[Coral-List] Why we are failing to repair coral reefs

Pedro M Alcolado gmalcolado at gmail.com
Sat Oct 25 03:12:38 EDT 2014


I support these Doug's excellent considerations! They strengthen hope
and call to action in a really depressing ongoing coral reef (and
world) situation. It is just what we need to keep moving forward and
convince the relevant sectors.
Best wishes to all,
Pedro

On 10/23/14, Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>


More information about the Coral-List mailing list