ffg, land does not mean livable land. Even if we humans are highly adaptable, and technology makes us even more so, there are limits to where it is feasible, reasonable, useful and cost effective for us to live. That's why we are swamping the areas which are livable together with all the others. If you deduct antarctica, greenland, large chunks of siberia, mountain ranges and deserts, you have way less of that land pr person. And a lot of land pr person is necessary. I dont remember how much farmland is needed to support 1 individual, but it ain't little.
Empty land, and land we are able to utilize are not the same.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Even if we humans are highly adaptable, and technology makes us even more so, there are limits to where it is feasible, reasonable, useful and cost effective for us to live.
Sure.
That's why we are swamping the areas which are livable together with all the others. If you deduct antarctica, greenland, large chunks of siberia, mountain ranges and deserts, you have way less of that land pr person.
Yep. You have roughly 4 acres per person.
And a lot of land pr person is necessary. I dont remember how much farmland is needed to support 1 individual, but it ain't little.
It isn't a little. The amount of available farmland isn't a little either.
Empty land, and land we are able to utilize are not the same.
The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space.
Really? North America and Europe = the vast majority of earth's land space? Higher than the total landmass of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia??? And we also have the majority of the population?
Certainly most people in these territories don't enjoy "such luxuries". Should they? Will they? Perhaps. But that is not the problem the environmentalists want to turn it into. Your "ecological footprint" site, for example, tells me that my lifestyle takes 15 acres and therefore "requires" roughly 4 Earths by multiplying 15 * 6,000,000,000. What it doesn't consider is that I don't need 15 acres for myself alone. Who's math doesn't add up here?
Who in god's name expects that?
As for the ecological footprint goes, ok, granted it is not a precise number, but a tool to give you an indication about how much land consumption you use in order to live at you standard of living. I guess what we hve to decide is what standard of living is acceptable. As for the bounty of available farmland, we are also losing tons of previously viable farmland to topsoil erosion. More and more forests arre being lost to agricultural land development which may have infertile or poor soils and yet, much of the prime agricultural land we have left is being paved over. Furthermore, we are facing what might be a critical shortage of available fresh water needed for irrigating our crops. We only need to look at the califronia aquifers that have seen the land subside by over 30 feet, the fact thtat the Colorado River doesn't make it to the ocean at times and the decimation of Lake Chad, or the Aral sea in the east. There is a carrying capacity that we may not be able to overcome.
Really? North America and Europe = the vast majority of earth's land space? Higher than the total landmass of Africa, Asia, South America and Australia???
No. The reverse is true.
And we also have the majority of the population?
No. The reverse is true.
As for the ecological footprint goes, ok, granted it is not a precise number, but a tool to give you an indication about how much land consumption you use in order to live at you standard of living.
Yes it does. And 15 acres is a perfectly fine number. It's far above much of the world, far less than many. If every single person lived at that standard the world (from a land area standpoint at least) would not implode in a fiery ball of death.
I guess what we hve to decide is what standard of living is acceptable.
Acceptable to whom? Acceptable by what standard?
As for the bounty of available farmland, we are also losing tons of previously viable farmland to topsoil erosion.
Definitely! An important issue that needs to be addressed by consumers and producers. But not the end of mankind by any stretch, particularly considering that most of the arable land on this planet is not even being cultivated.
More and more forests arre being lost to agricultural land development which may have infertile or poor soils and yet, much of the prime agricultural land we have left is being paved over.
Not "much". "Little". Do me a favor and let me know when this:
Furthermore, we are facing what might be a critical shortage of available fresh water needed for irrigating our crops.
Great use of eco-speak. "...what might be a critical shortage...". Well is it? I might go on a homicidal rampage later today. But I doubt it.
We only need to look at the califronia aquifers that have seen the land subside by over 30 feet, the fact thtat the Colorado River doesn't make it to the ocean at times and the decimation of Lake Chad, or the Aral sea in the east. There is a carrying capacity that we may not be able to overcome.
Now we're talking. There is a carrying capacity to this earth. I don't know what that carrying capacity is exactly, but I know that we're on pace to hit it. We need to examine the choices we're making. But we also need to realize that humanity is supposed to affect the environment. All animals must interact with this world and as life-loving individuals it's our duty to ensure that our interactions benefit our present without sacrificing our future. That's not a difficult concept. We have the knowledge today to solve many of these "might be critical" things today. But let's stop pretending it's someone else's responsibility to act on them or that the Earth is falling apart as we speak.
Not True. The vast majority of land mass is NOT in NA or Europe.
#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)
#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
I think we're misunderstanding each other because these two set of stats support what I'm saying. NA and Europe do NOT constitute either the majority of land mass or population.
Yes it does. And 15 acres is a perfectly fine number. It's far above much of the world, far less than many. If every single person lived at that standard the world (from a land area standpoint at least) would not implode in a fiery ball of death.
No, 15 is not a hard and fast number. For example, it doesn't take into consideration what kind of power you use (hydro vs nuclear vs coal etc) how efficeint your busses are if you take them, along with a whole range of other factors which may change the number. However, if you do in fact need 15 acres exactly, than the world would not implode, but there would be shortage of space if eveyrone lived by that standard. There is not enough space.
Good question. But I think we can agree that there are certain things that we should all need and have in order to live. ie. Clean water, enough food, clean environment...
Definitely! An important issue that needs to be addressed by consumers and producers. But not the end of mankind by any stretch, particularly considering that most of the arable land on this planet is not even being cultivated.
I'm not saying that we're seeing the end of mankind, never have, however if we are losing our topsoil and degrading our agricultural land than does this not have ramifications on our ability to grow crops or the amount of cropland we have to produce food? Topsoil is being depleted about abou 16-30% faster than it can be replaced and world wide topsoil erosion has caused farmers to abandon 430 million hectares of land in the last 40 years.
The Amazon Rainforest is being logged at a huge rate, primarily for agricultural land (very misguided mind you). This would in my mind not be a "little" problem. Similar problem in Africa. According to that picture as well, Europe is covered completely in a dense forest and the Amazon rainforest is untouched. Not good evidence.
Great use of eco-speak. "...what might be a critical shortage...". Well is it? I might go on a homicidal rampage later today. But I doubt it.
Okay, then there WILL be a shortage of freshwater. Our aquifers are being rapidly depleted, our rivers are overtaxed, our glaciers are melting. I live inVancouver, situated in a frickin' rainforest and we now have water restrictions every summer and worry about our watersheds running dry. Our cities are getting larger, but where do you think we're going to get all of this water from? Our aquifers take hundreds of years to fill and some are almost empty now.
Now we're talking. There is a carrying capacity to this earth. I don't know what that carrying capacity is exactly, but I know that we're on pace to hit it. We need to examine the choices we're making. But we also need to realize that humanity is supposed to affect the environment. All animals must interact with this world and as life-loving individuals it's our duty to ensure that our interactions benefit our present without sacrificing our future. That's not a difficult concept. We have the knowledge today to solve many of these "might be critical" things today. But let's stop pretending it's someone else's responsibility to act on them or that the Earth is falling apart as we speak.
I completely agree with you. I take as much personal responsibility as I can to do my part and kudos to you and everyone else who does as well. I have not made doomsday remarks, that the earth will explode and will die, but there are problems that need to be addressed if we are to continue to live in a sustainable world for not only humans but for our natural environment which we depend on.
Not True. The vast majority of land mass is NOT in NA or Europe.
I know. That's why I said this:
"The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space."
No, 15 is not a hard and fast number. For example, it doesn't take into consideration what kind of power you use (hydro vs nuclear vs coal etc) how efficeint your busses are if you take them, along with a whole range of other factors which may change the number. However, if you do in fact need 15 acres exactly, than the world would not implode, but there would be shortage of space if eveyrone lived by that standard. There is not enough space.
Of course it's enough space. My "15 acres" is not just mine. You don't count a 5 acre pasture once for each person which is what these sites are doing. You count it once for the total population a 5 acre pasture can support.
Good question. But I think we can agree that there are certain things that we should all need and have in order to live. ie. Clean water, enough food, clean environment...
Of course!
I'm not saying that we're seeing the end of mankind, never have, however if we are losing our topsoil and degrading our agricultural land than does this not have ramifications on our ability to grow crops or the amount of cropland we have to produce food? Topsoil is being depleted about abou 16-30% faster than it can be replaced and world wide topsoil erosion has caused farmers to abandon 430 million hectares of land in the last 40 years
The Amazon Rainforest is being logged at a huge rate, primarily for agricultural land (very misguided mind you). This would in my mind not be a "little" problem. Similar problem in Africa. According to that picture as well, Europe is covered completely in a dense forest and the Amazon rainforest is untouched. Not good evidence.
Okay, then there WILL be a shortage of freshwater. Our aquifers are being rapidly depleted, our rivers are overtaxed, our glaciers are melting. I live inVancouver, situated in a frickin' rainforest and we now have water restrictions every summer and worry about our watersheds running dry. Our cities are getting larger, but where do you think we're going to get all of this water from? Our aquifers take hundreds of years to fill and some are almost empty now.
I completely agree with you. I take as much personal responsibility as I can to do my part and kudos to you and everyone else who does as well. I have not made doomsday remarks, that the earth will explode and will die, but there are problems that need to be addressed if we are to continue to live in a sustainable world for not only humans but for our natural environment which we depend on.
All of this is good stuff. I'm certainly not trying to pretend there are not serious issues with our modern uses of land. I just take issue with some of these arguments that proclaim that the Earth "cannot support" human behavior. It can support human behavior. Mother Earth is a pretty resiliant bitch. And she has lots of aces up her sleeve to keep us in check. Respect is the attitude we need to take, not some kind of pathetic sympathy or hopelessness. I'm not saying that I'm not hearing that from you, just playing devil's advocate a bit.
All of this is good stuff. I'm certainly not trying to pretend there are not serious issues with our modern uses of land. I just take issue with some of these arguments that proclaim that the Earth "cannot support" human behavior. It can support human behavior. Mother Earth is a pretty resiliant bitch. And she has lots of aces up her sleeve to keep us in check. Respect is the attitude we need to take, not some kind of pathetic sympathy or hopelessness. I'm not saying that I'm not hearing that from you, just playing devil's advocate a bit.
The earth can support human behaviour to a point. The earth is very resilient indeed but humans are becoming more and more adept at destroying it and exhausting its resources. One thing that kinda bugs me about these debates is that even if we assume that humans are able to adapt to our changing world, the rest of the natural world gets completely neglected. Most species cannot adapt and extinction rates are proving this. That map you showed me, those green parts are not empty just waiting to be cultivated. Those are some of the healthiest parts of the natural world that maybe shouldn't be seen as agricultural land in waiting. These systems which I think have value for their own intrinisic value also are necessary for the overall health of the planet, but I think many people just see them as extra resource reserves.
The earth can support human behaviour to a point. The earth is very resilient indeed but humans are becoming more and more adept at destroying it and exhausting its resources. One thing that kinda bugs me about these debates is that even if we assume that humans are able to adapt to our changing world, the rest of the natural world gets completely neglected. Most species cannot adapt and extinction rates are proving this. That map you showed me, those green parts are not empty just waiting to be cultivated. Those are some of the healthiest parts of the natural world that maybe shouldn't be seen as agricultural land in waiting. These systems which I think have value for their own intrinisic value also are necessary for the overall health of the planet, but I think many people just see them as extra resource reserves.
This is perfectly valid ethical question and an important one. I tend to fall closer to the "resources" side than than the "intrinsic value" side simply because I believe humanity needs to act in its own interests. Nothing in nature tells me that it's inherently "wrong" for a species to go extinct even if human actions are the primary reason for extinction. However, lots of things in nature tell me that it's harmful to humans if the ecological balance of our environment is severely disrupted.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with looking at the Earth as a provider. That's what it is. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, and I'm quite optimistic that humanity will learn that lesson. It may get ugly, but I believe it will happen. As a matter of fact, I believe it's already happening.
This is perfectly valid ethical question and an important one. I tend to fall closer to the "resources" side than than the "intrinsic value" side simply because I believe humanity needs to act in its own interests. Nothing in nature tells me that it's inherently "wrong" for a species to go extinct even if human actions are the primary reason for extinction. However, lots of things in nature tell me that it's harmful to humans if the ecological balance of our environment is severely disrupted.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with looking at the Earth as a provider. That's what it is. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, and I'm quite optimistic that humanity will learn that lesson. It may get ugly, but I believe it will happen. As a matter of fact, I believe it's already happening.
Great! finally we've figured out the underlying problem. I see the world completely different. I see the world similarly as a provider, but I see it more as a symbiotic relationship where maybe, we can benefit the earth as well as take from it. I see no moral superiority of humans over any other life form as a whole. (I would jump into a burning house to save a baby, but not so much a goldfish) but I believe each species has an equal right to this earth as we do.
Great! finally we've figured out the underlying problem. I see the world completely different. I see the world similarly as a provider, but I see it more as a symbiotic relationship where maybe, we can benefit the earth as well as take from it. I see no moral superiority of humans over any other life form as a whole. (I would jump into a burning house to save a baby, but not so much a goldfish) but I believe each species has an equal right to this earth as we do.
I'm not sure how differently we see things. I don't see a moral superiority of humans either. I see moral equality. That's why there's no obligation from humans to another species (and vice versa).
Each species does have an equal right to this Earth. But that doesn't mean they have equal ability on this Earth. For better or worse, Nature requires that we compete with other species and it does not dictate that we must compete on equal terms.
All competition on this planet should have life as its goal. That which supports life is justified, in my mind. That which invites death is not.
Is it a bubble waiting to burst horribly at some point, or can that kind of growth actually be maintained? It is particularly important for Norway since so many own their own homes, and it is government policy that it is best to own your own house. The growth in the norwegian market has been insane the last decade, right after we took a real nose-dive in the late eighties for a bit.
I got to thinking on this, since I've just bought an apartment with my girlfriend. Walking distance (20 minutes) from the centre of Bergen, about 70 square metres in size. The cost? About 310.000 US$
I am still reeling from the cost of it, myself. But maybe it's just the blues for the kickoff of my lifetime indebtedness to the banks, I dunno. But it's gonna be nice to have our own place, and no landlord to worry about.
Peace
Dan
Here, I hope this link works....you might find it interesting:
I scrolled down to the figure. Yikes! That doesn't look too good, I gotta tell you that. Thanks for the link.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I scrolled down to the figure. Yikes! That doesn't look too good, I gotta tell you that. Thanks for the link.
Peace
Dan
Ya, the U.S. and Norwegian housing markets could be 2 totally diff. things, but I'd sya the American market is in for a major correction very soon. There's even quite a diff. in the U.S. and Canadian markets - the Cdn market is said to be much more buoyant at this time....
Comments
Empty land, and land we are able to utilize are not the same.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Of course.
Sure.
Yep. You have roughly 4 acres per person.
It isn't a little. The amount of available farmland isn't a little either.
Certainly!
No. The reverse is true.
No. The reverse is true.
Yes it does. And 15 acres is a perfectly fine number. It's far above much of the world, far less than many. If every single person lived at that standard the world (from a land area standpoint at least) would not implode in a fiery ball of death.
Acceptable to whom? Acceptable by what standard?
Definitely! An important issue that needs to be addressed by consumers and producers. But not the end of mankind by any stretch, particularly considering that most of the arable land on this planet is not even being cultivated.
Not "much". "Little". Do me a favor and let me know when this:
http://www.fedpubs.com/maps/map_pix/ws_earth.jpg
turns gray.
Great use of eco-speak. "...what might be a critical shortage...". Well is it? I might go on a homicidal rampage later today. But I doubt it.
Now we're talking. There is a carrying capacity to this earth. I don't know what that carrying capacity is exactly, but I know that we're on pace to hit it. We need to examine the choices we're making. But we also need to realize that humanity is supposed to affect the environment. All animals must interact with this world and as life-loving individuals it's our duty to ensure that our interactions benefit our present without sacrificing our future. That's not a difficult concept. We have the knowledge today to solve many of these "might be critical" things today. But let's stop pretending it's someone else's responsibility to act on them or that the Earth is falling apart as we speak.
Not True. The vast majority of land mass is NOT in NA or Europe.
#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)
BY POPULATION 2005 est.
#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
I think we're misunderstanding each other because these two set of stats support what I'm saying. NA and Europe do NOT constitute either the majority of land mass or population.
No, 15 is not a hard and fast number. For example, it doesn't take into consideration what kind of power you use (hydro vs nuclear vs coal etc) how efficeint your busses are if you take them, along with a whole range of other factors which may change the number. However, if you do in fact need 15 acres exactly, than the world would not implode, but there would be shortage of space if eveyrone lived by that standard. There is not enough space.
Good question. But I think we can agree that there are certain things that we should all need and have in order to live. ie. Clean water, enough food, clean environment...
I'm not saying that we're seeing the end of mankind, never have, however if we are losing our topsoil and degrading our agricultural land than does this not have ramifications on our ability to grow crops or the amount of cropland we have to produce food? Topsoil is being depleted about abou 16-30% faster than it can be replaced and world wide topsoil erosion has caused farmers to abandon 430 million hectares of land in the last 40 years.
The Amazon Rainforest is being logged at a huge rate, primarily for agricultural land (very misguided mind you). This would in my mind not be a "little" problem. Similar problem in Africa. According to that picture as well, Europe is covered completely in a dense forest and the Amazon rainforest is untouched. Not good evidence.
Okay, then there WILL be a shortage of freshwater. Our aquifers are being rapidly depleted, our rivers are overtaxed, our glaciers are melting. I live inVancouver, situated in a frickin' rainforest and we now have water restrictions every summer and worry about our watersheds running dry. Our cities are getting larger, but where do you think we're going to get all of this water from? Our aquifers take hundreds of years to fill and some are almost empty now.
I completely agree with you. I take as much personal responsibility as I can to do my part and kudos to you and everyone else who does as well. I have not made doomsday remarks, that the earth will explode and will die, but there are problems that need to be addressed if we are to continue to live in a sustainable world for not only humans but for our natural environment which we depend on.
I know. That's why I said this:
"The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space."
Of course it's enough space. My "15 acres" is not just mine. You don't count a 5 acre pasture once for each person which is what these sites are doing. You count it once for the total population a 5 acre pasture can support.
Of course!
All of this is good stuff. I'm certainly not trying to pretend there are not serious issues with our modern uses of land. I just take issue with some of these arguments that proclaim that the Earth "cannot support" human behavior. It can support human behavior. Mother Earth is a pretty resiliant bitch. And she has lots of aces up her sleeve to keep us in check. Respect is the attitude we need to take, not some kind of pathetic sympathy or hopelessness. I'm not saying that I'm not hearing that from you, just playing devil's advocate a bit.
The earth can support human behaviour to a point. The earth is very resilient indeed but humans are becoming more and more adept at destroying it and exhausting its resources. One thing that kinda bugs me about these debates is that even if we assume that humans are able to adapt to our changing world, the rest of the natural world gets completely neglected. Most species cannot adapt and extinction rates are proving this. That map you showed me, those green parts are not empty just waiting to be cultivated. Those are some of the healthiest parts of the natural world that maybe shouldn't be seen as agricultural land in waiting. These systems which I think have value for their own intrinisic value also are necessary for the overall health of the planet, but I think many people just see them as extra resource reserves.
This is perfectly valid ethical question and an important one. I tend to fall closer to the "resources" side than than the "intrinsic value" side simply because I believe humanity needs to act in its own interests. Nothing in nature tells me that it's inherently "wrong" for a species to go extinct even if human actions are the primary reason for extinction. However, lots of things in nature tell me that it's harmful to humans if the ecological balance of our environment is severely disrupted.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with looking at the Earth as a provider. That's what it is. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, and I'm quite optimistic that humanity will learn that lesson. It may get ugly, but I believe it will happen. As a matter of fact, I believe it's already happening.
I'm not sure how differently we see things. I don't see a moral superiority of humans either. I see moral equality. That's why there's no obligation from humans to another species (and vice versa).
Each species does have an equal right to this Earth. But that doesn't mean they have equal ability on this Earth. For better or worse, Nature requires that we compete with other species and it does not dictate that we must compete on equal terms.
All competition on this planet should have life as its goal. That which supports life is justified, in my mind. That which invites death is not.
Here, I hope this link works....you might find it interesting:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_atrios_archive.html#115680771453879068
I scrolled down to the figure. Yikes! That doesn't look too good, I gotta tell you that. Thanks for the link.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Ya, the U.S. and Norwegian housing markets could be 2 totally diff. things, but I'd sya the American market is in for a major correction very soon. There's even quite a diff. in the U.S. and Canadian markets - the Cdn market is said to be much more buoyant at this time....