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.

7 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 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...

    2. 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 :-)

  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.

  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. 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.