[lbo-talk] Narmada, damn!

[Chris Doss]

You just depressed the living crap out of me.

You know, when extraterrestrial paleontologists come
to Earth in 20-30 million years, what they're going to
see left of the current epoque in the fossil record is
an immense period of extinction, that is, mass death.
_That_ will be the legacy of the human species.

Let's see, it took 60 million years after the last
great extinction to produce "rational" species. I
wonder how long it'll take after this one. I could see
rats filling the empty ecological niches, including
homo sapiens'. They're doing pretty well, and they're
smart and can manipulate objects. Might take less than
60 million years.

--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 


Lyubo, bratsy, lyubo, lyubo, bratsy, zhit!

ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ËÞÁÎ, ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ÆÈÒÜ!


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html