Slashdot Mirror


Will Earth Expire By 2050?

_josh writes: "Will overconsumption force humanity off this planet in less than 50 years? It may sound sci-fi, but according to the WWF in this story at the Observer, it's entirely possible. Maybe now I can convince my brother not to buy that SUV ..." Take with as large a grain of salt as you think appropriate.

13 of 1,274 comments (clear)

  1. Another option? by stirfry714 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:
    The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

    Okay, does this strike anyone as leaving out the most likely option? It's highly unlikely we'll massively change our ways. It's also highly unlikely that we'll colonize other planets in the next 50 years.

    What's that leave? Simple! Massive resource wars! Woohoo!

    It just amazes me that the whole article ignores the inevitable outcome... we'll all fight over dwindling resources, thus thinning the population down to sustainable levels.

    1. Re:Another option? by Peyna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone figured that out a long time ago actually. Thomas Malthus, back in the early 1800s said that basically the human population is increasing at the same that food supplies are, but at a much greater rate. Thus, there are three inevitable population checks. Famine, War, and Disease. These will take place when we run out of resources. They'll kill off enough people that we can survive just a bit longer to do it all over again, wheee.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Another option? by stirfry714 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. It seems like we'd have a lot more luck if people would just start figuring out the most humane way to "thin the herd" in advance, instead of pretending you can stop me from buying that nice huge plasma-screen HDTV I saw today. *Drool*

      This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.

      I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...

    3. Re:Another option? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > This reminds me of an econ assignment in high school that I "failed". We were given a set number of resource units, and told to distribute them throughout the town. Most people gave food to everyone, TVs to most everyone, and luxury cars to a few. I gave two or three luxury cars and TVs to a few people, and let something like a third of the town starve to death.

      *evil grin* - well-done! (I'd have tried to set up an auction system within the confines of the game. Them that has, buys. Them that can't buy, starves, leaving more for the rest of us! ;-)

      In History class in high school, we had a teacher who broke us up into groups to play "Diplomacy", two moves a day, for a week. I started out as Britain - good mobility, but horrible logistical problems.

      First move: Tell the French I won't take the English Channel if they don't, because Germany's the real enemy.

      Actual move: Take the Channel, of course.

      France to teacher: "That wasn't fair!"
      Me to teacher: "Hey, Fog of War, these things happen, right?"
      Teacher to class: (Brief explanation of the object lesson - things like this might be accidents, but might not be, and it's up to the players to judge their risks accordingly when they decide whom to trust.)

      Second move: Apologize profusely to France in private and to players I see France hanging around. Blame the Germans for tricking me into thinking he was going to go after the Channel despite our agreement not to. Suggest he take North Africa while I withdraw from the Channel and head towards Denmark.

      Actual move: Figure he's fallen for it again, and invade France. Yup, he fell for it again. Oldest trick in the "Diplomacy" playbook.

      France to teacher: "That's not fair!"
      Me to teacher: "Napoleon said God was on the side with the greatest battalions. Voltaire disagreed and said that God wasn't on the side with the largest battalions, but with the best shots. Thanks to my opponent not listening to his generals or his philosophers, now I have both."
      Teacher to class: "Some of you weren't paying attention last turn. 'Fair' is determined by who can do what, to whom, when, and with how much materiel. [...and with that, he had an easy segue into WW2 history and Barbarossa...]"

      The game got easier from there. By the end of the week, over half of Europe was mine. 2/3 of the class was at war with me and losing badly due to infighting amongst themselves, and the other 1/3 had been eliminated.

      > I defended my homework as a more realistic portrait of the world than any of my neo-socialist classmates, but I still failed since my solution wasn't "nice". So sad...

      Bummer about your econ teacher. I was lucky enough to have a cool enough History teacher that I got an "A" for my treachery :-)

    4. Re:Another option? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The Diplomatic Pouch is a good starting point.

      If a turn lasts an hour, you'll spend 40-50 minutes talking strategy with your enemies and/or allies. (i.e. doing "diplomacy" in the real-world sense of the word). This is the meaty (and the fun) part of the game.

      Then you write down your orders for your troops, and everyone reveals their orders at once (usually to cries of "you bastards!", "oops!", or both) When the orders are unsealed, it's deterministic - no random elements; things "work" or "don't work" based on whether you've been able to persuade your allies to go along with your plan, or misled your adversaries into traps.

      Real-world example - History of WW2/Europe written as though it were a game of "Diplomacy":

      Game begins in '39. Germany/Italy tells Russia they want Poland, but not to worry, that's as far as they'll go if Russia stays out of it. (Stalin to Hitler: "OK, we'll sign your non-aggression pact. You stay out of Russia, we let you take Poland.")

      Germamy is then able to concentrate on wiping out France in '40, and do serious hurt to Britain without worrying about an attack from the East. (DeGaulle to Hitler: "Oops.")

      Confident that Western Europe is now safely held, Germany goes for global domination (vs. splitting Europe between Germany and Russia) and backstabs Russia in '41. (Stalin to Hitler: "You bastard!")

      As a result, Russia/US/UK form an alliance which wipes out Germany/Italy in '44-45. (Russians take out Germans from Moscow to Germany, US/UK takes out Germans from France to Germany. UK takes over North Africa, and jumps from there to wipe out Italy. Mussolini to Italy: "Oops. *chokeswingswingswing*")

      Germany's toast. With only three players left on the board, US/UK briefly consider backstabbing Russia in '46, but choose stalemate instead of going for global conquest. (Players to each other: "Fuggit. We've had enough. Let's go for beers.")

      Game ends in '45. Europe remains split between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for 50 years.

      Thankfully, all three leaders in '45 were smart enough to realize the difference between bits of wood on a cardboard map and 50 million dead (on all sides) plus another 20-30 million to "finish the game".

      (And also thankfully, when you're playing Diplomacy, it is just bits of wood on a cardboard map, so you can just "go for world domination" with a clean conscience :-)

  2. No. by e_n_d_o · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Earth will not expire in 2050. Simple economics will keep it from doing so. When certain resources become scarce, they will become expensive, and people will be forced to stop using them and seek alternatives.

    Interesting they compare the United States' use of resources to that of Burundi. This comparison is truly startling. For those who enjoy startling statistics, allow me to offer a few others:

    The population of Burundi is expanding at three times the rate of the United States. The percentage of people in Burundi infected with HIV/AIDS is 20 times that of the United States. The average lifespan in Burundi is 31 years shorter than that of a person living in the United States. The literacy rate of Burundi is 35%. 1 in 3000 people have Internet access. (Statistics courtesy of CIA World Factbook).

    Are you still interested in reducing your resource consumption by a factor of 24? Personally, I'm not interested in selling my pickup, as I don't think it has any connection to the fact that the number of black rhinos has fallen from 65,000 to 3,100. Considering that my "extravagant lifestyle" doesn't involve poaching, I don't think I can help.

    As an aside, this article brings one more thing to mind: every environmentalist needs to understand that he is not "saving the Earth." He is only saving himself and his descendants. The Earth will recover from every incosiderate act man has done to it in the blink of an eye (relative to its lifetime), and graciously replace us with other species if we destroy our way of life.

    And Timothy, you might want to encourage your brother to go ahead and buy that new SUV. If his current car is more than five years old, that new SUV will be adding less pollution to the atmosphere.

    1. Re:No. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      P.S. get that SUV. Nice rides, and useful if you have a boat or actually use it for something other than a UAV. (Urban Assualt Vehicle)

      I disagree. They REALLY aren't that nice, they handle like a cow, they accelerate like a brick wall, they stop like a falling piano, and they soak up gasoline like a sponge. Does that make them unuseful? No. Not at all. Granted, they're VERY useful if you tow a boat. Most people don't have boats. SOME of them have wonderful offroad capabilities, most don't. Esspecially not the really big luxury variety, which tend to do the worst off of the road. They only win awards for reasons like space for fitting your kids and groceries or number of televisions for the passengers, and not stuff like ground clearance or horsepower at the wheels. They can't be winning awards for those things, because if they WERE then the ones that would be winning you will strangely find are the ones that seem the least luxurious (the ones that have been around the longest).

      You see, you say "GET THE SUV" assuming everyone is going to use it the way you do. Here's a bit of reality that I'm going to stick in your eye like a hot stick sharped to a point. ALMOST NOBODY will use it the way you do. Almost everyone WILL use it as an Urban Assult Vehicle.

      I live in an area where people actually NEED these kinds of vehicles, and they STILL treat them like minivans.

      It makes me sick right up until I see that one with 6 feet of ground clearance, 4 foot tall tires, a ladder to climb into the cabin, and an inch of mud all over the entire thing. Then I can't help but smile.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  3. some salt, some truth by NaturePhotog · · Score: 5, Insightful
    America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

    Whether it's 50 years or 500, we are currently using resources faster than they are replenished. And the U.S. does consume a disproportionate amount of the resources in the world.

    100% accurate or not, reports like this aren't going to change the way the U.S. lives -- we're too comfortable in our lifestyles to make big changes. It's going to take some catastrophic change that impacts the U.S. directly to get us to wake up. Unfortunately it's developing countries which are going to feel those changes first.

    1. Re:some salt, some truth by thales · · Score: 5, Insightful
      150 years ago the best source of artifical light was Oil Lamps that used Whale oil. At that time the argument could have been made that there is a limited number of Whales (true), that the number of Whales was declining (true), therefore at some date in the not too distant future everyone would be sitting in the dark because of a Whale shortage.

      We aren't sitting in the dark. Alternative sources of light were developed. The distillation of Kerosene from Petroleum turned worthless black goo into a valued resource. The development of Coal gas created a new source of lighting, gas lights that were better than the oil lamps and used a resource that was far more plentiful than Whales. Natural Gas replaced Coal gas, turning a hazzardous substance that was found while looking for oil into a resource. The electric light turned waterfalls into a resource that could be used for lighting.

      Before these developments Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Waterfalls were NOT resources. The first two were natural hazzards that decreased the value of land that they were found on, and the last decreased the value of rivers as transportation sources.

      This is nothing new. In the Stone age Flint was the prefered material to make tools out of. Copper Ore was a worthless rock that didn't have the properity of flaking evenly that was needed to make tools. The discovery of smelting turned those worthless greenish rocks into a resource and averted a tool shortage caused by flint being a finate resource.

      Today having a full landfill on your properity is NOT viewed as a resource. It's a nucance that decreases the value of the land. That landfill may be like having oil on your land in 1850. New technology may transform that worthless land full of garbage into a new resource.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  4. Figured out why .... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the "news" is presented this way ... and this statement sums it up pretty good:
    Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'
    AHHHHH ... I see now. It's Greenpeace's way of redistributing the wealth of the United States.

    Instead of helping the "third world" countries with infrastructure, stable government, and ways NOT to pollute, they want to take the "first world" countries and take wealth away from them and give it to the poorer countries (of course, they'll help do the redistribution ... one for you, one for me)

    Go ahead and mod me down for this, because it is a different angle on this type of story.

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
  5. Re:denying the statistics, preaching to the choir by Latent+IT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Supplies don't? Well, you're right to some extent, but in other ways, totally wrong. Food, for instance. The food supply increases as technology allows growing more food per acre, and as it allows fewer people to grow more of it, even in less than ideal soil. Technology also brings electricity from the atom. There is also solar, wind, wave, and nearly uncountable other ways of generating electricity, with which you can do anything - especially loose hydrogen and oxygen from water to fill your fuel cell, and make breathable air.

    Honestly, with only 1/3 of the earth land, and even less than that actually habitable, I think the first thing we'd run out of given enough technological innovation is a place to stand.

    What will happen will be this - eventually we will run out of oil... rather - the cost of getting more oil out of the earth will outweigh the value of the barrel of oil you could extract. I hope fervently for this day, since while everyone equates this with disaster, this will solve the vast majority of our problems. This will stop the pollution that makes me wheeze. Nuclear waste is amazingly insignificant when compared with burning coal and oil. Just build a big lead thing, deposit the (amazingly, amazingly small) 30,000 tons/year, and keep it around for a thousand years, by which I'm sure some bright boy will have developed a way to use electricity to power am effecient railgun, and fire it off into space a bit at a time. Then just keep on keeping on until we either run out of room to stand, or run out of material to power a nuclear power plant. By that time (upsettingly far in the future) well, someone else can come up with another damn idea. ;p

  6. AMEN!! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think folks who think we'll run of oil very soon are deluding themselves.

    The problem with the alarmists who think we'll run out of oil are only considering the idea that the last deposits of oil will be in the Persian Gulf.

    How wrong they are! Considering the following factors of the last 12 years:

    1. The oilfields of the former Soviet Union are now being exploited on a very large scale by Western oil companies. There are massive oilfields in Siberia and Kazakhstan have barely been touched, not to mention we haven't even begun to exploit the Caspian Sea oilfields on a large scale.

    2. China has large oilfields in Xinjiang Province that haven't been exploited due to transportation issues.

    3. Afghanistan is potentially sitting on top of a big oilfield.

    4. The Gulf of Mexico--according to British Petroleum engineers--have an amazingly large amount of oil yet to be exploited. The only reason why we haven't gotten more is the high expense of drilling for oil well into the Gulf of Mexico.

    5. Canada has huge tracts of oil tar sands that could yield enough oil to equal all of the Persian Gulf states combined.

    6. The Saudis are only concentrating their oil production on the oilfields near the Persian Gulf, not yet exploiting oilfields in other parts of the country. Tests by ARAMCO engineers have shown there are large oil deposits in the southern part of Saudi Arabia (called the Empty Quarter), but the Saudis have yet to tap these oilfields.

    As for the issue of food production, the very rapid development of farm machinery, agricultural chemicals and better means to store and transport food has increased the amount and variety of food available to everyone on a scale that is mind-boggling. Think about it: compare what is available at your local food market in 1902 versus 2002, and you can eat foodstuffs today from literally all over the world.

    In short, the alarmists don't know what they're talking about--a classic case of junk science.

  7. Liberal's Delimma... by ClarkEvans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the classic Liberal's delimma. The liberal screams and shouts that something is very wrong -- people open there eyes a bit and things get quite a bit better. Then the conservatives come along later and say: "Gee, the liberal was wrong, see we're ok now."

    About 15 years ago I remember the "Skeptical Environmentalists" saying that the temperature of the earth won't even go up one degree by 2050. Well. It appears as if they are wrong. In some parts (the artic regions) we are anywhere from 4 to 7 degrees warmer. As I remember, it may have even been Julian who made these predictions (or who re-quoted them).

    It's clear that we are seeing an acceleration in global warmth which is going to dramatically change our climate (and is doing so as we speak). What are you going to do about it? Close your eyes and say that we humans will adapt? Do you have that much faith in technology... I don't. How can you be sure it doesn't warm even faster?

    I don't know about you, but I'd rather err on the "conservative" side of things and take action now rather than wait till it becomes a crisis. No?