The environment thread

[BigSqwert]

Sounds a little too biblical coming out of your mouth.

[iamshack]

I think she is beginning to tire...

[Reddy]

While I feel saying things like this can sound profound, it's my belief that this ignores the fact that Mother Nature wanted this. If she didn't, we wouldn't be here. And when she tires of us...we won't be.

 

i think the argument here is that we COULD meet her halfway and maybe postpone said tiring, but we're choosing not to... which.. well... means we'll deserve it when the time comes. lol

 

[BigSqwert]

So what or when is the breaking point? There's a finite amount of land and fresh water available to sustain life. And is there anything feasible that can be done to reverse this trend of population explosion?

 

I think it would be cool if there could be some global financial incentive to have men and women "fixed" for a huge payout. Something to the effect of getting fixed while you currently have no kids = a one time $20k payout. Getting fixed after having one kid = a one time $15K payout. 2 kids goes down to a $2K payout and 3 or more kids and you don't get squat, including no tax breaks ever. Of course it's all optional. You can as many kids as you want and never have to get fixed. Obviously this affects the wealthy in a much different way but that's no more than 2% of the global population, if that.

 

Go ahead and shoot some holes in this hypothetical. I know it could never work but I'm trying to think outside of the box.

 

[Y2HH]

So what or when is the breaking point? There's a finite amount of land and fresh water available to sustain life. And is there anything feasible that can be done to reverse this trend of population explosion?

 

I think it would be cool if there could be some global financial incentive to have men and women "fixed" for a huge payout. Something to the effect of getting fixed while you currently have no kids = a one time $20k payout. Getting fixed after having one kid = a one time $15K payout. 2 kids goes down to a $2K payout and 3 or more kids and you don't get squat, including no tax breaks ever. Of course it's all optional. You can as many kids as you want and never have to get fixed. Obviously this affects the wealthy in a much different way but that's no more than 2% of the global population, if that.

 

Go ahead and shoot some holes in this hypothetical. I know it could never work but I'm trying to think outside of the box.

 

To your second question, the bolded is the answer.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I thought I read somewhere that the Earth is about 30% land, and humans inhabit less than 1% of that. So, we have a long way to go. I think it's much more likely that the human race goes through another plague and subsequent dark age before we literally run out of land or water and are forced to move to Mars.

[StrangeSox]

How much of that land is inhabitable? How much is arable? How much has adequate fresh water supply? How much can support additional human habitation (either directly or indirectly) without collapsing ecosystems?

[witesoxfan]

I thought I read somewhere that the Earth is about 30% land, and humans inhabit less than 1% of that. So, we have a long way to go. I think it's much more likely that the human race goes through another plague and subsequent dark age before we literally run out of land or water and are forced to move to Mars.

 

Much of it is virtually uninhabitable though as well. The vast majority of people would simply not want to live directly in a mountain range (meaning living on the summit of Mt. Elbert as opposed to in Denver) or in the Arctic or Antarctic circles (and even in the Yukon Territory in general, not all of wihich is in the Arctic circle). There are also other areas where land is extremely unstable due to fault lines or unsatisfactory topsoil, and there can be other areas with annual or regular flooding.

 

Don't get me wrong - there's still plenty of room for expansion, and Japanese/Tokyo method of building up rather than out still exists as well. It's just that 30% seems like way, way too much. I'd guess closer to 15-20% is available land that is habitable (and a lot of that will be up for debate as well, including in the middle any desert or tundra as well)

 

 

[StrangeSox]

There's a lot of space for people to physically be on. That doesn't mean there's enough space to support a lot more people. Fish hatcheries around the world are collapsing, the Ogallala Aquifer is being drawn down, sea levels and temperatures are going to rise making a lot less land habitable and/or arable.

 

Really "% space physically occupied by a person" tells us nothing.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's still relevant. There are huge areas - i.e., millions of square miles - in the US that are completely remote and unused. Americans inhabit something like 95% of the land here. Just because one food resource or water source gets emptied doesn't mean there aren't others right around the corner. Or that humans can't do something in response.

 

This is the urban sprawl argument from the 90's all over again. Much ado about nothing. We will destroy the planet/ourselves long before we simply run out of resources like land or water or food.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Running out of food and water is part of destroying the planet/ourselves.

 

It's not "one food resource," it's the ability for a chunk of land to produce food at all. All of that unoccupied land in the Sahara, Gobi, Arabian, Atacama etc. deserts can't really support much life at all, so it's meaningless to talk about it. And, of course, global warming is only going to make desertification worse.

 

What huge chunks of the US are "unused" that could support human development and farming? What water source for most of the US agriculture is there "right around the corner" if the Ogallala is drained?

[Jenksismyhero]

Running out of food and water is part of destroying the planet/ourselves.

 

It's not "one food resource," it's the ability for a chunk of land to produce food at all. All of that unoccupied land in the Sahara, Gobi, Arabian, Atacama etc. deserts can't really support much life at all, so it's meaningless to talk about it. And, of course, global warming is only going to make desertification worse.

 

What huge chunks of the US are "unused" that could support human development and farming? What water source for most of the US agriculture is there "right around the corner" if the Ogallala is drained?

 

I've been west. There are huge areas of unhabited/undeveloped land in the dakotas, wyoming, colorado, etc that could support crops. Even if we've literally used up every last inch of arable land, we can shift resources. The vast majority of our farming is for non-food related products or for food product ingredients (corn starch, for example). We could easily change our diet (perhaps a good thing).

 

 

[Balta1701]

I've been west. There are huge areas of unhabited/undeveloped land in the dakotas, wyoming, colorado, etc that could support crops. Even if we've literally used up every last inch of arable land, we can shift resources. The vast majority of our farming is for non-food related products or for food product ingredients (corn starch, for example). We could easily change our diet (perhaps a good thing).

Where are you getting the water for these things?

 

Particularly with what we're doing to the atmosphere, that's going to be your biggest issue for the foreseeable future in developing that kind of territory.

[Reddy]

I thought I read somewhere that the Earth is about 30% land, and humans inhabit less than 1% of that. So, we have a long way to go. I think it's much more likely that the human race goes through another plague and subsequent dark age before we literally run out of land or water and are forced to move to Mars.

 

you try living on Antarctica or in Siberia and get back to me.

 

lol

[Reddy]

I've been west. There are huge areas of unhabited/undeveloped land in the dakotas, wyoming, colorado, etc that could support crops. Even if we've literally used up every last inch of arable land, we can shift resources. The vast majority of our farming is for non-food related products or for food product ingredients (corn starch, for example). We could easily change our diet (perhaps a good thing).

 

expert on agriculture now are we?

[witesoxfan]

expert on agriculture now are we?

 

To be fair, there is a lot of land in the Dakotas alone that is privately owned and not being used to farm that could support a lot of crops. I can make this fairly safe assumption because there are large farms that sandwich said pieces of land.

[BigSqwert]

We could also screw over the Native Americans once again and take their land away.

[Jenksismyhero]

Where are you getting the water for these things?

 

Particularly with what we're doing to the atmosphere, that's going to be your biggest issue for the foreseeable future in developing that kind of territory.

 

The sky?

[Reddy]

We could also screw over the Native Americans once again and take their land away.

so many options!

[Reddy]

The sky?

....yyyyeaaaahhhhh that's not really how it works these days.

[Jenksismyhero]

you try living on Antarctica or in Siberia and get back to me.

 

lol

 

Not sure why we'd have to do that. There is plenty of land elsewhere.

[Jenksismyhero]

....yyyyeaaaahhhhh that's not really how it works these days.

 

Water comes from another place? News to me.

[Balta1701]

Water comes from another place? News to me.

About the only reason 1/2 of the central plains are arable right now is water out of the ground.

[Reddy]

Water comes from another place? News to me.

 

hahahahaha

[Jenksismyhero]

hahahahaha

 

Groundwater doesn't come from rain/runoff? Water magically appears underground?