3 ms·

> if we can't figure out how to build a long-term sustainable society here on earth, there is no way we're going to be able to build a long-term sustainable soc

> if we can't figure out how to build a long-term sustainable society here on earth, there is no way we're going to be able to build a long-term sustainable society on the moon I have to ask, what do you mean by sustainability here? Biological life has existed on earth for about 2 billion years, the human race for a million years and civilization for thousands of years. So in what sense is life on earth not sustainable, and what would have to change for you to consider it sustainable? In the ultimate long run life anywhere isn't sustainable; the sun will eventually die and then the universe itself will experience heat death. So what's your cut off?

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> So in what sense is life on earth not sustainable Does this answer your question? https://ecology2011tamara2011sp.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/pic1.gif https://ecology2011tamara2011sp.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/...
nawgszy 9y ago
>what do you mean by sustainability Biological life existed for 5 orders of magnitude longer than civilization without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought. The cut off is civilization suggesting that it is no more disruptive than biological life to the long term sustainability of itself, but that is just obviously not looking like the case right now. Exponential population growth in a resource-constrained system will hit a limit and the result will not be pretty.
- AlanSE 9y ago
  > Biological life existed for 5 orders of magnitude longer than civilization without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought. That is far from scientifically certain. Out of the extremely numerous extinction events in Earth's history, 5 of them have been extremely major, and we are probably going through the 6th right now. Probably. It's still too early to make statements about this. Will the geological record of the age of humans be more pronounced than the other events? Probably, but we can't claim that wearing a scientist hat. It's even more dubious to claim that this 6th event will have a more strongly negative effect on biodiversity. Things are happening so fast, and once all is said and done, humans may ultimately increase the diversity of Earth-derived life, because we have the ability to recombine existing species and even bring back functional extinct ones. It all depends on how we manage from here on out.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought First, define "devastating consequence" in clear terms. Then, and only then, go search the web for "oxygen catastrophe".
- njarboe 9y ago
  "Exponential population growth in a resource-constrained system" is how biological systems have behaved for billions of years. It may not be pretty but very natural.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    True. But also: natural sucks, and we want a better outcome.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Not OP, but most discussions focus on the sustainability of an advanced technological society, usually paired with something resembling a liberal democratic political system. I very much recommend William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) and Plato's Revenge (2004). He delivers the essential message of Limits to Growth in a chapter (TL;DR: there are limits to growth, get used to it), and explores the rather more interesting elements of the political dynamics of this. Yes, life on earth has existed. Actually, for closer to 4 billion years. For the first 3.5 billion of those, there was little more complex than a single-celled organism, and those managed to just about destory the place (Great Oxygenation Event, Snowball Earth). The cycle's been repeated a few times since. Humans are accelerating that process greatly this go-round. http://www.worldcat.org/title/ecology-and-the-politics-of-scarcity-prologue-to-a-political-theory-of-the-steady-state/oclc/301758430&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/ecology-and-the-politics-of-sc... http://www.worldcat.org/title/platos-revenge-politics-in-the-age-of-ecology/oclc/946541880&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/platos-revenge-politics-in-the...

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

> So in what sense is life on earth not sustainable Does this answer your question? https://ecology2011tamara2011sp.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/pic1.gif https://ecology2011tamara2011sp.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/...

nawgszy 9y ago

>what do you mean by sustainability Biological life existed for 5 orders of magnitude longer than civilization without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought. The cut off is civilization suggesting that it is no more disruptive than biological life to the long term sustainability of itself, but that is just obviously not looking like the case right now. Exponential population growth in a resource-constrained system will hit a limit and the result will not be pretty.

AlanSE 9y ago
> Biological life existed for 5 orders of magnitude longer than civilization without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought. That is far from scientifically certain. Out of the extremely numerous extinction events in Earth's history, 5 of them have been extremely major, and we are probably going through the 6th right now. Probably. It's still too early to make statements about this. Will the geological record of the age of humans be more pronounced than the other events? Probably, but we can't claim that wearing a scientist hat. It's even more dubious to claim that this 6th event will have a more strongly negative effect on biodiversity. Things are happening so fast, and once all is said and done, humans may ultimately increase the diversity of Earth-derived life, because we have the ability to recombine existing species and even bring back functional extinct ones. It all depends on how we manage from here on out.
marcosdumay 9y ago
> without the sort of devastating consequence civilization has wrought First, define "devastating consequence" in clear terms. Then, and only then, go search the web for "oxygen catastrophe".
njarboe 9y ago
"Exponential population growth in a resource-constrained system" is how biological systems have behaved for billions of years. It may not be pretty but very natural.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  True. But also: natural sucks, and we want a better outcome.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Not OP, but most discussions focus on the sustainability of an advanced technological society, usually paired with something resembling a liberal democratic political system. I very much recommend William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) and Plato's Revenge (2004). He delivers the essential message of Limits to Growth in a chapter (TL;DR: there are limits to growth, get used to it), and explores the rather more interesting elements of the political dynamics of this. Yes, life on earth has existed. Actually, for closer to 4 billion years. For the first 3.5 billion of those, there was little more complex than a single-celled organism, and those managed to just about destory the place (Great Oxygenation Event, Snowball Earth). The cycle's been repeated a few times since. Humans are accelerating that process greatly this go-round. http://www.worldcat.org/title/ecology-and-the-politics-of-scarcity-prologue-to-a-political-theory-of-the-steady-state/oclc/301758430&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/ecology-and-the-politics-of-sc... http://www.worldcat.org/title/platos-revenge-politics-in-the-age-of-ecology/oclc/946541880&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/platos-revenge-politics-in-the...