Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Humanity & wild nature will likely both be flourishing in 2100 (data)

#1
C C Offline
https://reason.com/2020/12/22/humanity-a...g-in-2100/

EXCERPTS: . . . These dire calculations and projections come from authoritative-sounding reports issued by international agencies, conservation groups, and peer-reviewed scientific journals. But is the future of wild nature and human civilization really so bleak?

Not according to the demographic and ecological trends that Marian Tupy and I describe in our book Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know (Cato Institute). Data from uncontroversial mainstream sources strongly indicate that both humanity and the natural world are likely to be flourishing rather than collapsing at the end of this century.

World population, today about 7.7 billion, likely will peak at 8.9 billion by 2060 and decline to 7.8 billion by the end of this century. This projection is based on the fact that women around the world are choosing to have fewer children, causing the global average fertility rate (the number of children per woman of childbearing age) to plummet from 5 in 1960 to 2.4 now.

According to a July analysis in The Lancet, that rate will fall to 1.5 by the end of this century. Other global trends—such as steeply falling child mortality rates, increased urbanization, rising incomes, expanding education of women, and the spread of political and economic freedom—all strongly correlate with the choice to have fewer children.

Human ingenuity, enlarged through free markets, is also enabling us to get ever more goods and services from fewer and fewer resources. [...] Humanity is becoming an urban species, and that's good for the environment, since city dwellers generally use less electricity, emit less globe-warming carbon dioxide, and have smaller land footprints than people living in the countryside...

The amount of farmland needed to sustain humanity peaked at the beginning of this century, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Considering that agriculture is the most expansive and intensive way in which people transform natural landscapes, that is really good news for other species. The trend will reinforce ongoing depopulation of rural areas, freeing up ever greater swaths of land...

[...] Aquaculture is already supplying about half of the fish that humanity consumes. Much as rising crop productivity is freeing up land for nature, fish farming could help relieve pressure on overfished wild stocks in our oceans, lakes, and rivers...

[...] Developed land is already reverting to nature. In 2018, researchers at the University of Maryland reported that the global tree canopy increased by 865,000 square miles between 1982 and 2016. That's a land area larger than Alaska and Montana combined... (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Quote:Reason Foundation advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists, and opinion leaders.
We seem to live in an age where people not only have their own conclusions they also have their own facts.



For example:


Quote:A 2011 study found that global forest growth and regrowth act as a carbon sink, annually taking from the atmosphere between one-fourth and one-third of the total carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.
( from the link CC gave https://reason.com/2020/12/22/humanity-a...g-in-2100/ )


Can we spin the measured rise in CO2 levels away like this?





Spinning a 'fact' one way:


Quote:.. fish farming could help relieve pressure on overfished wild stocks in our oceans, lakes, and rivers...
Spinning the same 'fact'  another way:


From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture


Quote:.. in current aquaculture practice, products from several pounds of wild fish are used to produce one pound of a piscivorous fish like salmon.[8]




And so it goes on.
Reply
#3
Zinjanthropos Offline
Don’t think the world is static, whether we’re here or not. Don’t think our ancestors saw an ice age coming or oceans shallow enough to allow movement from one continent to another. It wasn’t a carnival for them either. I’m not a doom & gloom guy so reap what you sow, learn from mistakes, adapt and deal with it. Enjoy it when you can.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Dec 24, 2020 08:36 AM)confused2 Wrote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture
Quote:.. in current aquaculture practice, products from several pounds of wild fish are used to produce one pound of a piscivorous fish like salmon.[8]

And so it goes on.


Catfish, tilapia, grass-carp, etc (hog-fish that will "eat anything" or vegetable matter) would be the way to go rather than predatory aquatic livestock (popular taste preferences of consumers set aside).

Of course, artificial meat could dominate eventually if traditional options are aggressively restricted. But the environmental picture that the "unreliable disciplines of science" paint about that{*} may be as compromised, bogus or opportunistic as the green energy movement and other utopian propaganda of the "just follow/obey us and everything will be okay" shady idealism.

Apart from quadrillions of self-manufacturing AI microbots restoring the world (that would be resistant to the gray goo behavior mutation), the surest solution to reducing loss of planetary resources is a legit pandemic that could kill billions of us (knock us down to a population of 500 million worldwide). Since it's a little too late now for the more humane alternative of a pervasive infection that merely makes people infertile (though the latter would still be better than nothing and rest easier on the conscience than Prince Philip's genocidal remedy slash reincarnation wish.)

- - - footnote - - -

{*} If widely adopted, lab-grown meat, also called clean meat, could [...] reduce the considerable environmental costs of meat production; resources would be needed only to generate and sustain cultured cells, not an entire organism from birth. https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...rown-meat/

Cultured meat will have to compete with other meat substitutes, especially plant-based alternatives. Consumer acceptance will be strongly influenced by many factors and consumers seem to dislike unnatural food. Ethically, cultured meat aims to use considerably fewer animals than conventional livestock farming. However, some animals will still have to be reared to harvest cells for the production of in vitro meat. Finally, we discussed in this review the nebulous status of cultured meat from a religious point of view. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7020248/


(Dec 24, 2020 06:30 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Don’t think the world is static, whether we’re here or not. Don’t think our ancestors saw an ice age coming or oceans shallow enough to allow movement from one continent to another. It wasn’t a carnival for them either. I’m not a doom & gloom guy so reap what you sow, learn from mistakes, adapt and deal with it. Enjoy it when you can.


If I remember correctly, the apocalyptic and devastating "Nature's revenge" horrors of Philip Wylie's The End of the Dream were supposed to have started taking place after 1975 and finished in good part by 2020. And those predictions could have been every militant environmentalist's wet dream back in the late '60s for scaring people into obedience. H.G. Well's forecasts were also a mixed bag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_...gs_to_Come
Reply
#5
confused2 Offline
One of the great things about being a Libertarian right now is that there are still enough people poor or hungry enough to sell you their land (or daughter) for a dollar and a fishhook for everyone to live happily ever after.
Reply
#6
confused2 Offline
^^ maybe that needs clarification. The point of actually farming unpalatable fish is most likely that there aren't enough of them in the sea to meet demand. One possibility would be to extract food from the sea to feed the unpalatable fish - in reality fish themselves are probably better at finding food in the sea than we will ever be. So to supply our new 'low grade' fish farms we would be growing fish food on land. So people would effectively be competing with fish for food. So you need to buy up land to feed the fish - and the cheapest land is going to be in the already poorest areas.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Flawed body of studies shows true ‘long COVID’ risk likely exaggerated (data bias) C C 0 357 Sep 26, 2023 02:23 AM
Last Post: C C
  Why do whites support both strict immigration policies & dream act? (data analysis) C C 1 216 Oct 23, 2020 08:31 PM
Last Post: Syne
  5 types of cat owners (survey data) + Breast cancer link to hair dye? (data project) C C 0 419 Sep 7, 2020 01:54 AM
Last Post: C C
  Data on preferences: Is gender inequality inevitable? + Data ethics is more than what C C 1 667 Jun 28, 2018 02:30 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Data’s intangiblility & ownership claims + Kant according to quantitative data C C 0 457 Jun 21, 2018 05:22 PM
Last Post: C C
  Data thugs + ‘Still working’ on the data: Astronomers explain why they don’t publish C C 0 812 Feb 20, 2018 08:33 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)