Slashdot Mirror
Humans Use 83 Percent of Earth's Surface
belloc writes "CNN is reporting on a Wildlife Conservation Society report that states that humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish. The article rerers to a WCS human footprint map, but the WCS site seems to have been CNN'd. Funny: I just got back from a little road trip across the southwest, and from all the nothing you see out there, you would think that 83% is a bit high. I guess Arizona farmlands must look a lot like wild, untouched desert."
And people wonder why environmentalists come under attack. It's bullshit reports like this that make absolutely no sense and assume a static technology level.
First of all, drive through Nevada some time. Mile after mile of empty space, but according to this report, humans have "appropriated" it. Technically, I'm sure they're right in the sense that someone owns it, but it's not as if the land is being used for anything.
Another thing that's stupid is that they claim that 98% of the land that can grow crops have been farmed. That is just ludicrous, and reminds me of the other wackos that claim that it would take 8 Earths or whatever to support everyone at the level of the US. There are numerous technological solutions to creating more farmland. Sheesh, how about irrigating the desert? How about huge multi-level greenhouses built in the middle of nowhere?
Sure, that would be more expensive than what we're doing now, but so what? The point is that very few resources are actually limited. Technology almost always fills whatever needs arise.
We'll stabilize population way before then, but this planet could support hundreds of billions of people.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Being a private pilot i get to see lots of ground from high above.
To tell you the truth, i don't see *ANY* land that ISN'T marked by humans.
Even the most dense forrests and pristine areas are loaded with new houses, barns, trucks, trailers, roads, pipes, power lines or something that we have planted there.
In a way, i'm jealous of the people who got to see the wild west and walk across america and stake out a piece of the world. Now i can't even go to a public park after dark! Sure wish there was some "free" land somewhere!!
Quoting from the article:
Scientists have shown that we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green stuff) produced on Earth each year either taking it directly or keeping other organisms from using it through our agriculture and land use practices.
Which answers the "what the hell is NPP" question.
And in response I say "so what?".
We are the top of the food chain. We are one of the few animals that changes the environment to suit us rather than the other way around. We are one of the few animals that can exist in nearly any environment because of that. Of course we've bent most of the resources on the planet toward our whim. In fact, I'm surprised it's not a higher percentage based on whatever nebulous methodology these "researchers" want to use.
Quite frankly the numbers put forth in this study are trash. They've perverted things like the percentage of earth's surface used to make alarmist numbers while using negative language and exploiting the average person's lack of scientific knowledge to try and prove their points. Which is basically that we humans are horribly evil and Ma Earth would be better off without us.
Fine by me. I expect them to suicide first to prove their devotion.
Reading from the Sanderson et al article on their website ("The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild."):
Their figure of 85% may well be correct, but their methodology is suspect to say the least.
1) As you say, they ignored Antarctica and other islands.
2) They used nine datasets to plot human influence, of which two were RIVERS and COASTLINES. Given that they used independant plots for population density etc, I have to wonder exactly why they feel humans are responsible for the distribution of rivers and coastlines. They assume that the possibility of access by humans implies human interference.
3) They assumed that roads would affect the environment for 2 km to each side, when the highest estimate for ecological impact was 600 m!
4) They assumed that all settlements would also affect environments upto an arbitrary distance of 2 km, based on the error in *position*, not *extent* of map data.
5) Random assertions like: "Hunting no longer supplies a major source of in the Western world, but it does in most of the rest of the world." This is patently false. Very few communities use hunting as a major food source. The vast majority of people around the world are fed by agriculture. But the authors use this statement to justify scoring human influence as "moderate" (4) up to 15 km from settlements on this basis. (They estimated 15 km to be a day's travel.)
I'm sure there are more errors, this was a very cursory reading.
I'm disappointed that this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article is in no sense good science, although it makes a fine political manifesto.
My other sig is also a
Find your ecological footprint
and then...
compare it to the rest of the world's
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, they ban logging on lakes....
Back in 1993, the BC government was under a lot of pressure over their decision to allow logging in most of Clayoquot sound (one the last large areas of relatively pristine old-growth forest). In the midst of the public protests, they found a way to add thousands of acres to the preserved area: They banned logging on Kennedy lake. Now, I'm not talking about logging the shores of the lake, I'm talking about logging the surface of the lake. They then added the surface of the lake to their 'protected areas' statistics.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.