In a message dated 5/17/01 5:56:35 AM, rhanson@gmu.edu writes:
>Assuming a sigmoid anytime soon is clueless, and I say
>this just based on standard economics, not any special
>singularity concept. The world economy has been doubling
>every 15 years for a century now, and just continuing that
>growth for another two or more centuries should make
>an enormous dent in the biosphere. If we knock ourselves
>off, we'll likely take much of the biosphere with us.
Environmental effects, at least, do seem to follow a sigmoid.
In most respects the US and Europe do less than they did
20-30 years ago. At least some believe we will knock
ourselves off without obliterating the biosphere and the
amount of biodiversity available then will have a significant
effect on that available post-knock. Most are shooting for
a giant reserve policy - they think humans will or can reserve
vast areas for natural evolution and leave them that way
forever.
>>Some actually kind of agree with you. Jeremy Jackson
>>predicted in his presentation that within a century or
>>so there would be no creature left in the oceans larger
>>than a minnow and most of the coastal ocean would be
>>choked with various kinds of algae overgrowth.
>Glad to hear it. Did you try to get them to think about
>large human growth scenarios?
Dr. Jackson was obviously very upset by this scenario, so, no
I didn't discuss the possibility that it could be even worse.
Remember, although they might agree with you on the
predicted outcome, to them it's a horror scenario!
I only broached such subjects with a few people (none of the
ones who were discussing human-dominated ecologies)
and they were generally not receptive on limits-to-growth
grounds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:06 MDT