[Coral-List] More positive outlook would be nice but...
sealab at earthlink.net
sealab at earthlink.net
Sat Jun 29 19:23:59 UTC 2019
Thanks for contributing/posting.
I think you’re exactly right.
Got to focus on climate change first.
Population is linked and should be favorably impacted in the process.
Steve Mussman
Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail
On 6/28/19, 4:37 PM, Robert W Buddemeier via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
From: Robert W Buddemeier via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
To: Alina Szmant <alina at cisme-instruments.com>
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>, Peter Sale <sale at uwindsor.ca>, Szmant, Alina <szmanta at uncw.edu>
Subject: [Coral-List] More positive outlook would be nice but...
Date: June 28, 2019 at 4:37:37 PM EDT
I am delighted to see Alina back and apparently unmellowed by time or
distance.
She is correct in her analyses and conclusions. Whether you agree with her
or not, consider risk evaluation -- assessment of the penalties for being
wrong in policy or action.
Assume that climate change and/or overpopulation are serious and
potentially catastrophic problems. Get that wrong and act on it, and you
may suffer major unnecessary expenses and hardship. Assume no problem, and
error may result in a real possibility of extinction (ours, as well as that
of our beloved invertebrates). Go ahead, decide what you value and what
chances you are willing to take. Then pick one of the choices.
Although I fundamentally agree with Alina, I have a tactical disagreement
with her. I think attacking climate change first is the most practical
course. The evidence mounts rapidly, more and more people are taking it
seriously, there are some feasible actions that can be taken -- and serious
attention leads inexorably to consideration of the overpopulation problem.
As long as people are comforted by the prospect of an empty planet, or
arguing that the issue merits more nuanced discussion, we are very far away
from addressing in any useful fashion whatever population problem there
might be.
Pessimistically yours,
Bob Buddemeier
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Alina Szmant via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
I have noticed something very interesting. Coral-List subscribers that
agree that human overpopulation is the major issue write to me privately
and not to the whole list. Those of you who think over-consumption is the
whole problem and have a knee-jerk social justice reaction to the "how do
we reduce human population size?" issue, write to the list. Wonder why that
is?
Before I get to my reply to Peter's message, I'd like to remind everyone
of an important little book that was published by University of Georgia in
2013: "Life On The Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation" (
https://www.amazon.com/Life-Brink-Environmentalists-Confront-Overpopulation/dp/0820343854).
In the final chapters it offers a few suggestions for how to reduce human
numbers outside disease and war. Several of them make sense to me, which
include giving free birth control to all women so that only wanted (by the
woman) pregnancies happen. Most pregnancies are unintended and unwanted
especially in societies where women are subjugated to their husbands and
where manhood is measured by how many children you have fathered. I visited
a Maasai boma where an 84 year old man with 15 wives had 43 children. And
now his grown children are having children. Yikes. Interestingly, several
of the older sons only had 1 wife but were hoping for a second one if they
could afford it. Bride price is a lot of cattle and with so many mouths to
feed, not that many cattle to spare.
NOW: Thanks Peter for the reading recommendation. I will pick it up after
I finish the Harari series "Sapiens", "Homo Deus" and his most recent "21
Lessons for the 21st Century"/ I am only 2/3rds through the first one,
which I highly recommend if you haven't already read it. It has a
historical point of view of the human species and how we got to where we
are (destroying the world).
I am glad that you are feeling more positive about the future, but things
I've seen and read won't allow we to follow you down that path. I am
pasting here the abstract from a paper I found on-line:
"How Many Times Has the Human Population Doubled? Comparisons with Cancer"
by Warren M. Hern; University of Colorado
"Along with decreasing doubling times as a function of increasing rates of
population growth over the past several thousand years, the human species
has shown striking parallels with a malignant growth. Some cancers also
display decreasing doubling times of cell proliferation during the most
rapidly growing phase. At 6 billion, the number of doublings reached by the
human population as of 1998 is 32.5, with the 33rd doubling (8.59 billion)
expected early in the next century. In terms of total animal biomass,
including that of domestic animals under human control, the 33rd doubling
of human-related biomass has been passed. In terms of energy use, which is
a more accurate index of the global ecological impact of humans, the human
species has passed its 36th doubling. These calculations are important
because, in addition to the number of doublings, the human population is
showing several important similarities with a malignant organismic tumor,
which results in death of the host organism at between 37 and 40 doublings.
At current growth rates, the number of individual humans will reach those
levels within 200-400 years from the present, but the ecological impact
will be felt much sooner since the number of doublings of energy consumed
will pass 37 early in the next century. These observations support the
hypothesis that the human species has become a malignant process on the
planet that is likely to result in the equivalent, for humans, of ecosystem
death, or at least in a radical transformation of the ecosystem, the early
phases of which are being observed." (
http://www.drhern.com/pdfs/doubling.pdf).
I agree with Hern that the human growth behavior has the characteristics
of a cancer. As we outgrow our habitat, we move onto other lands looking
for life support. That is why humans are not limited in distribution to
just Africa. This has been going on for 100's of thousands of years with
loss of major species everywhere we moved to, as we ate them to extinction
(Harari does a great job of summarizing this history).
Most of the highest population density areas are large city-states (
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?end=2017&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1961)
that depend for pretty much everything on what is produced in other
places. If you visit a moderately overpopulated and less technical society
such as Rwanda, you will see people living without most modern commodities
and with every square ft of arable land already under cultivation for
decades, people trying to grow food in the tiny strips of land between
crowded houses and between their homes and the street. Large groups of
young, barefoot, half naked children everywhere. They are working hard to
overcome the social problems from the Genocide but lack of resources and
opportunity will make this more difficult as time goes on. It is a very
Catholic country so birth control and family planning is hard to get. They
will be ever more dependent on food from outside their borders, but as
neighboring countries struggle with their own population problems, costs of
food and other essential goods increase due to global demand especially
from more affluent city-states, hard times can be expected. And they are
the home to 1/3 of the 880 remaining mountain gorillas in the world. Why
are there so few mountain gorillas left? Loss of habitat to grow food for
people; hunting to eat them; villagers killing them when the animals leave
their tiny park boundaries to eat the crops of neighboring communities; and
sadly even trophy hunting by affluent outsiders (less common now because of
armed rangers). Same story/different details for other African countries
where people are competing with wildlife for land. In the Maasai Mara and
Serengeti, people kill lions who kill the cattle the people illegally graze
inside the parks because their own grazing land is exhausted and can't
support the larger herds that larger human settlements need. Back home in
NC, we have precious little wildlife left and haven't for decades because
of development for increasing numbers of European descent people living in
the state (Europeans moved here because of over carrying capacity in
Europe; that drove the search for new opportunities; Read "Collapse" by
Jared Diamond or go way back to Malthus in 1800's ). From the air, all you
see is farms except where there are a few small swamps. Red wolf- gone;
bobcats and other predators- mostly gone; bears- hunted to keep them from
coming near human habitation. But we have lots of coyotes now because they
have migrated East from West of the Mississippi as wolves have disappeared.
And now that there are a few wolves in states out west, of course ranchers
and hunters want to shoot them all because they eat the occasional sheep or
cow, or just for sport... or because they blame wolves for decline in moose
numbers when it is clear that moose numbers are down because of climate
change (eaten alive by ticks; loss of habitat), and hunting (many millions
of human hunters vs only a few thousand at most wolves).
And as you drive through the country side now, you see solar panel farms
replacing food farms. How long is that model going to last? I am ALL FOR
RENEWABLE ENERGY. My solar panels produce 80 to 100 % of my daily
electricity needs. But not all roof tops are suitable for solar, and
clearing land for more agriculture or converting agricultural land to solar
panels is loss of food production for the growing human population and
further loss of habitat for wildlife. If we try to replace all the fossil
fuel energy with solar renewable by putting panels on ever rooftop
possible, we still have the problem of energy storage. And while there
have been many very smart people working on better energy storage systems,
carbon capture (as Al Gore says, it doesn't exist yet) for many decades, we
are not there yet. To think that we will be able to supply all 7.5 billion
people with 100 % renewable energy with a limited land mass and a growing
population is in my mind, science fiction.
As you may notice, I haven't even mentioned coral reefs. Coral reefs are
in fact is better shape than most terrestrial environments. And I think it
is very short sighted to think about saving coral reefs in whatever shape
or form in the future without thinking about the global ecosystem.
How many of you have become vegan? Industrial animal agriculture
(including dairy and eggs for those of you who have become vegetarian) is
as big a source of climate change as all the fossil fuel burning, and a lot
of fossil fuel consumption is for production of animal-based foods. And it
is an inherently very cruel and inhuman industry. Care about coral reefs?
Go vegan, give up cheese and crackers. I did it and it's not that
difficult. Just takes conviction. And much better for the coral reefs than
shooting lion fishes.
OK, I feel drained and need to get back to all the work I was going to get
done this morning.
*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant, CEO
CISME Instruments LLC
210 Braxlo Lane,
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee
cell: 910-200-3913
Website: www.cisme-instruments.com
**********************************************************
Videos: CISME Promotional Video 5:43 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAYeR9qX71A&t=6s
CISME Short version Demo Video 3:00 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4SqS7yC08
CISME Cucalorus 10x10 Sketch 4:03 min https://youtu.be/QCo3oixsDVA
-----Original Message-----
From: Coral-List <coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of
Peter Sale via Coral-List
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:43 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Cc: 'Szmant, Alina' <szmanta at uncw.edu>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] On a positive note But actually...
Coral listers, and especially Alina Szmant, Welcome back, Alina.
Normally, when I am being realistic about the future, I would agree totally
with your rant on population. It puzzles and horrifies me that the
environmental community avoids much mention of the problems a growing
population causes. (How exactly does one manage coastal pollution in a
developing country still enduring a fertility rate of 3.5 or so. No sooner
does the government find funds for some mitigation of the existing problem,
that problem grows in size.) The thought of 10 or 11 billion of us on this
planet terrifies me.
But today I can rant about a book I just finished reading. It's Empty
Planet. The shock of global population decline by Darrell Bricker and John
Ibbetson, published Feb 2019. The US Amazon link is
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1984823213/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
where it seems to be amazingly inexpensive right now.
I know nothing about Bricker, but John Ibbetson is a well respected
Canadian journalist. I've read the book and apart from their relatively
savage dismissal of Paul Ehrlich, I found it well presented and
reasonable. I did note that despite the hype the population projections
they offer are all well within the UN low fertility variant, and also
within the 95% confidence limits of the UN standard projection. That is,
the UN projections do account for the possibility Bricker and Ibbetson
project for the planet (but, hey, we all have to stress how our work is
really different from all that has gone before). Frankly, I found their
book very good environmental news and hope their projections are on the
right track.
It is still possible (vanishingly small possibility that I'd not wager a
cent on) that coral reefs could move through the Anthropocene,
substantially changed but still, very much coral reefs. I'm hoping for
that outcome. And in that respect, I've also been buoyed by the recent
special topic collection of papers in Functional Ecology, put together by
Gareth Williams and Nick Graham
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/13652435/2019/33/6
Authors discuss reef conservation done by seeking available ecosystem
states that are as good as possible in retaining/replacing/augmenting
existing services and assisting reefs to reach these states, as opposed to
a preservationist approach that struggles in the impossibly uphill battle
to restore the reefs of the 1950s. Forward-thinking conservation demanding
new science as opposed to backward-looking conservation that will
inevitably fail because we cannot push ocean temperature down and ocean pH
up nearly quickly enough to rectify wh at has already happened to reefs.
So, Alina, welcome back and get optimistic again (I wrote this after a
delicious Aussie red, which also helps), From the old scientists' home,
Peter Sale
sale at uwindsor.ca
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list