[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth



In article <59hmva$hh1@news.inforamp.net>, J McGinnis
<sync@inforamp.net> writes
>
>Yes, the environment restricts the species. To 'threaten' an
>environment is to alter it in a way that threatens the species within
>it. 

You should be a little more sophisticated than this. The whole point of
agriculture is indeed to modify the environment. The modified
environment is MORE suitable for human survival, and for the symbiotic
species associated with the more optimum environment for humans. It is
also LESS suitable for many other species since it is inevitable that
diversion of biosphere resources to human optimisation results in less
for some other species. This is particularly true of primitive (ie pre-
industrial, pre irrigation) agricultural systems, and particularly so of
cut and burn systems.

>It may be natural for lab rats, but we're supposed to be smarter
>than that aren't we? That's what environmentalism is; the scientific
>practice of managing our environment for our benefit in a responsible,
>sustainable and proactive manner.

Quite right. This is where modern agriculture is helpful. Modern
fertilisers and agrochemicals allow a huge increase in agricultural
production per acre. Probably in excess of threefold in output per acre
>from  the old 'organic' systems. This means that we can leave the other
2/3 as a native ecosystem if only we could control our human
populations. In fact the increase is very much greater than this.
Primitive (ie human, cow and horse powered) agriculture required a large
labour force of around 50% of the population (as against under 2% today)
and large areas for the production of horse feed and bedding. The net
result is that the amount of land required per person has probably
fallen by a factor approaching tenfold.

Without the widespread use of modern agriculture there would be very
little of the native ecosystem left in the world or mass famines and
starvation would be the norm for most people on this planet.

>You'd think so the way we act as if we can control the very nature
>which gave us birth.

The fact is that we can. This is not very unusual, many animals do so at
the highest level they can manage. From termites controlling the
environment in their breeding colonies, to elephants in Africa
deliberately destroying palm trees they cannot use for food. Ants
protect many species of plant for various gifts. Indeed many grazing
animals graze in such a way as to remove species they cannot use for
food, and maximise those that they can. Upland sheep in the UK graze off
seedling trees and anyone with a horse knows their habit of grazing a
small area down to the ground to maximise high quality grazing there.
Coral reefs and many living associations of organisms also significantly
modify their environment. 

>The Earth is doing fine. A little worse for wear, but She's been
>through many an ice-age, plague, flood, and tectonic upheaval, and
>will be here long after we're shrugged off like a bad case of the
>fleas. 

Quite true. However 'The Earth' cares not one jot for any of the scum of
living organisms that live upon it. Indeed it would not care if we nuked
the entire planet. It's not alive, you see.

>It's _our_ environment which is threatened. Rapidly eliminating
>1000's of species and generally decreasing our planets diversity isn't
>very responsible and has nothing but negative impact on the long term
>health of our species, (not to mention the ones we're killing off).

True to an extent. However to a starving family in South America, Africa
or Asia the damage to the environment caused by their efforts to survive
by getting enough food to eat has a very positive impact on their long
term health. Unless they do so they starve. So from their viewpoint it
is most certainly very positive, even though at the same time for you
and me it is negative.

You are being too simplistic.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn, 
          or seem wise and stay ignorant?"



References: