, but if all the islands were exceeding their carrying capacity 
by a factor of ten, especially in similar respects, trade might 
certainly offer some resilience, the system as a whole would also be 
likely to fail.  Trade might delay a crash by increasing resilience 
somewhat, but it might postpone rather than avoid a crash.

The key issue here is perhaps specialisation.  If one area isn't 
sustainable in timber, it can trade it with an area that has a surplus 
(if it has anything to trade -  not guaranteed), but if neither has any 
timber, down they all go.

Two areas might trade timber for food, but if they run out of the last 
fuel for their ships and the trade winds blow the wrong way, then what ?


>Today's Easter Island lesson learned:  supply shocks bad, resilience good.

None of this avoids the need for sustainability of systems as a whole.


>> Also keep in mind, that while big, the earth has a finite carrying
>> capacity too.
>
>Estimated at 10^12, which is a single number, and meaningless.

Not really.  It assumes a particular level of technology and standard of 
living requirement / level of need.  And it can also be revised in the 
light of change.


>  A more
>useful index of environmental sustainability is ecosystem resilience.

OK then, give us the numbers, but also please how to interpret from them 
if a system is sustainable or not.


>  It's
>been almost a decade since scientists published that consensus statement.

Where was that consensus published then ?


>Come on, time's a wastin', let's get with the program!

Few people are wasting time.  Most of us are trying to establish the 
best way forward.  It's great if you can contribute to that, but 
terrible if you just block the process.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore