8 ms·

Half-Earth

83 points by Thevet 11y ago

dncjnfdnc 11y ago
They already are allocated that way, just not in a nice, organized manner. Humans take up much less space on planet earth than you'd initially expect.
- givan 11y ago
  Food production takes up almost half of the planet's land surface and threatens to consume the fertile land that still remains, scientists warn. The global impact of farming on the environment is revealed in new maps, which show that 40 percent of the Earth's land is now given over to agriculture. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_...
- barkingcat 11y ago
  If you only count individual human beings you are severely undercounting In addition to agriculture & food production, transportation (road+rail), strip/open pit mines, and you have just take a look at https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch.jpg https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch...
x5n1 11y ago
Up until 10,000 years ago there were no more than 5 million humans on the entire planet. If we could go back to that maybe we can live another 10,000 years. But the cretins keep cloning and feeding. More humans destroy the value of humans to other humans. Just go to India, or hell go to America, see how little people value each other. The reason is too many people. They shit over everything, eat all the food meant for animals, and their desires destroy all nature and convert it to acreages, houses, and cities. The number of humans is too damn high, vote for the human population reduction party.
- givan 11y ago
  The biggest problem is not how many but how we are living. From our mostly meat diet to our inefficient mostly individual transportation systems to our consumerist society that produces tones of useless garbage all of these with very high carbon footprint, pollution and big environment impact. And all of this just to satisfy some old human habits that are no longer possible at this scale without irreversible damage to the ecosystem.
- Mahn 11y ago
  If the cretins didn't keep procreating and feeding, you wouldn't have half the life expectancy, quality of life or knowledge that you have today. Humans create a ton of value, even if we are destructive sometimes. We just need to figure out how to keep growing sustainably.
thisisnotclear 11y ago
This is completely speculation. We should rather leave the conservation of Biosphere to Science and Technology. I refuse to believe that Humans are going to continue making such a waste of resources in near and far sighted future. These theories always reek of nihilism to me.
Olscore 11y ago
Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinking. Controlling population as a solution to economic, environmental or similar issues of resource contention is a morally hazardous slippery slope; it should not be welcome in the realm of innovation and ingenuity specifically because it is not innovative or constructive at all. Design solutions around population growth or exit the conversation. Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. We have companies today organized under the premise to go out and mine asteroids, explore other planetary bodies and much more. Yet, some continue talking as if the Earth were more valuable than the only thing (humans) that can ascribe it value. Gaia worship and similar propaganda should be exposed for the anti-human agenda it is. I sincerely despise this line of thinking. Whether we like it or not, humanity is the steward of this Earth. Being good stewards of our resources SHOULD NOT first appeal to last-ditch efforts like controlling the population. We all have imaginations; along with the ability to create solutions to problems. Stop perpetuating the idea that future generations are evil, bad, doomed or unwanted; they are very welcome and wanted. Now, and always. Our parents did not put our generation to slaughter for selfish reasons, so we have no justification for it either. Instead of proposing anti-humanist goals of little thought or substance, set your mind to work and stop being intellectually lazy. We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking.
- danbruc 11y ago
  Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. Except there isn't a sprawling amount of resources for an exponentially growing population. Let's say we reach the resource limit of Earth and start reaching for the stars to find new places to live. If we can colonize one Earth-like planet around every single star of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, we would run out of places to live after 2685 years if the human population kept growing at a rate of 1 % per year. That isn't even enough time to reach all places in the Milky Way even if we could travel at the speed of light. Actually you could barely cross 2 % of the diameter of the Milky Way in that time. Exponential growth is unsustainable. Period.
pcarolan 11y ago
What's needed to realize Wilson's vision is an institution that glues allocated land together and networks with other land trusts towards the half-earth goal. The land wouldn't always need to be contiguous, though connecting corridors would be a priority. There's various living park models that could form an unbrella and provide limited use for tourism and other non-invasive uses. You'd want to engage in land swaps and raise money from wealthy donors to support the foundation. I can imagine there'd be support from the valley and others in the form of technical support and gifting towards a goal like this. If anyone's interested in discussing starting this as a YC nonprofit, I setup a slack channel at halfearth.slack.com . Just email me at patrick.carolan@gmail.com for an invite.
jdietrich 11y ago
To me, this reads like a fairly transparent play to expand the Overton window[1]. There is an almost total lack of evidence for the merits of his argument, just bald assertion and a lot of buzzword-rich waffle. Half the earth is both outrageously huge and within the realms of possibility. If we debate the merits of it, then we're more likely to entertain more modest proposals. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

83 points by Thevet 11y ago

They already are allocated that way, just not in a nice, organized manner. Humans take up much less space on planet earth than you'd initially expect.

givan 11y ago
Food production takes up almost half of the planet's land surface and threatens to consume the fertile land that still remains, scientists warn. The global impact of farming on the environment is revealed in new maps, which show that 40 percent of the Earth's land is now given over to agriculture. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_...
barkingcat 11y ago
If you only count individual human beings you are severely undercounting In addition to agriculture & food production, transportation (road+rail), strip/open pit mines, and you have just take a look at https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch.jpg https://karolinanwk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garbagepatch...

x5n1 11y ago

Up until 10,000 years ago there were no more than 5 million humans on the entire planet. If we could go back to that maybe we can live another 10,000 years. But the cretins keep cloning and feeding. More humans destroy the value of humans to other humans. Just go to India, or hell go to America, see how little people value each other. The reason is too many people. They shit over everything, eat all the food meant for animals, and their desires destroy all nature and convert it to acreages, houses, and cities. The number of humans is too damn high, vote for the human population reduction party.

givan 11y ago
The biggest problem is not how many but how we are living. From our mostly meat diet to our inefficient mostly individual transportation systems to our consumerist society that produces tones of useless garbage all of these with very high carbon footprint, pollution and big environment impact. And all of this just to satisfy some old human habits that are no longer possible at this scale without irreversible damage to the ecosystem.
Mahn 11y ago
If the cretins didn't keep procreating and feeding, you wouldn't have half the life expectancy, quality of life or knowledge that you have today. Humans create a ton of value, even if we are destructive sometimes. We just need to figure out how to keep growing sustainably.

thisisnotclear 11y ago

This is completely speculation. We should rather leave the conservation of Biosphere to Science and Technology. I refuse to believe that Humans are going to continue making such a waste of resources in near and far sighted future. These theories always reek of nihilism to me.

Olscore 11y ago

Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinking. Controlling population as a solution to economic, environmental or similar issues of resource contention is a morally hazardous slippery slope; it should not be welcome in the realm of innovation and ingenuity specifically because it is not innovative or constructive at all. Design solutions around population growth or exit the conversation. Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. We have companies today organized under the premise to go out and mine asteroids, explore other planetary bodies and much more. Yet, some continue talking as if the Earth were more valuable than the only thing (humans) that can ascribe it value. Gaia worship and similar propaganda should be exposed for the anti-human agenda it is. I sincerely despise this line of thinking. Whether we like it or not, humanity is the steward of this Earth. Being good stewards of our resources SHOULD NOT first appeal to last-ditch efforts like controlling the population. We all have imaginations; along with the ability to create solutions to problems. Stop perpetuating the idea that future generations are evil, bad, doomed or unwanted; they are very welcome and wanted. Now, and always. Our parents did not put our generation to slaughter for selfish reasons, so we have no justification for it either. Instead of proposing anti-humanist goals of little thought or substance, set your mind to work and stop being intellectually lazy. We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking.

danbruc 11y ago
Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. Except there isn't a sprawling amount of resources for an exponentially growing population. Let's say we reach the resource limit of Earth and start reaching for the stars to find new places to live. If we can colonize one Earth-like planet around every single star of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, we would run out of places to live after 2685 years if the human population kept growing at a rate of 1 % per year. That isn't even enough time to reach all places in the Milky Way even if we could travel at the speed of light. Actually you could barely cross 2 % of the diameter of the Milky Way in that time. Exponential growth is unsustainable. Period.

pcarolan 11y ago

What's needed to realize Wilson's vision is an institution that glues allocated land together and networks with other land trusts towards the half-earth goal. The land wouldn't always need to be contiguous, though connecting corridors would be a priority. There's various living park models that could form an unbrella and provide limited use for tourism and other non-invasive uses. You'd want to engage in land swaps and raise money from wealthy donors to support the foundation. I can imagine there'd be support from the valley and others in the form of technical support and gifting towards a goal like this. If anyone's interested in discussing starting this as a YC nonprofit, I setup a slack channel at halfearth.slack.com . Just email me at patrick.carolan@gmail.com for an invite.

jdietrich 11y ago

To me, this reads like a fairly transparent play to expand the Overton window[1]. There is an almost total lack of evidence for the merits of his argument, just bald assertion and a lot of buzzword-rich waffle. Half the earth is both outrageously huge and within the realms of possibility. If we debate the merits of it, then we're more likely to entertain more modest proposals. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window