In lieu of my own words, which have been monopolized by the end-of-term push, here's another doomsday bit - by Eric Pianka. He's a scholar of much renown who has recently had to defend his comments that the earth would be better off without 90% of the human population.
It's not as if this humble scholar is about to destroy the human population, and it's not as if any of us endorse such stupidity. But those of us in touch with modern science and reality know that the man is bang-on.
He clarifies his comments below - although the comparison between a disease that could wipe out our population today (during a time when our economy is overshooting the carrying capacity of the earth), and the bubonic plague, is a bit of a stretch... not the least of which because our population is ridiculously higher than it was back then.
It's not as if this humble scholar is about to destroy the human population, and it's not as if any of us endorse such stupidity. But those of us in touch with modern science and reality know that the man is bang-on.
He clarifies his comments below - although the comparison between a disease that could wipe out our population today (during a time when our economy is overshooting the carrying capacity of the earth), and the bubonic plague, is a bit of a stretch... not the least of which because our population is ridiculously higher than it was back then.
What Everyone Needs to Hear, but Nobody Wants to Know
by Eric R. Pianka
This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it. Population crashes caused by disease have happened many times in the past. In the 1330s bubonic plague killed one third of the people in Europe's crowded cities. Smallpox and measles decimated Native Americans when Europeans transported them to the new world. HIV is a relatively new disease wreaking havoc in Africa and Asia. Another population crash is inevitable, but the next one will probably be world-wide. People think unrealistically because they have lost touch with the natural world. Many people today do not really know where and how our food is produced, and on what our life support systems are based.
As we continue paving over natural habitats, many think that we can disrupt and despoil the environment indefinitely. We have already taken half of this planet's land surface. Per capita shares of all the things that really matter (air, food, soil, and water) are continuously falling. Our economic system is based on the principle of a chain letter: growth, growth, and more growth. Such runaway growth only expands a bubble that cannot be sustained in a finite world. We are running out of virtually everything from oil, food and land to clean air and water. Some politicians, economists, and corporations want us to believe that technology will come to our rescue. But we have a false sense of security if we think that science can respond quickly enough to minimize threats from emerging diseases. Microbes have such short lifecycles that they can evolve exceedingly fast, much faster than we can respond to them. Many bacteria have evolved resistance to most antibiotics, and viruses are resistant to just about anything. Defense always lags behind offense.
So far, modern humans have just been lucky. A reactive approach to problems isn't enough, we also need to be proactive and anticipate problems before they become too severe to keep them from getting out of control.Many people believe that Earth and all its resources exist solely for human benefit and consumption, this is anthropocentrism. We should allow the millions of other denizens of this Earth some space to live -- they evolved here just as we did and have a right to this planet, too. I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. Simply stopping the destruction of rainforests would help mediate some current planetary ills, including the release of previously unknown pathogens.
The ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind -- we are living in one of the most interesting times humans have ever experienced. For example, consider the manifold effects of global warming. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that. If you don't believe me, read Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over," Sean Nee's one page commentary "The great chain of being" in Nature (2005, vol.435:page 429), and Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home