[Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs
Douglas Fenner
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 01:33:33 EDT 2014
Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus published "An Essay on the Principle of
Population" in 1798, arguing that either death or birth control would
inevitably limit population, with starvation, disease, and war being the
main agents of death. His essay was read by both Darwin and Wallace, and
was part of the stimulation for their theory of evolution. For animals and
plants, individuals reproduce as much as they can, and greatly exceed
carrying capacity, such that it is inevitable that many if not most young
will die. See the many Wikipedia articles on Malthus. Many have predicted
catastrophe due to population growth, such as the Club of Rome's book
"Limits to Growth" published in 1972, but it hasn't happened. Club of
Rome's newer books and predictions are more optimistic, saying many of the
limiters are things we control and can change (see Wikipedia's article on
them). Human population has continued to grow, and people are poorer than
they would be if it hadn't grown as fast as it did, but countries like
China and India which have had periods of starvation in the past do not
have those now.
If only the death control part of Malthus' essay is considered, his
prediction appears to have failed in the 200+ years since he made it. I
remember an old Scientific American article that looked at human
populations since the neolithic, and argued that when agriculture was
invented, human populations increased greatly, and that subsequent
population increases followed other technological inventions. The world's
population is now growing much slower than it would without birth control.
If no birth control is practiced whatsoever, but there is enough food and
medical treatment to avoid the very high infant mortality that occurs
without sufficient food and medical care and public health measures, women
produce about 15-20 children in their life. There are no societies on
earth I know of that do that (other than one or two small religious
groups). The fact that human population growth has not greatly outraced
the pace of technological innovations that have increased food production
and so on, is largely due to birth control. In some countries such as
Italy, China, and Japan, reproduction currently is below replacement, yet
mortality from starvation, vast epidemics, and war have been very low in
those countries for quite a while. Low or negative population growth
without mortality is not possible without birth control. Population growth
is like a giant oil tanker, it has such momentum that it takes a very long
time to slow and stop it. In spite of the one-child family policy in China
introduced in 1979, their population is still growing, although much slower
than it would without it (Wikipedia says that it only applies to about 36%
of the population, but I doubt the rest of the population there is having
large families).
All predictions are for human population to eventually reach a
maximum, and then begin to decline. The only debate is about when. It
will happen due to birth control more likely than due to starvation,
disease or war (hopefully). It can be sped up by providing birth control
to those who want it but can't afford it. There are hundreds of millions
if not billions in that situation.
During development, many countries go through a phase of
industrialization in which pollution is rampant. At one time "London fog"
from coal fires heating houses cause great mortality in London, thousands
died. Now you can walk the streets of London in clear air. I can remember
when it was reported that Tokyo had such bad air pollution that there were
oxygen vending machines on the sidewalk. Now their air is clear, even
though the metropolitan area has about 24 million people, said to be the
world's largest city. US cities used to be blackened with the smoke from
industry. Pittsburgh where my uncle worked in a steel mill, was black, but
the steel mills are gone, the city has been cleaned up, it now shines and
is rated as one of the US's most livable cities. China and also India
currently are in extremely rapid growth phases, and pollution in Beijing is
currently infamous. But China knows very well about the problem, and is
currently the world's largest renewable energy equipment manufacturer.
They plan to reduce pollution as soon as they can, but they don't want to
slow growth. US water and air pollution have been reduced, they aren't as
good as they should be, but they are much better than they were. A river
in Cincinnati once caught fire! The rise of a middle class means that
people begin to press their governments for less pollution so they can have
better lives. I agree with Greg that the glass is half full as well as
half empty.
I think these are lessons that most of our problems are very solvable
in the long term. Our problem is that we are loosing reefs and other
ecosystems quickly, and no one can possibly stop population growth in time
to save reefs. We need to be realistic about what is possible and what is
not. There is NO chance that we can stop population growth, let alone
reduce population, in time to save reefs. None.
It is not just the number of people that threatens reefs, it's also
what those people do. How much they consume, and how they act in many ways
which produce the threats to reefs, like overfishing, sediment runoff,
nutrient runoff, climate change, acidification, and so on. All of those
can be reduced drastically without changing the population. We can have a
much much smaller footprint on the environment than we presently have, and
still continue to have productive, enjoyable lives.
We need to get to work and get it done!! Nobody said it was going to
be easy. President Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the moon, not because
it is easy, but because it is difficult." We need that same attitude.
Cheers, Doug
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Greg Challenger <
GChallenger at polarisappliedsciences.com> wrote:
> I would disagree that past events have not affected carrying capacity.
> We've been doing things that affect carrying capacity for quite some time.
> The one-time inheritance that helps create carrying capacity and includes
> things like topsoil and biodiversity that Erlich discusses in 1968 included
> buffalo, whales, prairie, wetlands and other things we have largely
> depleted long ago, did it not? There are too many more examples to list.
> Carrying capacity is largely influenced the availability of substitute
> resources and very much by the current technological regime to utilize
> those resources in more effective and sustainable ways. Despite losses of
> one time inheritances, the carrying capacity has still gone up due in part
> to many technological advances. Advanced nations have higher carrying
> capacities than poorer nations. I'm not selling technology as the panacea,
> but we are all "technologists".....are we admitting we can't solve the
> problem and we just have wait for h
> alf of us to go away? I'm not there yet. I have been working on some
> great coral and large-scale wetland restoration projects. I have seen some
> locations with much promise and recovery despite declines elsewhere. I
> also lament losses, but there are apparently unavoidable losses on large
> scales regardless of humans as Gene points out. This is no reason of
> course to reverse our own damage to the best of our ability. I still think
> the glass is half full. The loss of half of the glass is bad, but I'm not
> down yet.
> Greg Challenger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:
> coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:42 AM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs
>
> Technology will never overcome the finite limits the biosphere can
> provide. As more and more of us swarm the planet, we'll keep "fishing down
> the food chain" until it gets very, very ugly.
>
> All the past catastrophes Greg described did not threaten the carrying
> capacity of the planet.
>
> Actually, some of what Paul Ehrlich predicted has come to pass. There were
> a number of social factors (such as the greater empowerment of
> women) which, coupled with some technological factors (such as more
> widespread birth control), that have given us some breathing room as to
> when the more dire aspects of the future he envisioned will arrive.
>
> That does not mean the more dire effects of the future he envisioned will
> not arrive. As I know from personal experience, when we say "It's not that
> bad," we are often omitting the final word, which is "yet."
>
> I also know that the "yets" can and do arrive.
>
> So maybe it's not that bad ... yet.
>
> Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" works like most other warnings. If you see
> the railroad crossing signal and stop before the train arrives -- thus
> avoiding the collision -- it would be a mistake to conclude something was
> wrong with the warning itself.
>
> Dave
>
> On 10/22/2014 6:15 PM, Greg Challenger wrote:
> > Energy units and land requirements to support an individual are dynamic
> and have changed a lot over time with advancements.....no? I know a well
> known ecologist who calculated the earth population explosion back in 68 as
> well. None of it has yet come to pass.....because advancements
> intervened. I hear what Francesca is saying....and I too am an optimist.
> >
> > Ps. When the world had 3,5 billion people it was the 60s I think. Id
> say we most certainly did have environmental catastrophes then. Go back
> even farther....Hanford.... Love canal, bikini atoll.....WWII. If you
> think the Iraq war or the BP spill were big, they don't hold a candle to
> WWII.
> >
> > Thanks for the provocative discussion
> >
> > Greg Challenger
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:50 PM, "Szmant, Alina" <szmanta at uncw.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> The figure of how many humans (3 to 4 Billion) the Earth can support
> with a reasonable standard of living (at most 1/2 of the US standard), and
> still have some nature left around us, is not mine. It has been
> calculated by a number of well-known ecologists based on energy units, how
> much land it takes to support a person's needs (while still leaving land
> for wildlife), and other ways. Richard Leakey quoted that number to me a
> few years back when I asked him the question. I have seen it explained in
> a number of publications (check out that book I recommended awhile back
> "Life on the Brink"). Yes more people can live on Earth (and currently do)
> but at the expense of the environment (including climate change and coral
> reefs).
> >>
> >> http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
> >>
> >> You can make fun of it all you want but back when we only had 3.5 B
> people on Earth, there weren't the kinds of environmental disasters as we
> have now.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
> >> discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt
> >>
> >> "The time is always right to do what is right" Martin Luther King
> >>
> >> *********************************************************************
> >> ****
> >> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> >> Professor of Marine Biology
> >> AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee Center for Marine
> >> Science University of North Carolina Wilmington
> >> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> >> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> >> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913
> >> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Challenger [mailto:GChallenger at polarisappliedsciences.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:56 PM
> >> To: Szmant, Alina; Peter Sale; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> Subject: RE: [Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs
> >>
> >> Did you just say we have to get rid of half the world's people? Which
> of the quotes in your email does that idea capture? Perhaps this one.....
> >>
> >> "The time is always right to do what is right" Martin Luther
> >> King
> >>
> >> I know you weren't serious but it is one possible solution to making
> the environment more healthy, just not one in which at least half of us can
> agree.
> >>
> >> As the great ecologist George Carlin said......"Save the Earth? The
> Earth will be fine....we are screwed".
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Challenger
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Szmant,
> >> Alina
> >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:19 PM
> >> To: Peter Sale; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs
> >>
> >> Hello Peter:
> >>
> >> I read your essay in Reef Encounters. All I will add is that if all we
> (whoever we is) are focused on is saving coral reefs, we are doomed to
> failure.. Coral reefs are just one of many ecosystems on Planet Earth that
> are in distress and being wiped out systematically due to the human
> cancer: forests (rain and temperate, and all other kinds), wetlands,
> tundra, coastal plains, estuaries, and on and on. We can't hope to save
> one without saving them all, and to do that in the long term, we have to
> somehow reduce human numbers to half of those inhabiting Earth today. It
> may be too late already, but the longer we wait to even recognize the root
> of the problem and get moving to do something about it, the less likely
> that this will happen in time to save the organisms and ecosystems we know
> and value.
> >>
> >> Alina
> >>
> >>
> >> "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
> >> discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt
> >>
> >> "The time is always right to do what is right" Martin Luther King
> >>
> >> *********************************************************************
> >> ****
> >> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> >> Professor of Marine Biology
> >> AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee Center for Marine
> >> Science University of North Carolina Wilmington
> >> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> >> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> >> tel: 910-962-2362 fax: 910-962-2410 cell: 910-200-3913
> >> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Peter
> >> Sale
> >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 1:03 PM
> >> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> Subject: [Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> I recently penned a comment on why we are, for the most part, failing
> in our efforts to repair and sustain coral reefs, despite the efforts of
> many dedicated and hard-working people. It appeared in Reef Encounter, the
> on-line news journal of ISRS, and many readers of this list will have seen
> it already. Thinking it might be worth wider dissemination, I've now put
> it up on my blog, with some pretty pictures attached. You can access the
> blog at www.petersalebooks.com/?p=1708 and you can see the original in
> Reef Encounter which can be downloaded from the ISRS website at
> http://coralreefs..org/ Reef Encounter has lots of interesting content
> (perhaps even more interesting than my comment)!
> >>
> >> If you are a member of ISRS, you could also think of nominating someone
> to the ISRS Council, and if you are not a member, think about joining this
> international coral reef science community.
> >>
> >> Peter Sale
> >>
> >>
> >> sale at uwindsor.ca @PeterSale3
> >> www.uwindsor.ca/sale www.petersalebooks.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
> 6467 Hanna Drive | Cell: (804) 305-5234
> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com
> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
Douglas Fenner
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
belief in evolution is optional, use of antibiotics that bacteria have not
evolved resistance to is recommended.
website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list