[lbo-talk] Narmada, damn!

[John Thornton]

>
> --- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>> It is not necessarily misanthropic to say that there
>> needs to be a 
>> balance betwen us and the environment that sustains
>> us and without which 
>> we could not exist.
>>
>> Joanna
> I certainly don't want to live in some dystopian hell
> world where the planet has a population of 30 billion,
> there are no large nondomesticated animals, and all
> usable land mass is devoted either to urban
> settlements or immense farms. Fortunately that will
> probably not happen in my lifetime if ever.
>
> Chris Doss

I know I'll be labeled a Malthusian by James and his ilk but the reality 
is we are unlikely to avoid the extinction of all wild animals and all 
wild spaces.
The projection I remember reading went like this.

If the current rate of bringing land into development and conserving 
land as wild, as has been practiced over the last 20 years, were 
projected forward the two lines would never intersect, meaning 
development will always out pace conservation until 100% of the landmass 
is consumed.

If we cut development by 25% and increase conservation by 33% of those 
same rates the point of intersection is a negative number. Meaning that 
intersection would not theoretically take place until 100% of the of the 
landmass were consumed.

If we cut development 50% and increase conservation 66% of those same 
rates the point of intersection occurs at a positive number near 90%. 
This means 90% of all the landmass has been developed. Since the 
Himalayas, Rimo Muztagh, Rocky's, Alp's, Carpathian's, and parts of 
other mountain ranges are really unsuited for any real development 90% 
development means 99% habitat and wildlife loss. The loss of everything 
below tree-line is a fairly complete loss.

If we cut development by 75% and increase conservation by 100% of those 
rates then we can avert the extinction of all wildlife on the planet. 
We'll still lose much more than we currently have but we won't lose it 
all and a substantial amount of biodiversity will remain.

Now some will argue that this won't happen and some will argue it 
doesn't matter. If you believe it doesn't matter then that is your 
choice but to believe it won't happen is hard to swallow. The numbers 
speak for themselves. While the extinction isn't inevitable I have a 
hard time believing we will, in the extremely near future, cut the 
losses to wildlife habitat that are a product of human development 
enough to prevent this. If you believe the change will be this dramatic 
and this fast you have a much more Panglossian outlook than I do.

Incidentally wildlife means not just a tiger but a tiger living in its 
natural habitat. A tiger in a zoo is not wildlife but rather an animal 
in captivity.

John Thornton