Re: [pf] Fork in the evolution road

by Kaleopono

27 December 2000 05:22 UTC

David A,

Nothing that I wrote is from the assumption that the next hundred years will
be like the last hundred years, and that the next billion years will be like
the last billion years.  On the contrary, I argued that introduction of
change by technological man is producing out-of-control perturbations in the
system and that there's more than we can handle already, right now.  It is
certain that the next hundred years will be so different from the last
hundred years...that we may not survive as a species.  I was arguing for not
making the situation any worse than it already is.

If we don't stop fouling our nest, it won't matter how many new and
different technlogical angles we pursue to try to cope with what we had
already unleashed.  The pace of introduction continues to rise
geometrically, and now it's not just our physical environment that
industrialists are targeting, but the very genetic code of life forms.

Your response expresses clearly the view that was highlighted in Chellis
Glendinning's essay on technological addiction and the lack of balance that
technological man has produced:   one technological control device after
another as the situation gets increasingly out of hand; this is no different
from one drink after another downed by the alcoholic in denial.  I
articulated the view that it is necessary to stop denying the state we are
in, then interrupt and finally overcome the addiction itself.

Kaleopono

----- Original Message -----
From: "David A" <davidnh@visto.com>
To: <positive-futures@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:05 AM
Subject: RE: [pf] Fork in the evolution road


> Kaleopono wrote:
> > Looking at it from the perspective of the billions-of-years,
> > evolutionary timescale:  if phosphorescent potatos are destined
> > to replace farmers' eyes and fingers for the task of
> > determining when crops ought to be watered, it surely won't
> > matter whether they are introduced today or 100 years from now.
> > In the evolutionary timescale, it will still be instantaneous.
> > Taking 100 years will assure ample time for relaxed consideration of >
> > the possible consequences of their introduction, and whether
> > there is really any point to widespread use of this new,
> > manufactured life form in the first place.  The new organism's >
> > behavior under widely varied conditions can be observed and
> > evaluated.  With no compulsion to hurry in lunging dog
> > fashion, stress within all parties will be reduced not increased.  > >
> > Life will be more enjoyable and satisfying.
>
> You're assuming the next hundred years will be like the last hundred
> years, and that the next billion years will be like the last billion
> years. Neither are true. One important change, perhaps the most crucial,
> is that the world is coming quickly to a water crisis. (Indeed, it's
> already arrived in places.) You've been forwarding these news items to
> the list--have you read them? Have a look at Peter Gleick's writings at
> the Pacific Institute.
>
> The world already uses 1/4th - 1/2th of all freshwater on earth, every
> year. There is projected to be an 85% increase (1985 to 2025) in the
> number of people living in "high water stress," to 2 billion by 2025.
> (Even the UN gets this wrong by looking at the situation only on a
> country-by-country basis, as Charles Vorosmarty at the University of New
> Hampshire, whom I just interviewed on Tuesday, wrote in the 7/14/00
> issue of SCIENCE.) The World Resources Institute projects that by 2025
> at least 3.5 billion people--roughly half of the world--will experience
> water shortages (John Flesher, Associated Press story, 10/21/00). And so
> on. Many expect that water, not climate change, is going to be the most
> important issue of the 21st century.
>
> Agriculture accounts for at least 70% of this water use. "Long-term
> productivity [in food production] wis threatened by increasing water
> scarcity and soil degradation," writes the World Resources Institute in
> "Freshwater Systems," c. 2000. As I wrote in an earlier post, future
> increases in food supplies *must* come from increased productivity, as
> the amount of arable land has remained about
> constant since 1960, and will be under future stress from growing
> populations.
>
> Farmers are not going to be able to irrigate as they have in the past.
> "Making irrigation more efficient is a top priority in moving toward
> more sustainable water use.... Reducing irrigation needs by a tenth, for
> instance, would free up enough water to roughly double domestic water
> use worldwide. " (Sandra Postel, THE LAST OASIS, p. 99) Worldwide,
> irrigation efficiency is estimated to average less
> than 40% (Postel, p. 100). New sprinkler designs and drip irrigation are
> a good start, and while they pay for themselves in the
> long-run, both methods require significant capital to implement (up to
> $3000/hectare).
>
> Crops in some parts of the world simply fail due to lack of rainfall
> that follow centuries-old patterns--one in every three years in some
> African countries. "Unreliable, uncontrollable, and insufficient rains
> often foil the best-laid plans of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and
> other dry regions lacking irrigation.... Hopes that large irrigation
> schemes will solve the water and food problems of these regions,
> particularly Africa's drylands, are fading fast." (Postel, pp. 114-115)
>
> Water shortages also affect water quality, biodiversity, and carbon
> storage.
>
> Clearly something has to be done, as a global average. Don't you think
> it's worth pursueing many different avenues to see how each might
> contribute to solving this problem?
>
> David