Reader Randolph Addison sends along this Guardian story trumpeting a World Wildlife Fund study that predicts the depletion of earth’s natural resources by 2050. Not surprisingly, the Guardian reports this agitprop as though it were based on unassailable science and sober analysis:
‘Earth will expire by 2050’
Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised.
Earth’s population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.In a damning condemnation of Western society’s high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.
The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.
Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.
Whatever. Dibs on Mars.
Or, if you’re interested in staying put on earth — maybe even building yourself an inground swimming pool or something — check out this analysis of the “science” underpinning such hyperbolic, end-is-nigh pronouncements as these.
Have you read <i>All The Trouble In The World</i> by P.J. O’Rourke? O’Rourke makes it a blast to debunk such Chicken Little myths, and does his research–apparently, if we all lived in a city with the population of New York City, the entire world population could fit in Afghanistan. (Not that any of us would want to be there.)
Keep up the nice work–I really enjoy Protein Wisdom.
Haven’t read it, but it sounds like something I’d like. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks.
Two planets in 50 years? Unsustainable growth? Doubt it. I came across some interesting facts on this a couple of years ago.
1) Official estimates of population growth have it slowing over the next century, to peak out around 9.5-10 billion. The trend is for slower growth. Yeah, there’ll be a lot of bad news happening, but the trend line isn’t towards exponential growth. Rather, it will start to plateau out as this century winds down.
2) A typical nickel-iron asteroid can contain more metal ore than mankind has mined since the rise of civilization.
3) There are hundreds, if not thousands of such asteroids floating around the solar system.
Colonizing planets might be ok, but why bother with all the flack that the environmentalists would raise if we could (and we can’t), just go out, drag in some asteroids, and process them in orbit. A decent overview of the whole process can be found in the book Mining the Sky. Send any arguments to its author.
That’s a pretty lame attempt at apocalyptic environmentalism. Anyone loony enough to believe that core dump of hysteria is probably already a hardline Green. Looks like Bjorn Lomborg’s got these guys running scared–it almost reads like an attempt to debunk his major points. Check out his book <i>The Skeptical Environmentalist</i> for a complete gutting of everything in that “article” (I’m guessing five minutes of editorial rewriting from the original press release to the published version).
It’s interesting how the environuts and left-wingers have gone from an emphasis on conservation of the environment to concentrating on stopping all progress. “Aid Not Trade,” said my favorite protest sign at the recent G8 summit. Next they’ll be demanding that the bourgeoisie be rounded up and sent to Africa to work in the fields as “re-education.” Where’s Pol Pot when you need him?
Isn’t there really no way to know what sort of resources we’ll have available to us in 50 years since that’s heavily dependent on what kind of technologies we’ll have invented? I suppose we can say that, in a general sense, we’ll have better technology than we do now but the specifics are totally unpredictable.
Somehow, I’m not comforted that the entire rebuttal seems to rest on one assumption, that continued technological growth is so certain that we can rely upon it for the continuation of human society.
I cheerfully admit, I don’t know enough about the issues to make a firm assertion here. But the first place I would look if I wanted to build a case against this article would be _distribution_ of technology. As has already been brought up in the context of the Kyoto Accords, there’s a huge gap in deployment and availability of enviro-friendly technologies between the developed and undeveloped worlds.
What happens to Reason’s sunny projections if, thirty years from now, we’re all merrily jetting around with clean fuel cell tech while most of the rest of the world is still burning petroleum? And what kind of political instability could that create? Just a thought…
And Toren, it’s very easy to cast your opponents as “environuts” when they’re not around to give a more logical and level-headed version of their beliefs, with all the details and explanations intact. Of course your version of their beliefs is going to seem foolish and simplistic—you don’t share them. Has it occurred to you that they probably feel exactly the same way about yours? I’ve read a few good environmentalist weblogs. I hate to burst your bubble, but none of them have said a word about concentration camps. Not everyone on the left is part of the “Corporate Greed Kills All Life” crowd. I think it might benefit you to sit down and talk to an actual environmentalist. I’ve tried to sit down and talk to warhawks about why they believe what they believe, and it’s been a good experience. Granted, it’s a lot HARDER and not as much fun as coming up with cleverly insulting names for them—especially when they’re not around to say “shame on you.”
So, um, any chance that Soylent Green might come in lo-fat? I didn’t think so. As for the future of the future, I think the WWF tree huggers (Excuse, me, the Arborially Enamored) miss the point entirely: The earth will do just fine in the future, and would do just fine without us. (Some might argue better.) Now, if you want to sound an alarm about the future of the human race, go right ahead. folks have been doing that for centuries. May as well join that long and proud tradition. Eventually, odds are, somebody will time it right!
Hannah, I apologize for not discussing the troubling issue of the environment at the same level of calmness and rationality as the World Wildlife Fund and The Guardian.
I’m so ashamed.
<i>”I hate to burst your bubble, but none of them have said a word about concentration camps.”</i> And I hate to burst yours, but neither did I.
I don’t have to go far to talk to a rational environmentalist. <i>I am one.</i> I use the term “environut” the same was I use “Islamist”–to separate the kooks from the ordinary folks.
My comment in this forum was not intended as a calm and rational discussion of the pros and cons of environmentalism, but as a reaction to that whacko WFF press release, which deserved all the scorn I heaped on it and more.
In the course of my political activities here in San Francisco, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to plenty of self-proclaimed environmental activists (Audobon and Sierra Club, mostly). They have been the most unreasonable, intolerant and hard-headed individuals I’ve ever dealt with. The word “compromise” is meaningless to them. How else can you explain, for example, their refusal to allow drilling on 0.01% of the ANWR at a time when the Mideast is a powderkeg and we desperately need alternate sources of oil?
As for not knowing the other side–one of my oldest friends (24+years) teaches environmentalism in Canada. We’ve had spirirted discussions about it since I was in high school in 1978, and she keeps me pointed to the latest books and information.
I judge the enviros by their words and actions–for those, see above…and <a href=”http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_30_sproteus_archive.html#85210827″>here</a>.
I recall that the disturbingly bad Lost in Space movie, was based on this facile premise. So
much for bad art inspiring bad theory