Today is World Environment Day, and it’s a good day to celebrate past achievements and point out the errors of the doomsayers who’ve long been over-represented in the environment debate. The central message of the doomsday school is simple:
we can’t protect the environment unless we are willing to accept a radical reduction in our standard of living.
Although they agree on this point, they disagree radically about its implications, dividing into two opposed groups[1]
* Deep Greens who say that we should radically reduce our standard of living and protect the environment
* Dark Browns who say that we should do nothing to protect the environment because to do so will wreck our standards of living
Experience since the first World Environment Day in 1972 suggests that neither of these positions is true.
On the one hand, claims that we are bound to run out of resources, made most vigorously by the Club of Rome in the 1970s, have repeatedly been refuted by experience. Most natural resources have actually become cheaper, but even in cases where prices have risen, such as that of oil, the economic impact has been marginal, relative to the long-run trend of increasing income. The recent increase in the price of oil, for example, might, if sustained, reduce income by about 1 per cent, or around 4 months of economic growth.
At this point, doomsayers usually point to a growing world population and the increased demands on resources that will arise when people in China and India aspire to Western living standards. The tone isn’t quite as apocalyptic as in the 1970s, when the Paddock brothers were advocating letting Bangladesh starve, but the analysis often hasn’t caught up with the data. Population growth peaked (in absolute terms – the percentage growth rate has been declining for decades) around 1990. Current UN estimates have a population of 9 billion in 2050, but if the declining fertility in wealthy countries is followed elsewhere this will probably turn out to be an overestimate.
In most respects, economic growth is consistent with improvements in the environment rather than degradation. Wealthy countries are unwilling to put up with polluted air and water and have the technical and scientific resources to fix them.
On the other hand, the Brown doomsayers have an equally bad record. Time after time, they’ve opposed environmental improvements as too costly, repeatedly overestimating the costs and underestimating the benefits. The debate over CFCs and the ozone layer provides a good example, since it was one of the first issues to be addressed on a global scale. The doomsayers repeatedly attacked both the science behind the ban on CFCs and the economics of the policy, claiming it would cause massive economic damage. In reality, even without taking account of health benefits, it seems likely that the CFC ban yielded positive net economic benefits. Most of the leading participants in this debate (Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Julian Simon, Tom DeLay, the Marshall and Oregon Institutes) are familiar to anyone who’s followed the global warming debate, except that Bjorn Lomborg has taken Simon’s place.
All of this leads up to the one big remaining problem that of global warming (and the inter-related debate about Peak Oil). The doomsayers on both sides are out in force on this one. For the Deep Greens, it’s the one remaining chance to achieve support for radical change. For the Dark Browns, this is the real fight, for which the CFC debate was just a rehearsal.
All the evidence, though, is that we can reduce emissions to levels consistent with stabilising global CO2 levels over the next few decades at a cost of around 5 per cent of GDP – a few years worth of economic growth at the most. Quite possibly, as in previous cases, this wll turn out to be an overestimate.
fn1. Both groups engage in a fair bit of wishful thinking about their position, the Greens arguing that we’ll all be happier in the long run and the Browns claiming that the environmental problems will solve themselves if we ignore them.
John Quiggin 
Maybe you haven’t been into to the Northern Hemisphere of late, but, in terms of air pollution, economic growth certainly isn’t consistent with the idea that it is making the environment better. What was once the Asian smog cloud now floats around a fair chunk of the Northern Hemisphere, reducing crop yields, poisoning people etc. One could make the same argument for the river system — on what basis are you claiming economic growth has made the river systems of the world better ? One could also make the same argument for the land, which now gets destroyed in many places as the new rich eat more meat, have bigger houses, cars etc. . It would be nice to have some real data to support your claim, rather than simply suggesting rich countries produce less environmental damage (which is an incorrect example in any case — rich countries are the ones that haven’t experienced as much economic growth as the poorer ones (like China), so the relationship is likely to be negative, as those with low economic growth have cared for the environment more).
The conclusion from your second link is instructive:
“Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years’ experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. And once again, some environmentalists have responded by presenting a distorted or imbalanced version of the facts, often colored by excessive emphasis on the low-probability scenarios of doom”
From where I sit this interpretation of the causality is entirely backwards: the prophets of doom have had the floor for decades over global warming. Many skeptics, myself included, have become considerably more skeptical as a result of hearing the distortions and outright lies of the environmental movement over and over again.
Distorting the truth in the name of pushing a political agenda is bread-and-butter for environmentalists. Radioactive babies is just the latest such effort from the Australian Greens.
“In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, “Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it.” These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Let’s hope that it won’t take another near-disaster to motivate us to take meaningful action to address the threat of Global Warming. “
Take note: the skeptics jumped ship on the ozone problem once the evidence was incontrovertible. The evidence on AGW is not yet as incontrovertible as a dirty-great hole over Antarctica, but with something like 9 of the 10 hottest years of the past century in the last decade it is starting to look more convincing. And as has been noted here before, the skeptics are starting to change their position. But I dare say hell will freeze over before the doomsayers in the environmental movement change their position, because it has never been about the environmental issues per se: it is about their anti-human/anti-development political agenda and that is independent of any environmental issue of the day.
I haven’t noticed economic growth helping wetlands here in Qld. Instead, economic growth has been associated with the destruction of wetlands and rivers – in fact, because of Qld’s economic and demographic growth, we now are told we “need” new the mega-dams now threatening the Fraser Island and Lamington-Border Ranges-Mt Barney regions.
“Take note: the skeptics jumped ship on the ozone problem once the evidence was incontrovertible. ”
Far from it: Baliunas held out until Rowland and Molina got the Nobel Prize (very much a lagging indicator) and Singer is still a denialist.
An obvious Northern Hemisphere location to look at is London, where smog killed thousands of people in the 1950s, and the Thames was lethal to anyone unfortunate enough to fall in.
As regards wetlands, I’m old enough to remember when they were called swamps and routinely drained. Now there are a large number of programs aimed at saving them. Certainly both population and economic growth cause problems, but they also provide the resources to address those problems.
One or two laggards does not prove the point. The speed of adoption of Montreal says a lot more:
“Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol.”
There’s no way that would have happened if the majority of the skeptics had not jumped ship. After all, Ronald Reagan was President at the time – hardly the administration to push something like Montreal if a loud skeptical opposition still had their ear.
Is this an extension of the SF thread, where the electromagnetic spectrum has been reduced to two frequencies battling it out for maximum visibility?
What happened to the pinkos and the colour of money?
JQ,
In order to “stabilising global CO2 levels” don’t we need emissions to drop to roughly zero?
Regards,
Terje.
Dogz Says:
Happily, Dogz no longer reads or responds to my comments.
Dogz’s position is typical of the denialists. Out of one side of his mouth he claims to be a “skeptic”, i.e., one who habitually doubts or disagrees. Out of the other side of his mouth comes the denunciation of the “distortion and outright lies” coming from the other side. Plenty of disagreement, not much doubt.
Plus there’s the addition of the “concern troll” aspect, i.e., he’d be more convinced of the truth of his opponents arguments if they ceased to make the arguments.
Economic growth over the last several centuries has done apocalyptic-scale damage to the Earth’s environment.
At one time, Florida was a pristine wilderness populated by diverse wildlife and a small human population. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Florida’s human population and economy have boomed. Humans destroyed the Everglades, wiped out entire forests, redirected rivers, and polluted bays, rivers, lakes and streams. What remains is the desolate asphalt-covered landscape of continuous cities and suburbs stretching across the state and along the entire coast from Jacksonville to Miami and Naples to Hudson.
Economic growth in Florida continues. A pine forests was lost to a housing development several months ago, and hundreds of acres of wetlands were destroyed for a condo development several years ago. The relatively unspoiled coastline near the Panhandle is now under severe threat. An aquatic preserve is threatened by a massive condo developement.
So you see, economic growth has destroyed and completely eradicated Florida’s ecology.
Similar damage has occurred everywhere throughout the world. Humankind and Nature are not compatible. Humans are at war with Nature. Nature is going to win this war, however. You can be certain about that much: Nature is going to win this war, and the Homo sapiens will join the ranks of the extinct.
“Nature is going to win this war, and the Homo sapiens will join the ranks of the extinct.”
See? They’ll never stop…
“All the evidence, though, is that we can reduce emissions to levels consistent with stabilising global CO2 levels over the next few decades at a cost of around 5 per cent of GDP – a few years worth of economic growth at the most.”
John – this is a very interesting point, which I haven’t heard before. Who has cited this figure?
“Economic growth over the last several centuries has done apocalyptic-scale damage to the Earth’s environment.”
Don’t confuse ecological change with “apocalyptic-scale damage”, the later infers that it is totally inhabitable.
“Humankind and Nature are not compatible.”
The last 100,000yrs would seem to disagree with you.
“So you see, economic growth has destroyed and completely eradicated Florida’s ecology.”
It is impossible to destory/eradicate an “ecology” it just changes.
“Similar damage has occurred everywhere throughout the world.”
it’s been happening for the past 4.5 billion years on earth.
“Humans are at war with Nature.”
So that’s why it wiped our New Orleans, it’s a member of Al Queada!
Mankind, along with every other living thing on this planet struggles
against “nature”, always have, always will.
“Nature is going to win this war”
of course, “nature” is ecological, you can’t destroy ecology, just change it.
Have a squiz at some rather interesting speech by author Michael Crichton.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/npc-speech.html
and
http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote09.html
My favourite is the Mann hockeystick curve graph on global warming.
Which is still used by the UN (and many mis informed environmentalists) to demostrate the supposed dramatic rise in global temperatures. The earth was apparently warming 5-600yr ago, pre industrial revolution, then now.
John’s correct in being skeptical of both sides.
Conrad, might I suggest you read Coal: A Human History. Believe me, the air quality in Europe is far better now than it was a century ago. Dickens’ foggy London wasn’t a natural phenomenon.
Hello “Me”,
“It is impossible to destory/eradicate an “ecologyâ€? it just changes.”
Do you mean that destroying a forest or a wetland and covering the land with asphalt is merely a change in the ecology?
Are you suggesting that driving a species to extinction is merely a change in the ecology?
Would you say that eradicating the Amazon Rain Forest is merely a change in the ecology?
***
Here’s a little news from science:
Extinction is the inevitable fate of all species. See, for example, the dinosaurs and the Trilobytes.
The Homo sapiens are a species doomed to extinction.
Our present behaviors of resource depletion, environmental destruction and global scale pollution are accelerating humankind along the path to extinction.
But the loss of the Homo sapiens is merely a change in the ecology. So it really isn’t much of a problem. The Earth will go on very well without us. The sun will not dim its light in order to mourn our passing. The plants and animals of the Earth will celebrate our end.
That’s the future, might as well accept it.
In most respects, economic growth is consistent with improvements in the environment rather than degradation. Wealthy countries are unwilling to put up with polluted air and water and have the technical and scientific resources to fix them.
In the long run, yes… if the country’s government has the will to implement those fixes. But in the short term, it can be difficult.
For the last couple of years, Sà i Gòn’s been trying to get a working subway system into the ground. The problem is that there’s a lack of funds. Above ground, the common motorbike is present in millions, and polluting the air. What no-one wants is a repeat of the mistakes of Bangkok or Manila (which are even more polluted). The optimists (and there aren’t many of them here) think that the first line may be completed by 2009. By that time, there should be more growth… and even more motorbikes… and more pollution. Economic growth in the short term will cause pollution.
And then there’s a canal near my place called Rạch Thị Nghè. I heard that the last time it was swimmable (or even potable) was in 1950. The GIs gave it the nickname “Sh*t creek”, which I think is wholly appropriate even today. It’s a black, oily waste that smell like you know what. There has been some improvement in the last few years, because the government has built subsidized housing for the shantyhouse dwellers along the canal. Maybe it will be swimmable in the 2020; the government is trying to build treatment plants even now. But that’s seventy years of utter filth in the period of industrializing.
David,
Starvation is the inevitable fate of all populations that outgrow their support base. The inevitable fate of capitalism is to collapse into the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Reich will last 1000 years…
You can accept it if you want to, but I believe that the future is what we make it. If we start by believing we will fail, let’s give up now.
All of the creatures that now live on the earth are descendents of other creatures that went extinct – yet we are still here. Birds are the descendents of dinosaurs, as are lizards. You are wrong that “[e]xtinction is the inevitable fate of all species…” – the successful ones evolve. We have a brain that lets us change our habits without evolution. Lets use them to solve our problems, not decide that they cannot be solved and give up.
Hello Andrew,
What some people fail to recognize is that the Homo sapiens have only existed for a very small time (approximately 100,000 years) and civilization a small percentage of that time (approximately 10,000 years) and the technological hyperconsuming monster even less (approximately two centuries). These time spans are simply not long enough to grant any confidence in any optimistic claims that the Homo sapiens can endure, prosper and succeed perpetually upon the Earth.
Humans have a brain, yes, but humans are also violent, destructive, planet-destroying fools. Intelligence is wasted on the Homo sapiens. Did you notice that humans killed 100 million humans in the 20th century? The 21st century has begun just as terribly, and promises much worse.
The Homo sapiens are the only surviving member of an evolutionary family whose other members have all already gone extinct. This might indicate that the Homo line is a dead end. We have attained a level of success unprecedently in the history of life but the prospects of our future survival and evolution into something better are dim and becoming dimmer every day.
What I suspect is going to happen is that humans will continue on destroying things and changing the ecology in an irrational and extremely dangerous fashion until we finally break something which is essential to our survival. After that occurs (unless it has already occurred, a distinct possibility) the Homo sapiens will begin to fail in a dramatic fashion. We will fall off the cliff and utlimately go extinct is the most horrendous and painful manner possible.
Messing around with the Earth is so very dangerous. There are no other planets hosptiable to human life available either in the Solar System or the Universe. If we succeed at destroying this one, there is nowhere else to go. What that means is that we evolved here and will go extinct here.
But the extinction of humankind is by no means a tragedy. It is just a minor change in the Earth’s ecology. The world will go on without us. That much is certain.
David Mathews writes, “Extinction is the inevitable fate of all species. See, for example, the dinosaurs and the Trilobytes.”
When homo erectus became homo sapiens, did homo erectus become “extinct”?
I agree that homo sapiens will eventually be replaced. In fact, before the end of this century, I expect homo sapiens to be almost completely replaced by homo mega-sapiens machinis. (As homo sapiens trade out their inefficient hydrocarbon body parts, including their brains, for more advanced non-hydrocarbon alternatives.)
But if you think that homo sapiens will become extinct, to be replaced by chimps, you’ve been watching too many “Planet of the Apes” movies.
I’ve got a little challenge for you. I’ve made the following predictions for world average life expectancy at birth and world per capita GDP for the 21st century.
Years of life expectancy at birth (based on an assumption of ~64 years of life expectancy at birth in 2005):
2020: >67; 2040: >74; 2060: >84; 2080: >98; 2100: >115.
World per capita GDP, in year 2000 dollars (based on an assumption of $7,200 in 2000):
2020: >$13,000; 2040: >$31,000; 2060: >$130,000; 2080: >$1,000,000; 2100: >$10,000,000.
I challenged Jeff Harvey over at Tim Lambert’s Deltoid to do the same. So far (as expected) he has not done so:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/in_the_year_2525.php#comment-91066
Do you have any predictions for this century?
Several people have asked about this comment by John Quiggin:
“All the evidence, though, is that we can reduce emissions to levels consistent with stabilising global CO2 levels over the next few decades at a cost of around 5 per cent of GDP – a few years worth of economic growth at the most. Quite possibly, as in previous cases, this wll turn out to be an overestimate.”
I wonder:
1) What level of emissions (relative to current emissions) do you think will “stabilize global CO2 levels over the next few decades)?
2) What does “around 5 percent of GDP” mean? Does it mean that the present value of all the costs over the next decades will be about 5% of the current GDP? (Assuming that the current world GDP is about 50-60 trillion U.S.D….that would put the cost at $2.5 to $3 trillion…?)
3) You write, “all the evidence.” Can you point to some of the evidence that leads to your conclusion? Even better, is your estimate merely a reporting of the conclusions of some scientific body? (Or is it a personal opinion?)
Regarding comments on air pollution in China and Vietnam.
John Quiggin has made no mention of the concept of an environmental “Kuznets Curve.” That is the theory that pollution first increases as countries get richer, and then decreases as they become even richer.
There is some controversy about just how well these “Kuznets Curves” depict pollution across a range of countries, and across different types of pollution. But most researchers agree that such curves are valid for many forms of air pollution (e.g., particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
So the fact that air pollution rises as countries go from very poor (incomes less than $500 per year) to moderately poor (incomes less than $5000 per year) does not really conflict with the theory that air pollution will eventually go down to a very low level as incomes continue to rise (e.g. above $20,000 per year).
Let’s just kill off everyone over thirty, like on Logan’s Run. At least we’ll all get a few good years running around in silly jump suits (with the females in flintstone’s style rags).
The environnment is only saveable when you get first world approaches to polluting industries, matched with first world incomes. Any large third world agglomeration today is ample evidence of this.
Obviously, there’s an implicit reference to the environmental Kuznets curve in my post. On the other hand, it’s important to note that this depends on societies making the right choices.
To respond to a comment above, Crichton is a perfect example of the doomsayer mentality (version 2). The work of Mann et al (the so-called hockey stick) has been repeatedly verified by independent teams, while the challengers (McKitrick, Baliunas, Soon & McIntyre) are dishonest/incompetent hacks. Check on Baliunas upthread, and go to Tim Lambert’s site for McKitrick.
I think we need some real data on this, and a time span that people are talking about. Its easy to think of places where things got better a long time ago, like London, or places where things have got worse more recently, including countries moving to “rich” — like Spain. Personally I don’t care much for Kuznets curve, since most of the economic growth is going on in countries that are not going to be rich for a very long time due to high populations (China, India, other parts of Asia) and economic growth in these countries undoubtedly has increased many types of pollution and environmental damage. For example, the smog created by China now floats all the way to the US at some times of the year — this is surely worse than the localized smog that cities in Europe once had. Is this going to go away with more economic growth, or going to get better ? The same arguments apply for things like water usage — are more CHinese going exhaust their water supplies as economic growth occurs (and hence allows them to by washing machines etc.), or ist the situation going to get better ?
Slightly off your main point. You make one offhand remark that I think is interesting and true. Lomberg has taken Simon’s place. And I mean in academic as well as political terms – I am surprised at the number of arguments in ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ are almost coincident with those proposded by Simon 20 years ago in ‘The Ultimate Resource’. I noticed because I read them 20 years ago. I think few have picked up on this.
The really foolish arguments in Simon on biodiversity – that diversity has increased in the US because of the introduction of feral species, that extinctions are few and far between so there is no conservation problem – are faithfully replicated in Lomberg. They are very misleading.
This strikes me as a very optimistic view. I don’t doubt that we can stabilise global CO2 levels at the cost of a few percent of GDP, but will we?
We live in a world where the world’s biggest emitter of GHGs is in denial that there is a problem, emissions from industrialising countries (China, India etc) are growing faster than ever, and the rest of the world (e.g. Australia) shrugs it shoulders and says what difference can we make. Rather than slowing, global CO2 levels are accelerating, which is hardly surprising when the world is consuming fossil fuels at the fastest rate in history.
Whenever governments propose serious action on climate change such as carbon taxes, wind farms, nuclear power stations etc it can be easily stymied with short-term political opportunism. Look at the ALP bleating about petrol prices. Imagine their reaction to a carbon tax on top of existing petrol taxes. Or a carbon tax on coal-fired electricity. Its hard to imagine oppositions of any political persuasion not taking advantage of such cheap political points.
As for the prospect of nukes in Australia, does anyone honestly believe we can have serious debate nuclear power in this country? NIMBYism will run rampant! Iemma has already come out with a “never ever” in NSW statement: Nuclear reactor sites no big deal, Howard insists
I don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but I can’t see much reason for optimism. My great hope is that Gore runs for President in 2008 and wins. Then at last we will have someone in power who truly comprehends the enormity of the problem.
“John Quiggin has made no mention of the concept of an environmental “Kuznets Curve.â€? That is the theory that pollution first increases as countries get richer, and then decreases as they become even richer.”
I would have thought that this is because as countries become richer they export their pollution. Cheap transport means that heavily polluting industries can be relocated to ‘poor’ countries that are pathetically grateful for any investment whatsoever. Poorer countries also have laxer pollution laws that richer countries exploit.
In short the total amount of pollution does not decrease – only shifts.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Effects.asp#
ExportingPollutionandWastefromRichCountriestoPoorCountries
The “Version 1 Doomsayers”TM who point to the inevitable extinction of every other species at the hand of nature as support for the ultimate extinction of Homo Sapiens miss a very simple point: Homo Sapiens is the first species that has successfully controlled its environment; not been a victim of it (other than our homonid brothers, which we probably wiped out anyway).
Mark Bahner’s “homo mega-sapiens machinis” is the logical extension to our own bodies of our ability to control the environment. But I have been depressed since about the age of 6 that it is very unlikely to happen in my lifetime. No fun being a member of one of the last few generations of humans that has to die. Our descendants will view us with great pity.
While there are extremes on both sides -& at times dishonesty- if you consistently keep in touch with quality science journalism & natural history doco’s etc you would see that the basis of much of the so called ‘green doomsayers’ is based on the work of the scientists in the relevant fields.
It must be noted that all the sides involved often are talking about different types of doom some the end of life on Earth, major species groups, human life or human civilization or human survival but major loss of life.
Yet again my advice don’t listen to what the hard core environmental groups have to say go to quality science journalism and the scientists themselves.
That is for those who don’t let there biases dictate their views and only take the science when it suits their purposes.
My take has always been life of Earth will continue, human life and some sort of civilization as well but there is a real chance of major loss of human life on a scale that will dwarf anything else in history. If you think of the just the consequences of the Monsoon to SE Asia it will make any past natural disaster or human catastrophe look like a walk in the park.
In regard to the Club of Rome I posted a link before on at least one individual that looked it again and thinks while it was off by a few decades it fundamentals are still valid. I noticed recently over concerns over a lack of new copper sources and looking seriously at better recycling methods to help meet future demand.
Concerning China & India I agree population isn’t the concern it once was but still highlight that if both these countries look to first world living standards at current resource use and recycling rates we would need four Earths. I have yet to hear anyone here JQ included address this point.
The everything has been fine it will continue to be so is surely a very weak argument to base ones survival on.
How does that lesson of the pond and the waterweed go, something like that if it takes a month to cover the surface doubling each day at what stage is it only half covered?
Obviously the 29th day; so don’t think because things aren’t dire now that we cannot hit a tipping point that could go beyond our ability to react. There has be a growing trend of a loss of pollinating insects from what I understand if we pass a tipping point and lose them we are basically screwed.
“Certainly both population and economic growth cause problems, but they also provide the resources to address those problems.”
Are you joking, Professor Quiggin?
“This strikes me as a very optimistic view. I don’t doubt that we can stabilise global CO2 levels at the cost of a few percent of GDP, but will we?’
That is certainly the big question.
Conrad, you’re right that as local problems are fixed, we need to look more at global and diffuse problems. But there’s no reason to suppose we can’t adddress these if we choose to do so.
Coming back to rivers, the Thames isn’t an isolated instance. Work on cleaning up the Rhine started later but has been highly successful, and good progress is being made on the Danube (as well as lots of smaller rivers). The same is true for the Great Lakes where Lake Erie actually caught fire back in the 70s. The Volga is in a bad way, but that supports my point – the Russian government is too poor to do much about it.
Chiliasts of whatever ilk, dark green or dark brown, are amusing, so long as you are far enough away from them when their spittle starts flying.
And as for “homo mega sapiens machinis”. Ho ho ho.
We live at the end of the fossil fuel age. It has lasted about 300 years, and it was great while it lasted.
Maybe a replacement will be found for fossil fuels that can compete with them for portability, stability and calorific value. But that replacement hasn’t come along yet.
Absent that happy occurrence, it seems that life will get more static, more uncertain and dimmer as fossil fuels become less accessible and/or the externalities of their use become less tolerable.
There are replacements for fossil fuels, but they aren’t as good.
Is this a recipe for extinction? Of course not. But we won’t be transporting as much stuff as far, we’ll be wearing warmer clothing, and we won’t take as many hot showers.
Apocalyptic? No. More like life in 1950s New Zealand? Yes.
Baaa!
“Mark Bahner’s “homo mega-sapiens machinisâ€? is the logical extension to our own bodies of our ability to control the environment. But I have been depressed since about the age of 6 that it is very unlikely to happen in my lifetime. No fun being a member of one of the last few generations of humans that has to die. Our descendants will view us with great pity.”
Read Ray Kurzweil, e.g., his book, The Coming Singularity, or here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6959575/
He’s 56, and he’s planning to live forever. I’m 48, and think my odds are less than 50/50…maybe 1 in 4 or 1 in 10?
My official prediction was for a worldwide life expectancy at birth greater than 115 years in 2100. But I was being pretty conservative (i.e., likely to err on the low side).
If worldwide GDP per capita is indeed over $10,000,000 in 2100 (something I’ve very confident about), life expectancy at birth will probably be way higher than 115 years at birth in 2100. (For example, think how much money and technology Bill Gates will be willing to employ to keep himself and his family members alive.)
Mark
“There are replacements for fossil fuels, but they aren’t as good.”
Fusion, particularly hydrogen-boron (aneutronic) fusion, kicks fossil fuels’ butt.
With fusion, you can run a 1000 MW (megaWatt) power plant for a year with a couple thousand POUNDS of hydrogen and boron. And hydrogen-boron fusion produces only helium…essentially no neutrons or radioactive byproducts.
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/alternatives_to.html
Similarly a car can be run for a year with less mass of water and boron than is in half a tank of gas.
In comparison, a 1000 MW power plant requires a couple million TONS of coal each year.
Also with fusion, spaceflight and terraforming of the Moon, Mars, and some of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s moons becomes a possibility.
P.S. A potential major problem with fusion, e.g. dense plasma focus fusion, is that it could very soon result in the possibility that even individuals could produce fusion bombs. (Fusion doesn’t lend itself very easily to creating explosions, but that doesn’t mean that individuals seriously interested in producing explosions couldn’t overcome the difficulties.)
Mark Bahner – “Fusion, particularly hydrogen-boron (aneutronic) fusion, kicks fossil fuels’ butt.”
The only major problem with fusion is that it is vapourware. TODAY the technologies exist to implement wind/solar/IGCC coal with electric transport as storage.
Why wait???
Dislike quoting myself but:
“Maybe a replacement will be found for fossil fuels that can compete with them for portability, stability and calorific value. But that replacement hasn’t come along yet.”
Mark, this boron thingy. Will it come along before we achieve immortality?
“I think we need some real data on this, and a time span that people are talking about.”
The U.S. EPA publishes a summary on air pollution emission trends and ambient concentrations every year.
Here’s a summary of the 2003 status report:
Air pollution status summary
Here’s a .pdf Executive Summary:
Executive Summary
“And as for “homo mega sapiens machinisâ€?. Ho ho ho.”
Chortle you may, Katz, but it is already well underway. Any of your relatives replaced a hip lately? A heart valve? A knee joint? Once we can clone our own replacement organs, we’re pretty much there. I suspect that’s at most 50 years off and probably less.
“Apocalyptic? No. More like life in 1950s New Zealand? Yes.’
Suddenly I no longer want to live forever…
“Any of your relatives replaced a hip lately? A heart valve? A knee joint?”
Yes, and several of them enjoyed prolonged morbidity and dementia, dying by inches in various nursing homes.
Homo mega sapiens machinis sounds very much like some sort of sci-fi monster to me. Do you really want to become a machine? Is that the best that you can do?
Ender: “The only major problem with fusion is that it is vapourware. TODAY the technologies exist to implement wind/solar/IGCC coal with electric transport as storage.”
Bollocks – those technologies may be less vapourware than fusion but they are not ready TODAY. Eg, non-sequestering IGCC reduces CO2 emissions by about 20% compared to traditional pulverised coal-fired generation, while the first zero-emissions IGCC plant is not slated to come online until 2012. Wind and solar are not suitable for large-scale generation yet (and may never be given the areas involved). IGCC link.
If you have an alternative energy proposal, please put some real analysis behind it instead of just repeatedly telling us it is all ready TODAY. Your analysis should not assume that I’ll submit to forced lifestyle changes: I won’t vote for that.
The central message of the doomsday school is simple:
we can’t protect the environment unless we are willing to accept a radical reduction in our standard of living.
Some obviously think along those lines others think living smarter and more ethically would go a long way to solving environmental problems. Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource -Lovins for exapmple. From a resource and design viewpoint first world lifestyles are very wasteful.
Leaving electronics on standby, single person travel in cars, and designing our cities for the car, still building houses with no passive solar design, allowing our toxic electronic waste to be exported to third world countries; start working on these & lets see how far we could get living smart and ethically before I start worrying about drastic cuts in standards of living to fix the worlds environmental woes.
“Yes, and several of them enjoyed prolonged morbidity and dementia, dying by inches in various nursing homes.”
Is this a hereditary thing in your family, Katz? Is it early onset? Just curious…
When I was a kid nuclear fusion was decades away. Decades later and it doesn’t seem to be any closer. Like Ender said its vapourware, and there is no guarantee that we’ll ever make it work, certainly not within the timeframe required for action on climate change. i.e. yesterday.
When I was a kid there were astronauts on the moon as well. Mark Bahner is going to be sorely disappointed if expects fusion-powered flight to the planets within his lifetime.
Is this a hereditary thing in your family, Katz? Is it early onset? Just curious… ”
If I told you would you remember the answer?
“If I told you would you remember the answer?”
What was the question again?
Did I ever tell you that several of my relatives suffered from dementia?