17 ms·

Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife?

237 points by benbreen 12y ago

chiph 12y ago
He needs to talk with the Florida DOT about building wildlife bridges so the animals can safely cross roads and rail lines.
burtonator 12y ago
It needs to be a HARD set aside.. perhaps only trials and fire roads too. NOT what the US does with "national forest"... IE it's pseudo wilderness. They let ranchers use it to raise their cattle and lets companies harvest trees and mine it.
- tgb 12y ago
  Harvesting of trees can be both very profitable and of low impact. There's very high biodiversity on the edges transitioning between forest and clearings. Of course, it's easy to do it poorly, but it's a very useful source of income for many preserved areas.
  - hyperbovine 12y ago
    Also, everybody still wants and needs wood. It's just an incredibly useful material, as well as being renewable and generally carbon-negative. So, trees are going to be cut down somewhere. Better the national forests where there is at least some stewardship going on than elsewhere.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    And as the perennial summer fires show us year after year, the forests need to be turned over more frequently than they have been to prevent these cataclysmic fires.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Sounds like what you want is designated wilderness areas? They mention them in the article, but not everyone is familiar with them. Wilderness areas are not the same as national parks, though a national park may have wilderness area. People are generally allowed to hike or ski, but you need a permit to camp and sometimes even a permit just to be there. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservation_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservatio...
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    The problem lots of people have with wilderness areas is that one isn't allowed to just drive right in. Of course, if one could, they wouldn't be very wilderness-y. b^)
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Plus excessive hunting in some areas (where wildlife is unable to regain the numbers lost). Illegal hunting is also an issue too but that won is harder to handle than legal hunting where too many permits are granted (and granted for too small of an area, wiping out a population in that area). Over-hunting is also a massive problem for fishing (both inland and open water), we're wiping out whole species of fish.
- wmeredith 12y ago
  As someone who spends a fair amount of time in National Forests (Mostly dispersed camping in Colorado and camping/canoeing in Missouri) I think the national park system is incredibly well managed as is.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    National Parks in the U.S. are a distinct thing from the National Forests. They are even organized under different federal departments (parks are part of the Department of the Interior, forests are under the Department of Agriculture).
    - cwal37 12y ago
      To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were essentially embodied in John Muir[1] (National Parks) and Gifford Pinchot[2] (National Forest Service). It's a really interesting narrative if you're at all interested in these distinctions and protected areas in the United States. It's the sort of thing that can be traced all the way through to attitudes today, and provides a nice context for why these systems exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy_and_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy...
      - the_af 12y ago
        Thanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this philosophical difference, and found this a fascinating read. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the preservationists of the National Parks Service. One day I must visit the US and see some of those beautiful and wonderful parks they have :)
        sliverstorm 12y ago
        I am of the opinion that both are valuable. Preserve this plot of land, responsibly manage & cultivate for exploitation that plot of land... until we no longer need natural resources, the USFS has its place. Of course, I spend most of my time in the Parks and Wilderness areas. There are some fantastic Parks here. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/AAAAAAAABqs/7JH5eBdI4wQ/w1309-h874-no/AocqYc9.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/A... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/AAAAAAAABqQ/E87vxKpnbJ4/w1311-h874-no/614558_10100492958459158_1436622339_o.jpg https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/A...
- Smudge 12y ago
  I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion. As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources). It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.
    - Smudge 12y ago
      I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223
- ejain 12y ago
  US National Forests also include 400+ out of the 700+ designated wilderness areas in the US. These areas have no ranchers or loggers or miners, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas.
grondilu 12y ago
> the sixth mass extinction event, the only one caused not by some cataclysm but by a single species—us. Not so sure. IIRC there are reasons to believe that the big one, the Permian-Triassic extinction, was due to methanosarcina, an archaean genus. OK, that's not a species but a genus, but still. It's a bit naive to think that all extinctions events happen because of some geologic or celestial event. Sometimes, evolution goes terribly wrong and sh.t hits the fan. Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction, is I think the point of this article.
  - grondilu 12y ago
    That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
      - wyager 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- incanus77 12y ago
  http://soiledearth.com/organic-living/organic-vs-conventional-how-farming-practices-affect-wildlife-and-the-environment http://soiledearth.com/organic-living/organic-vs-conventiona...
junto 12y ago
The joker in me wants to say that they already have more the half, but most of them can't swim. The serious me thinks that trying to prevent a mass extinction is noble, and should be widely supported.
- bloaf 12y ago
  I was going to take it a step farther and say we divide on a volume basis, and the wildlife gets the inner half.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Preventing a mass extinction is impossible; at this point we are in damage control. To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling?
  - junto 12y ago
    > To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling? Indeed, it part if the joke that most people think of elephants and rhinos as animals under threat before they think about the abundance of life on our oceans. I believe that the highest concentration if species is found in the rainforest though.
    - justizin 12y ago
      The rainforest is substantial, but it only produces about 20-30% of the oxygen that we breathe, the ocean and all of the life within it form a machine that processes most of our CO2 and CO into the O2 which we breathe. A frightening amount of the ocean is completely dead, even before deepwater horizon the gulf of mexico was home to one of the largest dead zones in the world - entire collapsed ecosystems. For ages we have treated the ocean as our geological /dev/null, tossing all manner of stuff into it that we didn't have a better idea for how to deal with, and that is coming home to roost. It's pointless to protect the rest of the wildlife without protecting the oceans. Check out Sylvia Earle's Mission Blue: http://mission-blue.org/hope-spots-new/
- dfc 12y ago
sxp 12y ago
Humans only live on a small fraction of the planet even when you limit the area to dry land. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.html#.VBxS2_ldXp4 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.ht...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nly 12y ago
  A lot of that land happens to coincide with the areas most hospitable for other mammals though. It's not like you can ask all the deer and bison to go live peacefully in the mountains.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  But it's not just those areas that are impacted by human activity. You also have to include fields that produce grows on, grazing grounds etc.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
I can't imagine us doing something like this for animals when we can't even do it for Ukrainians. From a political perspective, aggressive nations will always be seeking out annexations/territorial control and limiting the amount of land for human use would only encourage this. I mean, we're already discussing oil territorial disputes in multiple locales as well as upcoming "water wars" as unavoidable. I don't think humanity is up to the task. This proposal sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel where everyone is a Marty or Mary Sue or some benevolant engineer dictator is running the show. In real life, guys like Putin don't give two shits about life and will march troops on a whim to obtain resources.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- fdsary 12y ago
  When speaking about aggressive governments, the elephant in the room is the US, waging war everywhere with a military bigger than all other countries combined... How can we citizens of the world figure out a way to if not stop then exterminate this brutal force that has grown out of proportion? Can we do it without human sacrifice, and in a way that does not harm the american people who the US military is "protecting"? Ninja edit: No I'm not saying a good solution is for the worlds government to wage world war against the US. Just trying to say that there is little difference between Ukraine and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, except that the war in Ukraine is a piss in the ocean in comparison to the sins of the American government and military.
- therealdrag0 12y ago
  It's a far off goal to be sure. But they're already making progress. Changing it to "Half of North America" seems quite doable as more and more people are living in cities. We just need wealthy benefactors to continue buying up useless land and committing it to the cause.
transfire 12y ago
This will only become possible when a couple for important milestones are reached --and they a biggies. First we have to get rid of a lot of the roads. And that can't happen until personal flight becomes common place. Second human population has to stop growing, in fact it needs to shrink even now. We are already reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability. Unfortunately, while the former is difficult enough, the later is near impossible due to the dominance of infantile religions.
- landryraccoon 12y ago
  What does religion have to do with it? It's just evolution, isn't it? If you choose not to reproduce, your less conscientious neighbors who choose to have 7 kids will simply replace you. We are all descendants of a long line of individuals that reproduced successfully.
- dmritard96 12y ago
  "We are already reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability. " Water availability is a big one although hopefully we can at least handle some of that with clean energy an desal. The economics don't work yet, but water scarcity seems like something that will not stop for economics. Agriculture scarcity - HAH. The only reason we have scarcity is because we consume too much meat, especially in the developed world. If we ate less meat, our spaces dedicated to farm land would feed at least an order of magnitude more people per square meter and would use less water in the process.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Human population growth tapers off, even decreases, when a sufficiently advanced level of technology & luxury is reached. We are hardly "reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability". The problem with food is distribution, not production. Water is an issue, but desalination is very possible once the demand reaches sufficient levels. And your "infantile religion" snipe is a non-sequitur.
  - transfire 12y ago
    The two most widely practiced religions in the world, Catholicism and Islam (~3 billion people) are both opposed to birth control. In most nations these institutions hold sway. So it is not a "swipe" nor a "non-sequitur".
spodek 12y ago
The question is not can we. The question is what standard of living do we want for species in the long term. We can always live more comfortably today by consuming non-renewable resources that make our world sustainably enjoyable, but at the loss of the benefit that resource would later give. Slash-and-burn farming does this. As do putting up a mall over untouched land, burning fossil fuels, and overpopulation, for example, all of which do the opposite of setting aside part of the planet. Business people know the concept better than anyone. They know a company is in trouble if it sells an asset whose operation produces profit to pay for current operations. We can set off as much of the planet as we like and live in as much abundance per person as the planet can sustain indefinitely, though not as much abundance per person as we can today by consuming non-renewable resources. Using up those resources today only impoverishes future generations. We can do either. What do we choose?
- msluyter 12y ago
  I think the problem is that it's not possible (or rather, extremely difficult) to choose in any global sense, due to co-ordination problems. A very interesting (though long and occasionally whimsical) essay called "Meditations on Moloch" dwells on this problem: "A basic principle unites all of the multipolar traps above. In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don’t take it die out. Eventually, everyone’s relative status is about the same as before, but everyone’s absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ So, basically we can't choose your former path above because we're stuck in one of these "multipolar traps." I recommend checking out the entire essay. It's long but rewarding.
  - spodek 12y ago
    Sounds like a Nash equilibrium. I think you're saying the path of using up non-renewable resources and maximally populating is a Nash equilibrium so stable we can't get out of it, I admit it could be a possibility.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
monsterix 12y ago
It is possible. One of the discussions that spurred here in my cubicle was: How? How can we set aside half of the planet for anything other than ourselves? It's impossible! With almost every nation, state or person out there worrying about their piece of land it surely must be impossible. But not quite. Use Nuclear Leakage & Irradiation. Like the one that led to the Red Forest in Chernobyl [1]. 'Radiological Reserves' are probably the only way to set aside a large area for animals/plants with a guarantee that humans will not come by. Not in the next 10,000 years! Eat that! :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  One way or the other, the solution goes through nuclear energy :)
  - monsterix 12y ago
    It actually does tie up all the parameters together: Evolution, Creation, Destruction, Energy, Disorderliness etc. etc. :)
- Jekyll 12y ago
  I'd recommend this book by the way: 'Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real guide to Sustainable Living' by Thames & Hudson - search it up if you want a read. We essentially need to return to a lifestyle that is described by the 'Lark Rise to Candleford' Trilogy, with comparatively recent local communities in 'developed' countries growing their own food, helping each other, making their own entertainment, travelling little, and generally living within the resources of their immediate environment. Such a way of life could be said to reduce our land needs and potentially allow us to set aside half the planet. Whilst the solution is arguably obvious, with the advocation of mass-consumerism and with many people having a vested interest in the continuous extraction of fossil fuels - that change will always be thwarted.
bmh100 12y ago
There are fundamental cultural issues that will need to be addressed for civilization to reach sustainable, large populations. Yet, even if we do undergo a mass extinction, it may be slow enough that we can actively intervene in the ecology to prevent the collapse of civilization. With the rise of synthetic biology, advanced genetic engineering, realistic ecological simulations, and perhaps AI-engineered organisms, it may be exiting. We could be on the cusp of an unprecedented explosion in new genes, phenotypes, biochemistry, and general biodiversity.
DodgyEggplant 12y ago
We should consider a single plastic toy, bought from Amazon, used for a few months and thrown away: The material and minerals are taken from the ground, factories to produce it, ship to the harbour, overseas, to stores, to the consumer, and then - disposal? For what? Animals are living creatures, that inspired (and still inspire - so many movies, stories, sport teams, logos, metaphors) humanity for ages. Many, many daily things we can really live without. Think shoedazzle. Do we really need new shoes monthly, or "get obsessed"[1] about shoes? Can we at least buy something with better quality that lasts for years? This shopping and comforts have a cruel irreversible price tag on animals and wildlife. Add to this wars and conflicts all around the world, and the results are devastating. [1] Home page of http://www.shoedazzle.com/ http://www.shoedazzle.com/
- judk 12y ago
  Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.
  - robertfw 12y ago
    The need for more pervades everyone, it is not a matter of "I have spare cash, lets spend it!", our society revolves around the accumulation of crap. It is a broad cultural change that is needed, not a tax code tweak.
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an income tax that discourages working.
    - minikites 12y ago
      Taxes on income don't reduce working any more than the price of insulin affects how much a diabetic needs. If your taxes go up 5% tomorrow, would you work 5% less?
      - mrfusion 12y ago
Htsthbjig 12y ago
In the future, yes I believe so. Today I believe there is no way. The world approaches population stabilization. Japan 's population is going to go down. So is China, Germany, Spain... As we reduce illness in Africa and increase automation people need less children. Population will get a peak and then not grow anymore. If we solve fusion energy we will be able to plant vegetables or plankton underground, in floors, in a much more efficient way, as we will be able to have a stable temperature all day long, with pests controlled without using chemical products, just controlling physically the access, and very near the places they are consumed.
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  The effect is not only population, but resources dilution. The same population can consume different amounts of forests, nature areas, or elephants for their ivory [1] [1] http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-can-elephants-survive-a-continued-ivory-trade-ban/ http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-c...
rasz_pl 12y ago
just nuke some land, worked great for wildlife in Cernobyl
dfc 12y ago
It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean. CBC's The Nature of Things recently had a series about the state of the oceans. During one of the episodes they showed the success of marine reserves in New Zealand. I am having trouble finding a good link but the turn around was amazing. Currently less than 1% of the ocean is protected. Greenpeace has been campaigning to set aside a large amount of the ocean as a "marine reserve." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/marine-reserves/pacific-tuna-need-marine-reserves/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/...
- e40 12y ago
  It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean. Crops are grown on private property and the ocean is a shared resource. See tragedy of the commons[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - dfc 12y ago
    There are two problems with your response. The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource. Within national boundaries the ocean is anything but a shared resource. See Fisheries Management[1] and for a specific example see Stellwagons Bank[2]. The other problem is that just because something is a shared resource does not mean that it is automatically a lost cause. See tragedy of the commons[3]: Elinor Ostrom found the tragedy of the commons not as prevalent or as difficult to solve. She and her coworkers looked at how real-world communities manage communal resources, such as fisheries ... and they identified a number of factors conducive to successful resource management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marine_Sanctuary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marin... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
ilaksh 12y ago
Not sure why I bother trying to talk to you people anymore, but I will go ahead and throw out an idea that I assume you will simply reject because it goes against your belief system. We should not worship nature to such a high degree. Yes, we should try to conserve wild areas as a buffer against mistakes and for basic enjoyment. And we are not doing a good enough job of that. But the assumption is that basically the wild areas have some sacred process or system going on that we cannot possibly ever aspire to understanding or surpassing. First of all, there is absolutely no separation between the "wild" world and the "human" world. The idea of a natural world that is separate from a human world is an oversimplification that has become misleading. Everything in the world, including people and the things that we make, from human feces, to plastic trash bags to rocket ships and computers, is the result of the same natural physical laws and processes involved in the universe. The planet sees itself with billions of eyes. The planet thinks with billions of tiny minds. The cities, roadways, and agricultural fields that cover increasingly large areas of earth are part of the natural evolution of the planet. Its hard to really convey especially since we are so far down the line of nature worship, but part of what I am trying to get across is that humans have already surpassed nature in some ways, and if we haven't already done so then we can create environments that do. I think it will be easier to appreciate this type of thing once we become a multi-planet species. Or at least get a colony on the moon or something. Because part of the nature worship is the reality that we only have one biosphere to support us. We need to fix that. But another thing -- this does tie into Malthusian population control, eugenics, classism, etc. There is an inherent disgust for the dirty masses that is hidden behind the earth worship. We have to remember the value of human life.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  First you say that humans and artificial human works are products and part of Nature. Then you say that humans have surpassed Nature and can create environments outside of Nature, which is what you just spent the first half of your post arguing is impossible. I think you need to figure out what you're trying to say.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
thisjepisje 12y ago
Majority of the planet is ocean, so maybe they could.
squozzer 12y ago
I guess it depends upon how many humans one must move or exterminate.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  ...which then becomes, "oh, I didn't mean these particular humans, try those over there". At some point, the NIMBY mindset comes into play.
kolev 12y ago
Our society is very irresponsible. Every holiday is a nightmare for the planet. The tons of junk, wrapping, and throwaway stuff we consume will be ridiculed from future generations. Not to mention the time and energy (literary, too) wasted for shopping. I stopped buying birthday decorations and try to educate my kids to stop having these merchant-inspired "festivities". All junk from Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the endless kids' birthdays piles up to a ton per year. Be responsible as we're leaving a huge liability to the future generations and our children and grandchildren, which we care the most about! I'm really disappointed at the Waste Management Recycling Centers who refuse to take anything, but CRV just recently. I invest time and pile up tons of non-CRV recyclables and they do not take it anymore.
futbol4 12y ago
according to NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html 71% of the earth is Ocean leaving only 29% land. So the goal is for 14.5% of the earth to be set aside for Wildlife? That is a terrible title for an article. 14.5% != 50%
- EA 12y ago
  No even close: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/all-the-worlds-water-a-drop-in-earths-bucket/2012/05/14/gIQAtowVPU_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/pos...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
naringas 12y ago
>Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife? no.
jccooper 12y ago
See also: http://www.americanprairie.org/ http://www.americanprairie.org/ -- an effort to link public and private lands to create a 3 million acre preserve of the Great Plains ecosystem. That's pretty big, but not even close to the scale this article considers.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
We could set aside 90%, if we turned agriculture over to nuclear powered subterranean farms. It isn't so much what can we do, as what can groups of people be bothered to do collectively and whether anyone else is going to complain.
tatterdemalion 12y ago
I think the only ultimately sustainable solution is not to "set aside" any percentage of the planet for wildlife, but to develop ways of living that are not based on a differentiation between spaces of civilization and spaces of wilderness. Our species is naturally a node in a complex set of ecological systems, and instead of trying to detach ourselves from that system we should find a way to achieve our goals while living within it.
- electromagnetic 12y ago
  I think developing a grid system where there can only be so much average population density in a given area would be the best way to handle it. Setting aside half our land is kind of absurd in that it's inevitably going to be undesirable land - look at Canada. The population clings to the boarder, so we preserve the boreal forest, but not the more southern parts. If we create a grid pattern we either end up with a low general density where wildlife is free to move though our popylation or we end up with isolated areas of ultra high density (eliminating the urban sprawl) surrounded by nature allowing wildlife to freely move around our population. My example is here in southern Ontario we generally don't see things like bears or wolves. However we can go south into the states to find them or north. Southern Ontario homes 95% of Ontario's population and 35% of Canada's. Being from England where overpopulation wiped out many of the native species, being in southern Ontario feels the same. We're one of the least populated countries on the planet, but the Greater Toronto Area has an extremely high population density for how large of an area it covers. There literally is no room for anything bigger than a raccoon. If we started developing rapid transit systems it would reduce the impact of confining urbanization.
zaroth 12y ago
"Without any human intervention, here is a forest with tall, straight trees that are rather widely spaced, plenty of sunlight and lots of open, grassy meadows. Longleaf branches out only after it’s high overhead, where glistening needles up to two-and-a-half-feet long are arrayed in pomponlike sprays. Below the branches is empty space a hawk can glide through." Sounds beautiful!
nroets 12y ago
A good starting point would be scrapping agricultural subsidies. Since South Africa scrapped it, a lot of farm land was turned into wildlife farms.

237 points by benbreen 12y ago

chiph 12y ago

He needs to talk with the Florida DOT about building wildlife bridges so the animals can safely cross roads and rail lines.

burtonator 12y ago

It needs to be a HARD set aside.. perhaps only trials and fire roads too. NOT what the US does with "national forest"... IE it's pseudo wilderness. They let ranchers use it to raise their cattle and lets companies harvest trees and mine it.

tgb 12y ago
Harvesting of trees can be both very profitable and of low impact. There's very high biodiversity on the edges transitioning between forest and clearings. Of course, it's easy to do it poorly, but it's a very useful source of income for many preserved areas.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  Also, everybody still wants and needs wood. It's just an incredibly useful material, as well as being renewable and generally carbon-negative. So, trees are going to be cut down somewhere. Better the national forests where there is at least some stewardship going on than elsewhere.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  And as the perennial summer fires show us year after year, the forests need to be turned over more frequently than they have been to prevent these cataclysmic fires.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Sounds like what you want is designated wilderness areas? They mention them in the article, but not everyone is familiar with them. Wilderness areas are not the same as national parks, though a national park may have wilderness area. People are generally allowed to hike or ski, but you need a permit to camp and sometimes even a permit just to be there. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservation_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservatio...
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The problem lots of people have with wilderness areas is that one isn't allowed to just drive right in. Of course, if one could, they wouldn't be very wilderness-y. b^)
Someone1234 12y ago
Plus excessive hunting in some areas (where wildlife is unable to regain the numbers lost). Illegal hunting is also an issue too but that won is harder to handle than legal hunting where too many permits are granted (and granted for too small of an area, wiping out a population in that area). Over-hunting is also a massive problem for fishing (both inland and open water), we're wiping out whole species of fish.
wmeredith 12y ago
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in National Forests (Mostly dispersed camping in Colorado and camping/canoeing in Missouri) I think the national park system is incredibly well managed as is.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  National Parks in the U.S. are a distinct thing from the National Forests. They are even organized under different federal departments (parks are part of the Department of the Interior, forests are under the Department of Agriculture).
  - cwal37 12y ago
    To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were essentially embodied in John Muir[1] (National Parks) and Gifford Pinchot[2] (National Forest Service). It's a really interesting narrative if you're at all interested in these distinctions and protected areas in the United States. It's the sort of thing that can be traced all the way through to attitudes today, and provides a nice context for why these systems exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy_and_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy...
    - the_af 12y ago
      Thanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this philosophical difference, and found this a fascinating read. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the preservationists of the National Parks Service. One day I must visit the US and see some of those beautiful and wonderful parks they have :)
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        I am of the opinion that both are valuable. Preserve this plot of land, responsibly manage & cultivate for exploitation that plot of land... until we no longer need natural resources, the USFS has its place. Of course, I spend most of my time in the Parks and Wilderness areas. There are some fantastic Parks here. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/AAAAAAAABqs/7JH5eBdI4wQ/w1309-h874-no/AocqYc9.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/A... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/AAAAAAAABqQ/E87vxKpnbJ4/w1311-h874-no/614558_10100492958459158_1436622339_o.jpg https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/A...
Smudge 12y ago
I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion. As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources). It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.
  - Smudge 12y ago
    I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223
ejain 12y ago
US National Forests also include 400+ out of the 700+ designated wilderness areas in the US. These areas have no ranchers or loggers or miners, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas.

grondilu 12y ago

> the sixth mass extinction event, the only one caused not by some cataclysm but by a single species—us. Not so sure. IIRC there are reasons to believe that the big one, the Permian-Triassic extinction, was due to methanosarcina, an archaean genus. OK, that's not a species but a genus, but still. It's a bit naive to think that all extinctions events happen because of some geologic or celestial event. Sometimes, evolution goes terribly wrong and sh.t hits the fan. Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere.

hyperbovine 12y ago
Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction, is I think the point of this article.
- grondilu 12y ago
  That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
    - wyager 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

incanus77 12y ago
http://soiledearth.com/organic-living/organic-vs-conventional-how-farming-practices-affect-wildlife-and-the-environment http://soiledearth.com/organic-living/organic-vs-conventiona...

junto 12y ago

The joker in me wants to say that they already have more the half, but most of them can't swim. The serious me thinks that trying to prevent a mass extinction is noble, and should be widely supported.

bloaf 12y ago
I was going to take it a step farther and say we divide on a volume basis, and the wildlife gets the inner half.
gizmo686 12y ago
Preventing a mass extinction is impossible; at this point we are in damage control. To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling?
- junto 12y ago
  > To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling? Indeed, it part if the joke that most people think of elephants and rhinos as animals under threat before they think about the abundance of life on our oceans. I believe that the highest concentration if species is found in the rainforest though.
  - justizin 12y ago
    The rainforest is substantial, but it only produces about 20-30% of the oxygen that we breathe, the ocean and all of the life within it form a machine that processes most of our CO2 and CO into the O2 which we breathe. A frightening amount of the ocean is completely dead, even before deepwater horizon the gulf of mexico was home to one of the largest dead zones in the world - entire collapsed ecosystems. For ages we have treated the ocean as our geological /dev/null, tossing all manner of stuff into it that we didn't have a better idea for how to deal with, and that is coming home to roost. It's pointless to protect the rest of the wildlife without protecting the oceans. Check out Sylvia Earle's Mission Blue: http://mission-blue.org/hope-spots-new/
dfc 12y ago

sxp 12y ago

Humans only live on a small fraction of the planet even when you limit the area to dry land. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.html#.VBxS2_ldXp4 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.ht...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nly 12y ago
A lot of that land happens to coincide with the areas most hospitable for other mammals though. It's not like you can ask all the deer and bison to go live peacefully in the mountains.
adamnemecek 12y ago
But it's not just those areas that are impacted by human activity. You also have to include fields that produce grows on, grazing grounds etc.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

I can't imagine us doing something like this for animals when we can't even do it for Ukrainians. From a political perspective, aggressive nations will always be seeking out annexations/territorial control and limiting the amount of land for human use would only encourage this. I mean, we're already discussing oil territorial disputes in multiple locales as well as upcoming "water wars" as unavoidable. I don't think humanity is up to the task. This proposal sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel where everyone is a Marty or Mary Sue or some benevolant engineer dictator is running the show. In real life, guys like Putin don't give two shits about life and will march troops on a whim to obtain resources.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fdsary 12y ago
When speaking about aggressive governments, the elephant in the room is the US, waging war everywhere with a military bigger than all other countries combined... How can we citizens of the world figure out a way to if not stop then exterminate this brutal force that has grown out of proportion? Can we do it without human sacrifice, and in a way that does not harm the american people who the US military is "protecting"? Ninja edit: No I'm not saying a good solution is for the worlds government to wage world war against the US. Just trying to say that there is little difference between Ukraine and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, except that the war in Ukraine is a piss in the ocean in comparison to the sins of the American government and military.
therealdrag0 12y ago
It's a far off goal to be sure. But they're already making progress. Changing it to "Half of North America" seems quite doable as more and more people are living in cities. We just need wealthy benefactors to continue buying up useless land and committing it to the cause.

transfire 12y ago

This will only become possible when a couple for important milestones are reached --and they a biggies. First we have to get rid of a lot of the roads. And that can't happen until personal flight becomes common place. Second human population has to stop growing, in fact it needs to shrink even now. We are already reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability. Unfortunately, while the former is difficult enough, the later is near impossible due to the dominance of infantile religions.

landryraccoon 12y ago
What does religion have to do with it? It's just evolution, isn't it? If you choose not to reproduce, your less conscientious neighbors who choose to have 7 kids will simply replace you. We are all descendants of a long line of individuals that reproduced successfully.
dmritard96 12y ago
"We are already reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability. " Water availability is a big one although hopefully we can at least handle some of that with clean energy an desal. The economics don't work yet, but water scarcity seems like something that will not stop for economics. Agriculture scarcity - HAH. The only reason we have scarcity is because we consume too much meat, especially in the developed world. If we ate less meat, our spaces dedicated to farm land would feed at least an order of magnitude more people per square meter and would use less water in the process.
ctdonath 12y ago
Human population growth tapers off, even decreases, when a sufficiently advanced level of technology & luxury is reached. We are hardly "reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability". The problem with food is distribution, not production. Water is an issue, but desalination is very possible once the demand reaches sufficient levels. And your "infantile religion" snipe is a non-sequitur.
- transfire 12y ago
  The two most widely practiced religions in the world, Catholicism and Islam (~3 billion people) are both opposed to birth control. In most nations these institutions hold sway. So it is not a "swipe" nor a "non-sequitur".

spodek 12y ago

The question is not can we. The question is what standard of living do we want for species in the long term. We can always live more comfortably today by consuming non-renewable resources that make our world sustainably enjoyable, but at the loss of the benefit that resource would later give. Slash-and-burn farming does this. As do putting up a mall over untouched land, burning fossil fuels, and overpopulation, for example, all of which do the opposite of setting aside part of the planet. Business people know the concept better than anyone. They know a company is in trouble if it sells an asset whose operation produces profit to pay for current operations. We can set off as much of the planet as we like and live in as much abundance per person as the planet can sustain indefinitely, though not as much abundance per person as we can today by consuming non-renewable resources. Using up those resources today only impoverishes future generations. We can do either. What do we choose?

msluyter 12y ago
I think the problem is that it's not possible (or rather, extremely difficult) to choose in any global sense, due to co-ordination problems. A very interesting (though long and occasionally whimsical) essay called "Meditations on Moloch" dwells on this problem: "A basic principle unites all of the multipolar traps above. In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don’t take it die out. Eventually, everyone’s relative status is about the same as before, but everyone’s absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ So, basically we can't choose your former path above because we're stuck in one of these "multipolar traps." I recommend checking out the entire essay. It's long but rewarding.
- spodek 12y ago
  Sounds like a Nash equilibrium. I think you're saying the path of using up non-renewable resources and maximally populating is a Nash equilibrium so stable we can't get out of it, I admit it could be a possibility.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

monsterix 12y ago

It is possible. One of the discussions that spurred here in my cubicle was: How? How can we set aside half of the planet for anything other than ourselves? It's impossible! With almost every nation, state or person out there worrying about their piece of land it surely must be impossible. But not quite. Use Nuclear Leakage & Irradiation. Like the one that led to the Red Forest in Chernobyl [1]. 'Radiological Reserves' are probably the only way to set aside a large area for animals/plants with a guarantee that humans will not come by. Not in the next 10,000 years! Eat that! :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

marcosdumay 12y ago
One way or the other, the solution goes through nuclear energy :)
- monsterix 12y ago
  It actually does tie up all the parameters together: Evolution, Creation, Destruction, Energy, Disorderliness etc. etc. :)
Jekyll 12y ago
I'd recommend this book by the way: 'Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real guide to Sustainable Living' by Thames & Hudson - search it up if you want a read. We essentially need to return to a lifestyle that is described by the 'Lark Rise to Candleford' Trilogy, with comparatively recent local communities in 'developed' countries growing their own food, helping each other, making their own entertainment, travelling little, and generally living within the resources of their immediate environment. Such a way of life could be said to reduce our land needs and potentially allow us to set aside half the planet. Whilst the solution is arguably obvious, with the advocation of mass-consumerism and with many people having a vested interest in the continuous extraction of fossil fuels - that change will always be thwarted.

bmh100 12y ago

There are fundamental cultural issues that will need to be addressed for civilization to reach sustainable, large populations. Yet, even if we do undergo a mass extinction, it may be slow enough that we can actively intervene in the ecology to prevent the collapse of civilization. With the rise of synthetic biology, advanced genetic engineering, realistic ecological simulations, and perhaps AI-engineered organisms, it may be exiting. We could be on the cusp of an unprecedented explosion in new genes, phenotypes, biochemistry, and general biodiversity.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago

We should consider a single plastic toy, bought from Amazon, used for a few months and thrown away: The material and minerals are taken from the ground, factories to produce it, ship to the harbour, overseas, to stores, to the consumer, and then - disposal? For what? Animals are living creatures, that inspired (and still inspire - so many movies, stories, sport teams, logos, metaphors) humanity for ages. Many, many daily things we can really live without. Think shoedazzle. Do we really need new shoes monthly, or "get obsessed"[1] about shoes? Can we at least buy something with better quality that lasts for years? This shopping and comforts have a cruel irreversible price tag on animals and wildlife. Add to this wars and conflicts all around the world, and the results are devastating. [1] Home page of http://www.shoedazzle.com/ http://www.shoedazzle.com/

judk 12y ago
Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.
- robertfw 12y ago
  The need for more pervades everyone, it is not a matter of "I have spare cash, lets spend it!", our society revolves around the accumulation of crap. It is a broad cultural change that is needed, not a tax code tweak.
- mrfusion 12y ago
  Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an income tax that discourages working.
  - minikites 12y ago
    Taxes on income don't reduce working any more than the price of insulin affects how much a diabetic needs. If your taxes go up 5% tomorrow, would you work 5% less?
    - mrfusion 12y ago

Htsthbjig 12y ago

In the future, yes I believe so. Today I believe there is no way. The world approaches population stabilization. Japan 's population is going to go down. So is China, Germany, Spain... As we reduce illness in Africa and increase automation people need less children. Population will get a peak and then not grow anymore. If we solve fusion energy we will be able to plant vegetables or plankton underground, in floors, in a much more efficient way, as we will be able to have a stable temperature all day long, with pests controlled without using chemical products, just controlling physically the access, and very near the places they are consumed.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago
The effect is not only population, but resources dilution. The same population can consume different amounts of forests, nature areas, or elephants for their ivory [1] [1] http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-can-elephants-survive-a-continued-ivory-trade-ban/ http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-c...

rasz_pl 12y ago

just nuke some land, worked great for wildlife in Cernobyl

dfc 12y ago

It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean. CBC's The Nature of Things recently had a series about the state of the oceans. During one of the episodes they showed the success of marine reserves in New Zealand. I am having trouble finding a good link but the turn around was amazing. Currently less than 1% of the ocean is protected. Greenpeace has been campaigning to set aside a large amount of the ocean as a "marine reserve." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/marine-reserves/pacific-tuna-need-marine-reserves/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/...

e40 12y ago
It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean. Crops are grown on private property and the ocean is a shared resource. See tragedy of the commons[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- dfc 12y ago
  There are two problems with your response. The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource. Within national boundaries the ocean is anything but a shared resource. See Fisheries Management[1] and for a specific example see Stellwagons Bank[2]. The other problem is that just because something is a shared resource does not mean that it is automatically a lost cause. See tragedy of the commons[3]: Elinor Ostrom found the tragedy of the commons not as prevalent or as difficult to solve. She and her coworkers looked at how real-world communities manage communal resources, such as fisheries ... and they identified a number of factors conducive to successful resource management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marine_Sanctuary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marin... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

ilaksh 12y ago

Not sure why I bother trying to talk to you people anymore, but I will go ahead and throw out an idea that I assume you will simply reject because it goes against your belief system. We should not worship nature to such a high degree. Yes, we should try to conserve wild areas as a buffer against mistakes and for basic enjoyment. And we are not doing a good enough job of that. But the assumption is that basically the wild areas have some sacred process or system going on that we cannot possibly ever aspire to understanding or surpassing. First of all, there is absolutely no separation between the "wild" world and the "human" world. The idea of a natural world that is separate from a human world is an oversimplification that has become misleading. Everything in the world, including people and the things that we make, from human feces, to plastic trash bags to rocket ships and computers, is the result of the same natural physical laws and processes involved in the universe. The planet sees itself with billions of eyes. The planet thinks with billions of tiny minds. The cities, roadways, and agricultural fields that cover increasingly large areas of earth are part of the natural evolution of the planet. Its hard to really convey especially since we are so far down the line of nature worship, but part of what I am trying to get across is that humans have already surpassed nature in some ways, and if we haven't already done so then we can create environments that do. I think it will be easier to appreciate this type of thing once we become a multi-planet species. Or at least get a colony on the moon or something. Because part of the nature worship is the reality that we only have one biosphere to support us. We need to fix that. But another thing -- this does tie into Malthusian population control, eugenics, classism, etc. There is an inherent disgust for the dirty masses that is hidden behind the earth worship. We have to remember the value of human life.

wavefunction 12y ago
First you say that humans and artificial human works are products and part of Nature. Then you say that humans have surpassed Nature and can create environments outside of Nature, which is what you just spent the first half of your post arguing is impossible. I think you need to figure out what you're trying to say.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago

thisjepisje 12y ago

Majority of the planet is ocean, so maybe they could.

squozzer 12y ago

I guess it depends upon how many humans one must move or exterminate.

MrZongle2 12y ago
...which then becomes, "oh, I didn't mean these particular humans, try those over there". At some point, the NIMBY mindset comes into play.

kolev 12y ago

Our society is very irresponsible. Every holiday is a nightmare for the planet. The tons of junk, wrapping, and throwaway stuff we consume will be ridiculed from future generations. Not to mention the time and energy (literary, too) wasted for shopping. I stopped buying birthday decorations and try to educate my kids to stop having these merchant-inspired "festivities". All junk from Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the endless kids' birthdays piles up to a ton per year. Be responsible as we're leaving a huge liability to the future generations and our children and grandchildren, which we care the most about! I'm really disappointed at the Waste Management Recycling Centers who refuse to take anything, but CRV just recently. I invest time and pile up tons of non-CRV recyclables and they do not take it anymore.

futbol4 12y ago

according to NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html 71% of the earth is Ocean leaving only 29% land. So the goal is for 14.5% of the earth to be set aside for Wildlife? That is a terrible title for an article. 14.5% != 50%

EA 12y ago
No even close: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/all-the-worlds-water-a-drop-in-earths-bucket/2012/05/14/gIQAtowVPU_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/pos...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

naringas 12y ago

>Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife? no.

jccooper 12y ago

See also: http://www.americanprairie.org/ http://www.americanprairie.org/ -- an effort to link public and private lands to create a 3 million acre preserve of the Great Plains ecosystem. That's pretty big, but not even close to the scale this article considers.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

We could set aside 90%, if we turned agriculture over to nuclear powered subterranean farms. It isn't so much what can we do, as what can groups of people be bothered to do collectively and whether anyone else is going to complain.

tatterdemalion 12y ago

I think the only ultimately sustainable solution is not to "set aside" any percentage of the planet for wildlife, but to develop ways of living that are not based on a differentiation between spaces of civilization and spaces of wilderness. Our species is naturally a node in a complex set of ecological systems, and instead of trying to detach ourselves from that system we should find a way to achieve our goals while living within it.

electromagnetic 12y ago
I think developing a grid system where there can only be so much average population density in a given area would be the best way to handle it. Setting aside half our land is kind of absurd in that it's inevitably going to be undesirable land - look at Canada. The population clings to the boarder, so we preserve the boreal forest, but not the more southern parts. If we create a grid pattern we either end up with a low general density where wildlife is free to move though our popylation or we end up with isolated areas of ultra high density (eliminating the urban sprawl) surrounded by nature allowing wildlife to freely move around our population. My example is here in southern Ontario we generally don't see things like bears or wolves. However we can go south into the states to find them or north. Southern Ontario homes 95% of Ontario's population and 35% of Canada's. Being from England where overpopulation wiped out many of the native species, being in southern Ontario feels the same. We're one of the least populated countries on the planet, but the Greater Toronto Area has an extremely high population density for how large of an area it covers. There literally is no room for anything bigger than a raccoon. If we started developing rapid transit systems it would reduce the impact of confining urbanization.

zaroth 12y ago

"Without any human intervention, here is a forest with tall, straight trees that are rather widely spaced, plenty of sunlight and lots of open, grassy meadows. Longleaf branches out only after it’s high overhead, where glistening needles up to two-and-a-half-feet long are arrayed in pomponlike sprays. Below the branches is empty space a hawk can glide through." Sounds beautiful!

nroets 12y ago

A good starting point would be scrapping agricultural subsidies. Since South Africa scrapped it, a lot of farm land was turned into wildlife farms.