Environmentalists Plan - Humanities Planetary Exit Strategy

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

Environmentalists Plan - Humanities Planetary Exit Strategy

(13 posts) (6 voices)

Started 11 years ago by Jeffbloggs
Latest reply from rockabye

Tags:

Jeffbloggs
Member

I have created this thread in response to some provocative discussions on the "On Pessimism - Why Struggle When Failure is Likely" thread, regarding the role of humanity and it's existence on planet earth.

(1) Some environmentalists consider humanity as an infection of the planets biosphere that should be cured.

(2) Others think that they are an essential co-existing part of the biosphere.

On a hypothetical basis I would like to discuss the likelihood of the the survival of our biosphere should humanity be relatively spontaneously:

a) Mass evacuated
b) Struck down by pestilence, disease, war, radiation or famine etc

Given that:

i) Nuclear requires human inter-generational control & maintenance for depot's, warheads and power stations (as to avoid situations like Chernobyl or Fukushima from decimating non-human populations with radiation from plutonium with a half life of 24,100 years)

ii) Fossil fuel drilling and manufacture needs humans for control and maintenance (to avoid contamination from events like BP Gulf of Mexico spill etc)

iii) Any other major human development or effect that would need to be shutdown or maintained after humanities exit (from seed dispersal, livestock, waterways, to chemistry plants etc)

Feel free to include any discussions including:
The morality of the first statement, the physicality of the second statement, the feasibility of evacuation or who would get to go, or the consequences of disease or other disaster, the required time to bring our worldly affairs in order and/or it's cost before we can exit the planet cleanly, the impact of humanity on the biosphere and the extent of remediation that would be necessary and so on.

I hope to list arguments that supports either statement (1) or (2) without prejudice.
Thank you in advance for your participation.

Regards
JB

Edit:
In light of some confusion regarding my number formatting I have changed points 1)-3) to i)-iii). The statements I am seeking responses from are (1) and (2) at the top of the post, based on the then following "hypothetical" mass removal, and "technical complications" of such a human removal to the "biosphere" (ie everything living on the planet, not the planet itself).
Sorry for the confusion. Thx.

Posted Tuesday 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:20:55 pm from IP #
rockabye
Member

1) Sometimes we behave like one

2) I think it would 'survive' with short term ie <100,000 years of readjustment.

3) Nil

Humans seem to think they are essential but we've only been here a very short time. Mammoths and sabre tooth tigers probably felt the same way. Currently we are doing more harm than good by eliminating biodiversity which would in all likelihood improve our chances of survival.

Morally we are behaving poorly in that as a mammal with an understanding of the consequences of our actions we continue to destroy our natural world without restraint.

As for a clean exit it reminds me of people taking redundancy packages who thought they couldn't be replaced. Within a week or two nobody missed them.

Posted Tuesday 5 Apr 2011 @ 6:55:49 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Rockabye
So you don't think there is any cause for concern in regards to fossils leaking through oil rigs etc, or NPPs blowing up and polluting or irradiating the biosphere? If it took millions of years for species to develop, then how could it recover after 100,000 years?
BTW what is 3) Nil? Thx.

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:44:41 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

1) We have changed the surface of the earth more than any other animal ever has.
2) We have changed the surface of the earth more than any other animal ever has.

JB, do you think we need to safeguard our waste when we leave? By the way, leaving whereto? Have we invented intergalactic travel yet? I suppose seats are limited.
Anyway just make sure that the last one is switching off the light.

Life on earth has already survived 5 mass extinctions. It will also survive the coming human induced mass extinction. This is not about the earth. The earth will just do fine after us. It is about us. By damaging the biosphere we are cutting off the branch we are sitting on.

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:59:09 am from IP #
Lance
Key Master

The 6th mass extinction isn't coming, it's already happening, at least the initial leadup to it. Interesting study done that appeared in Nature mag, also published here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sixth-mass-extinction.html

I think the chances of humans changing their behaviour enough to avoid this is next to zero...

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:25:06 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Nil was in reference to your 2nd numbered list point 3).Any other major human development etc....

PBS have a good online doco on by Lester Brown our survival chances. Expires end of April. 1Hr24m

First few mins says it all. If you then drag the slider bar to 1:00H and watch from there the optimism begins.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1864227276/

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:53:19 am from IP #
Andy Chee
Member

A quote from the novel Contact by Carl Sagan summarises my thoughts about humanity and its existence on earth (and in the universe for that matter):

For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:16:18 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

@ Everyone:

In light of some confusion regarding my number formatting I have changed points 1)-3) to i)-iii). The statements I am seeking responses from are (1) and (2) at the top of the post, based on the then following "hypothetical" mass human removal, and "technical complications" of such a human removal to the "biosphere". (ie everything living on the planet, not the planet itself).
Sorry for the confusion.

Regards
JB

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:58:29 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Rockabye
Great video, I recommend everyone to watch the full video (1:24), especially the pessimists among us! This video is a MUST if you take any of the required changes to sustainability seriously. Take note of Lester's conclusion that saving civilization will save the environment!

I agree with it totally, and the "plan b" strategy and combination is the best I have seen yet. As Lester points out eradicating poverty, restoring the Earth’s natural support systems, stabilizing population and stabilizing climate are all inseparably interlinked and need to be taken care of simultaneously.

We would be foolish to see it any other way. The crazy thing is it follows closely to theme of my presentation on Biogas, that I gave a few months back for the ATA bi-monthly meeting in Perth. And I thought my conclusions natural balance and tipping points were original! Bah! What vindication as well for promoting Biogas!

Thanks again Rockabye, you've made my day!. I've already downloaded his books in pdf, and will be reading them on my tablet in the next few weeks. Number 5 (me) has finally found some new authoritive and valuable input!

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 5:07:05 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

As long as we're all humming the same tune it may all work out ok in the end.

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 5:25:11 am from IP #
Russell Moore
Member

Atempting to predict the future is a bit like weather forecasting, the further out in time you go, the more variables that come into play, and the less reliable the forecast.

I would like to think that we as a species may have a long life ahead of us, how we accomplish that is what we can all hypothesis about.

Would people from say 5,000 years ago, have had an accurate idea of what life would be like for mankind today? Can we expect to predict what life will be like in another 5,000 years, or even 500 years?

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 7:27:45 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Russell
I am not trying to predict the future, rather attempt to understand the present, and why/how people think.

But I agree with your statement with the addition that our past is just as easily warped by time. Only our "present" is "relatively" accurate according to our perception. This is physics of the "expanding" universe...ask Einstein why!

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:33:10 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

More viewing here. Only 18 mins.

Anthropes Ate My Planet!

One of Australia's leading climate change scientists, Will Steffen, takes us on a journey through the science of measuring humanity's effect on the planet.

The "Anthropo" part, of course, refers to us. It's a reflection of the fact that we humans are pushing the planet into a new and frightening era where our influence dominates the earth's eco-systems. The choice of whether or not we stay there, says Steffen, is also ours.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/04/05/3181734.htm

Posted Wednesday 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:08:13 pm from IP #

RSS feed for this topic