| 0 |
Subject: WWF Concludes Planet's Resources In Danger
Posted by: nerveclinic
- Donor [5153631] Sun, Jul 07, 2002, 17:50
My Boy Jack raised this issue in the Amazing Stuff That Doesn't Make Evening News Pt.2
Thread but I thought the subject important enough to warrant it’s own space. This is the type of issue that may get a few arguments going.
The World Wildlife Foundation is releasing a rather sensationalist report this Tuesday that will state the that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.
the article is here
It adds that extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted. That’s the sensational part…
Among the points the report will make…
A) Humans have destroyed more than a third of the natural world over the past three decades
B) Seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.
The article goes on to sight numerous resources that have been dramatically depleted in the last 30 years and provides data and specific numbers to back up their charges.
My guess is that the needing to colonize two new planets to survive line is as much as anything a publicity stunt to draw attention to the report and get people considering the reality of the situation.
My Boy Jack ridiculed the report in the other thread as follows:
MBJ Wait, I thought the world was going to end in 2000. Or was it 1984? Or was it 1917? Or was it 1588? Or was it 1066?
My reaction to his comments are that I’m not sure about all the dates that you are referring to when others have predicted the world would “come to an end” The dates and predictions on your list though are very different then the conclusions drawn by the World Wildlife Fund.
Again let me be clear I am not stating I am arguing their conclusions are accurate, however, your comparison is not really valid. The other dates you quoted were predictions made by people based on prophecy, mostly religious or esoteric. Correct me if I am wrong because I am not familiar with all the dates but I don’t think they were based on scientific evidence.
The WWF conclusion is drawn from scientific models. (Albeit probably biased ones) These models calculate the present depletion of the earth’s resources, multiplied by the future growth in the population, and arrive at a conclusion as to when the resources will be so greatly depleted as to be unable to sustain the planet.
While some of their arguments/conclusions maybe extreme, are you saying they are not making any valid points? Are you disagreeing we cannot simply continue on this course of over population without suffering serious consequences.
Which of the facts in the article are you disputing as false? Which of the conclusions they reached do you claim to be untrue? I’m not sure a flat criticism based on the sensationalist approach they are taking disputes the fundamental conclusions they have reached.
|
| 1 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Sun, Jul 07, 2002, 20:12
|
I agree -- this sort of thing is terribly important because it reminds us just how clueless environmental organizations are.
I wrote a longer response, and I'm erasing it. Bottom line is that this sort of scientific modelling has gone on for centuries and has always proven to be flawed. Why? Because the "scientists" doing the work fundamentally misunderstand the definition of a "resource" and/or the relationship of our species to our planet.
At some point, we may indeed run out of resources and need to get things from other planets. And it may be theoretically possible to destroy our environment to the point of total impoverishment of the human species (or our death, who knows). But we are so absurdly far away from that point that it is not worth discussing. Unless you want to get a good laugh before you go to bed, of course.
|
| 2 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Sun, Jul 07, 2002, 20:25
|
I did erase one other important point that the article notes -- this report was prepared just in time for the next Earth Summit. Coincidence? I think not.
Throughout history, scientists projecting massive and systemic resource problems have usually been ostracized from educated discussions. Or they have been made the butt of comic wagers, such as the famous Erlich-Simon bet of the 1980's.
However, they have always played a popular role and played to popular fears, and they likely always will. We are entering a day and age, however, where this scientific quackery is gaining traction in our political systems; thus, unlike at any time in our history, we are entering a day and age where these sorts of people are actually given some modicum of political power.
This is obviously dangerous, since their "solution" to perceived resource problems is frequently to legislate a certain amount of pain and suffering in order to avoid a highly unlikely but yet possibly calamitous future. Thus, while I find their "scientific" arguments perversely amusing, I am seriously concerned that they may be able to politically impose the damage that they otherwise perceive will occur "unnaturally" from human intervention in the environment.
Because Malthusian arguments such as this can never be debunked with certitude, and because some fraction of the populace will always buy into predictions of doom, the political reality of great pain and suffering may be an inevitable consequence of this sort of illegitimate science. No one, as yet, has been able to provide a solution to prevent it, at least. Until then, we cannot prevent the damage these groups wish to cause us and our progeny, we can only hope to contain it. Thus, in some terribly tragic and ironic sense, reports like this become in at least some tiny and unremarked way, correct.
|
| 3 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 5153631
Sun, Jul 07, 2002, 21:30
|
Madman
I want to make sure I understand your position.
Are you denieng that the planet has become so overpopulated that certain parts of the world are becoming dangerously polluted? Mexico City, Bangkok,Los Angeles etc.
Are you denieing that some countries have become so overpopulated that it is difficult for them to generate enough food to eat to feed the population?
Are the reports we get in Seattle from the government that the salmon supply is dramatically down because of over fishing a lie?
Are you argueing that the 12% reduction in forest in only one generation the study sites is false or just no big deal?
Are you suggesting that their claims that many species of animals have been reduced to half are lies or just not of concern to you?
When you hear their contention that the black rhinno population has been reduced from 65,000 to 3,100 along with the other animal population reductions they sited, are you saying they are not telling the truth or are you saying it is just not important or indicative of a planet that is rapidly depleteing it's resources?
Are you not concerned that the population is still rapidly expanding?
I just want to completely understand your position.
|
| 4 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Sun, Jul 07, 2002, 23:54
|
a) I have absolutely no concerns about the world being overpopulated in general at the current time or anytime in the next 48 years. Localized over-population does, of course, exist. However, localized over-population existed even when the population of the earth was just a few million humans, too.
b) Regarding reduced populations of various species, I do not believe that this has any direct or otherwise significant impact on the quantity of "resources" available for human usage. It neither increases nor decreases the resources necessary for our future survival.
An large asteroid splashing into the planet, yes; lowered buffalo, rhino, black spider populations, no.
Are these things happening or not? Some probably are, some probably aren't. Do we fully understand why they are happening? Sometimes we may be close; sometimes we are not. Can we stop them from happening? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should we stop them from happening? I have no idea.
Regardless, "the environment" is massively more complex than a simple "index" of health. In fact, I would argue that "the environment" as an entity that has improved or reduced health does not exist -- it is strictly a reified concept formed by those who are not otherwise able or who are unable to appreciate the environment for the incredibly complex and powerful entity that it is.
That is really all the response that is or should be necessary to the vague and unspecified concerns expressed by the WWF in that article vis a vis a necessary exit from this planet.
---------------------------------
One general point that seems to be terribly misunderstood in our society, however:
The suggestion that we -- Americans or world -- are "overconsuming" resources is based on an incredibly fallacious definition of a resource. There is no object that has the inherent property of "being a resource". Resources are simply objects that humans have figured out a way to use to creat other things that humans like. Americans have therefore created many times as many "resources" as we will ever consume.
Furthermore, simply change what humans like, and you change the value and or existence of resources. Make end products more valuable, you inspire the humans not in possession of the requisite resources to find useful ways of using other molecules to achieve equivalent or superior end goals.
Quick examples: the black sludge that cursed farmers in early 1800's turned out to complex carbon atoms that have provided me the ability to type this message. Worthless (literally) sludge turned into a moderately valuable resource (oil). This was in response, of course, to a shortage of an incredibly valuable resource (whale oil) that is now virtually worthless in today's society.
This is not to suggest that freely equilibrating prices are always the best way to transition an economy from one usage to another. People suffered paying high prices to monopolistic whale companies for a long period of time until people found cheaper and better alternatives. And who knows how much we would have created if we hadn't been constrained by the lack of burning fuels prior to the 18th century.
Not a left-right issueI believe both the left and right demagouge this point when useful to do so. An example of the right missing this point in recent years: remember the debate about the CFC-ban and its effect on the cost of refrigeration? At the time the CFC ban was first proposed, there were few good alternatives, all of which were extremely expensive. Because the regulations gave people and businesses time to adapt, to discover new technologies, etc., alternatives were discovered, ironed out, etc. The price of refrigerators MIGHT be somewhat higher now -- I don't know. But that's the point. The impact on our society has been so small that I DON'T KNOW -- I can't see it directly. The longer we go in a CFC-less society, the more confident I am that we will be "fine".
Is this to suggest that refrigeration would be cheaper without the CFC ban? No. Is this to suggest that we can go out there and ban any and every single "resource"? Of course not.
But it is meant to suggest that resources are creations of man, not nature. It is meant to suggest that men and women are incredibly inventive and adaptible people; this is the hallmark of industrial society and one of the defining characteristics of the American experience. It is meant to suggest that it has not been sheer luck and coincidence that all previous Malthusians and Erlich's have been found in error time after time after tme. It is meant to suggest that there are incredibly powerful forces at work that groups like the World Wild Life Fund either cannot comprehend or, more likely, that they are willfully ignoring in order to win political points on issues that they care about for wholly extraneous reasons.
-------------------
I should note that it may appear hypocritical that I am taking this position given my response to mrbig in this thread. However, if you read my position in that thread carefully, you will note that I am only arguing against the dogmatic belief in humanity's infinite ability to create (i.e., I do not believe that simply because we want more of an end product that we will always be able to produce it -- an erronenous (IMO) conclusion from mrbig's assertion that when demand increases, prices fall). I will and would have always granted that there is considerable and powerful truth to the point. In that thread and in this one, however, I do wish to make it clear that there are exceptions to every rule.
Black rhino populations dropping from 65,000 to 3,000 is definitely not one of those exceptions, however.
|
| 5 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Mon, Jul 08, 2002, 00:03
|
Dang it, I'm too tired. Yes, I know that freon was the chemical used in refrigeration that was banned, not CFC's. Although CFC's are another story that I could have used, but there were better alternatives available at the time, yes? Ugh. Long day, apologies. I believe the point holds, regardless. Probably should do research to make sure.
Another caveat: I came up with the freon example on the spur of the moment, from memory. Been a long, long time since I did research on that issue. If that example doesn't work, I can come up with others. Take that :)
I'm not responsible for writing an apocalyptic report to be used in a world-wide Earth Summit, but I nevertheless apologize for lowered journalistic standards in my excessively long blog or post or whatever it was.
|
| 6 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 5153631
Mon, Jul 08, 2002, 02:25
|
Madman, I think you made some very good points I just wanted to understand where your coming from.
To a certain extent you are saying yes there are problems but we have the intellect to overcome them. I don't disagree with that statement.
It seems to me though the WWF report is using a sensationalist approach to do the same thing. They are saying if we don't start working on the solutions, we are going to run into problems. Granted they may be using a certain degree of sensationalism and deception.
I have friends who have said to me that they are very concerned about air pollution. They sight the examples I gave above of cities that are dangerously polluted.
Yes the problem is real, but I am convinced (Here comes the conspiracy) that the problem will be easily solved and in fact those in power know it, and the solutions already exist. The problem is being allowed to fester even though there are technologies that will some day make fossil-based fuel obsolete.
Granted the replacement technologies (electric cars, solar energy etc.) "Appear" to be far off in the distance, and time for solutions seem to be running out. I don't buy it. I think there are people making lots of money on fossil fuels (Our Presidents friends? Plenty of Democrats also) and they are going to milk it for all they can until the problem becomes critical. Then Wah Lah...we have a new fuel that doesn't hurt the environment. And they will make money on that.
That doesn't mean that things don't appear dire to the WWF and others who are concerned about the issues in the report. They probably are most sincere. They have a greater respect for things like wildlife, nature, other species, etc. then you want to put a value on. Certainly the statistics of the depletion of magnificent creatures are not wholly made up, even if they don't spell the end of human civilization.
There is the morality of the effects we are having on the other species on the planet that are losing the battle of survival. You seem unconcerned about any but human survival maybe just as it relates to this reports validity though. I hope that is the case.
In fairness the thread was about human survival, so to bring up the side argument about the destruction of other species we are causing is probably unfair.
Still, there is little doubt that the world population is dramatically expanding (No scientists refute that) larger populations use larger amounts of resources, and cause greater amounts of pollution. Pollution is getting very nasty in some places. I couldn’t believe the level of Pollution in Bangkok this spring. It was difficult to walk up stairs because the air was so full of pollution. The stench was nauseating.
There is one factor that the WWF report does not take into account however.
The powers that be will not allow the human race to reach a point where they cannot survive because of lack of resources. They will find a way to solve the problem. One solution could well be population reduction.
Oh it will appear to be accidental, a major nuclear war, in an over populated area (India, Pakistan, or China) or a disease that they just can't find a cure for (Africa, and Asia). If the cattle can’t control it’s reproductive out-put, it will be stopped for them.
The Chinese have already solved the problem in their culture, they are limiting the number of children a family can have. Very logical.
The United States has also managed to limit population growth through education (Birthrate not over all pop. Including immigration)
If Judeo/Christian/Muslim morality prevents “governments “ from limiting the number of children a family can have in other countries, or if they are not able to overcome social objections in other cultures (Africa) then population will be controlled in other, less obvious ways.
It will never reach the levels that the WWF is concerned about because a “final solution” will be implemented to control the problem.
The question is, will we come to our senses and reverse the problem ourselves? Or will the solution be given to us involuntarily.
The problem will be solved however before extinction occurs. On that point I agree completely Mad One.
|
| 7 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jul 08, 2002, 10:19
|
When I thot this conclusion was reached by the World Wrestling Federation I was willing to give it a modicum of plausibility but now that I know it was written by advocacy 'scientists' I can confidently disregard it.
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 22347210
Mon, Jul 08, 2002, 10:48
|
Haha Badlwin. I was thinking wrestling as well.
I think nerve and Madman have a good dialogue here that I won't interupt, except to say that I don't believe the report to be flawed simply because if was written on deadline.
Carry on, gentlemen!
pd
|
| 9 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Mon, Jul 08, 2002, 23:04
|
Good grief, are the environmentalists still at it?
Not to date myself, but anyone remember a big media-hyped study called The Limits To Growth? Written in the early 70s, it purportedly proved, well I guess it proved in its own mind, that by right now we have no energy and food. I guess we're all dead. I would believe this more if I had to live in California...
I had to debate this in high school, a few years after it came out...and although I was no expert in statistics, in the final round of the tournament, I was able to get a huge crowd laughing just by pulling out my "handy-dandy World Almanac", and showing that their "projected trends" were already way out of whack with reported stats within a few years of the Report's publication.
I think environmentalists have to win their case (certainly, they have to persuade me) on ethical grounds, not on the basis of dubious studies. There's a good cause somewhere at the core there, but its own advocates have wrecked it by sensationalism. Too many cries of "Wolf!" have already been heard....
Ronald Reagan said in the late 70s, "Those environmentalists, they won't be happy until we all have to live in houses built to look like bird nests." Maybe not a very learned statement, but certainly not inferior to what the environmentalists have produced....
Toral
|
| 10 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Jul 09, 2002, 00:43
|
Nerve -- to bring up the side argument about the destruction of other species we are causing is probably unfair.
I really do not think this has anything to do with the WWF issues . . . But consider what you are saying if you claim we have a moral obligation to protect species. First off, how do we define a species? What if we have defined it improperly? To claim a moral obligation to protect species implies a moral obligation to correctly identify and correctly categorize animals.
Because I do not believe Linneus has anything to do with our morality, I therefore do not believe we have a moral obligation to protect species.
And, of course, the WWF doesn't really care about that, either.
Because if the WWF had as its primary concern the survival of the black rhino (which subspecies? All? Hard to tell from the article. . .) it would reverse its opposition to the usage of rhino tusks for medicinal purposes.
Instead of simply trying to prevent extinction, the WWF has chosen to pursue a much more aggressive agenda. The WWF is trying to simultaneously increase the number of various black rhino populations, increase the standard of living of these same black rhinos, and limit economic opportunities for rural Kenyans. An ambitious triumverate of goals indeed.
The simplest way to save the black rhinos would be to allow corporate farming of the incredibly valuable tusks. Give people the incentive to protect the animals by letting them profit from them.
Instead, environmentalists have engaged in the mutilation of the very species that they are attempting to save. I can't find out if the WWF is one of the organizations that has been removing the tusks of the rhinos in a vain effort to stop the poaching or not. But it has been attempted, nonetheless.
If the WWF really cared about the rhinos, they would institute more programs like the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe that they were basically drug kicking and screaming into and that they haven't done elsewhere. If the WWF really cared about the local people, they would allow them to profit from wise management of the rhino resources in the area. But they won't even let the indigenous people of Zimbabwe sell the ivory tusks that have resulted from a reasonably remarkable anti-western conservation campaign, so I don't believe this will ever happen.
Instead, the WWF wants everyone to magically start caring about the rhinos at the expense of the local people. They want the human impulse to hunt the animals to suddenly disappear. And they want the barbaric Chinese to quit paying as much for rhino horns. They want the United States to bribe the Kenyan government into co-operating, ad infinitum.
Just like the war on drugs, the result is sky-high prices for rhino tusks which can go for 60-70K per horn; poachers corner the black-market and drive prices even higher (see late 1980's); and, if the United States foots the bill the numbers of some species of rhino inch higher. Great plan. If it is our moral obligation to become so desperate that we mutilate wildlife to save it; impoverish local populations and deprive them of self-defense and local control of resources; infringe upon the national sovereignty of other nations to impose our religious and cultural beliefs regarding the efficacy of rhino tusks in potions and what not; then this is one moral obligation that I will gladly claim does not exist.
|
| 11 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 5153631
Tue, Jul 09, 2002, 01:27
|
Madman let's not make it so complicated. I am just saying it's sad to think that species of animals, like the example of the rhino, or whales etc. May be going extinct because of our excesses, that's all.
If you don't feel that way, that's your right. Your in good company.
|
| 12 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Jul 09, 2002, 01:41
|
It is sad that some sub-species of rhino are going extinct. It's even more sad that the WWF is working to make it harder for them to recover while simultaneously denying human beings Eastern medication and exacerbating the economic suppression of the third world. They do this and then people call them "well-intentioned." That's an incredible trick.
|
| 13 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Jul 09, 2002, 01:51
|
I should also point out that it is factually incorrect to say that "rhinos" as a species are becoming extinct. One species of rhinos -- Ceratotherium simum -- is doing quite well under South African protection, despite the ban on trade.
Thus, the issue the WWF is sensationalizing is really only about certain rhino species (admittedly 4 of the 5) of their choosing.
|
| 14 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 12:24
|
The main difference between the two WWFs is that the wrestlers know it's all make-believe, while the panda people want you to take them seriously. The wrestling show this year changed its name to WWE – World Wrestling Entertainment. Good move. Any connection with the World Wildlife Fund would deliver a serious smackdown to wrestling's credibility.
|
| 15 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 374496
Sat, May 10, 2008, 02:37
|
RE: 10
...
Give people the incentive to protect the animals by letting them profit from them.
An Unlikely Way to Save a Species: Serve It for Dinner - NY Times - April 30, 2008
...eater-based conservation, which holds that to save something, one has to eat it...
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|