Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[Little John]

Every human society that has existed on earth has destroyed environment to some extent but there was a lot of difference in scale and magnitude of destruction.

In pre-industrial society environmental destruction was localized and very small compared to environmental destruction of Industrial Society......It is like comparing the Lamp with the Sun.

Millions of animal species destroyed environment only for food.....Hunter_Gatherer society destroyed environment only for food....Agrarian society destroyed environment for food, clothing and shelter.....Industrial Society has destroyed environment for food, clothing, shelter plus thousands of consumer goods and services.

In the absence of Industrial Machines only limited destruction of nature was possible......Agrarian Societies only destroyed some ecosystems on the land - forests and soil......Marine ecology was almost 100% safe in Agrarian Stage.

No pre-industrial society poisoned the planet with trillions of tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic waste, Chemical waste, Gaseous waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste.

Agrarian Society destroyed environment for Agriculture......Industrial Society has destroyed environment for Agriculture and Industry - Mining Industry, Logging Industry, Energy Generation Industry, Manufacturing Industry, Construction Industry, Transportation Industry, Recycling Industry.

Industrial Society has destroyed the entire planet - The Land, The Sky, The Oceans.....It has decimated millions of other species.

Industrial Society is millions of times more destructive than any pre-industrial society.....It has destroyed most of the Biodiversity and Ecosystems on earth.

This planet can only sustain "Food Searching" or "Food Producing" Societies.

Hunter_Gatherer Society was sustainable.....Agrarian Society was sustainable.....The question of Industrial Society being sustainable doesn't arise.



Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Sushil

metal waste, plastic waste, chemical waste, e-waste and, even, nuclear waste are of little impact on the environments in the long run. What is of serious impact is atmospheric pollution, since this is on a massive scale and gets carried to every part of the globe. Also of massive importance is the sheer physical loss of biodiversity due to humans occupying or otherwise using land and sea for their own purposes that would otherwise be occupied by the rest of the biosphere. Next to atmospheric driven global warming, physical loss of available environment is the next biggest destroyer of the rest of the biosphere. Most of this loss has occurred as function of food manufacture, by the way as a direct consequence of the so-called "Green Revolution" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) of the fifties and sixties. In other words, the main problem is just the sheer bloody numbers of us.

If we were to get rid of all industrial technology tomorrow, it would probably mean an acceleration of biodiversity loss as we would end up using even more land and sea for our own purposes. In other words, hydrocarbons have allowed us to behave as if we have several earths at our disposal. Without hydrocarbons and with a population of 7 billion, we would in fact need several earths.

Of course, we haven't got several earths and so there will be a massive die-off. However, during that die off, the damage we will wreak on the environment is likely to be at least as severe as anything that has occurred in the last two hundred years of industrialisation. The only saving grace is that without hydrocarbons we won't be heating the earth up any more. The trouble is, though, we have already pushed enough greenhouses gases into the atmosphere that we may have set off a runaway self-perpetuating warming process that may continue to heat up the planet even after we have stopped pushing warming gases into it.

[clv101]

In other words, the main problem is just the sheer bloody numbers of us.

...Many of our number have a very light ecological footprint. The main problem, in my opinion, is the dramatically disproportional heavy footprint of the richest 2bn of us. The other 5bn are of much lower impact.

All people are certainly not of equal impact, therefore we shouldn't lump the global population with phrases like "sheer bloody numbers of us".

[Little John]

In other words, the main problem is just the sheer bloody numbers of us.

...Many of our number have a very light ecological footprint. The main problem, in my opinion, is the dramatically disproportional heavy footprint of the richest 2bn of us. The other 5bn are of much lower impact.

All people are certainly not of equal impact, therefore we shouldn't lump the global population with phrases like "sheer bloody numbers of us".

You are confusing "light ecological footprint" with "light carbon footprint". It is true that in many parts of, say, Africa, the carbon footprint of the average person is much lower than in, say, Western Europe. However, the ecological footprint of an African may be just as damaging due to the burgeoning population and increasing encroachment on the rest of the biosphere in that region of the world. Ironically, this situation may arguably be due to their lack of capacity to access hydrocarbon energy as compared to richer Western regions of the world. Here, we are able to offset our ecological footprint (if only in the short term) by having a commensurately increased carbon footprint.

In other words, with the numbers involved, we either have a situation where people live like shit and destroy their environment by direct physical encroachment and acquisition or live like unsustainable kings and destroy their environment by more indirect but equally damaging means (AGW, industrial farming leading to soil degradation, industrial levels of fishing etc)

Either way, too many people, not enough environment.

Just consider, for a moment, that this is quite possibly the only point in the entire history of life on Earth where a single species of mega-fauna have existed in such unprecedented numbers. Why, do you suppose, Darwinian evolution has never selected for such a situation before now? Could it be, perhaps, because such numbers are completely and utterly unsustainable if based on renewable resources drawn from the rest of the biosphere?

In a world of 7 billion humans with access to hydrocarbons, we are steadily degrading the planet's biosphere. If you want to know what a world of 7 billion humans with no access to hydrocarbons will look like, take a look at Easter Island.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

".....As we try to imagine the decline of Easter's civilization, we ask ourselves, Why didn't they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?..."

Jared Diamond

[clv101]

You are confusing "light ecological footprint" with "light carbon footprint". It is true that in many parts of, say, Africa, the carbon footprint of the average person is much lower than in, say, Western Europe. However, the ecological footprint of an African may be just as damaging due to the burgeoning population and increasing encroachment on the rest of the biosphere in that region of the world.

Don't think that's how it works. Ecological footprint takes into account carbon, by including the need for waste assimilation. USA has one of the highest ecological footprints, most of Africa sits around half the global per capita bio-capacity. The ecological footprint - which is most inclusive metric we have, is low for Africa, far (~5x) lower than Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human ... tprint.jpg

[Little John]

You are confusing "light ecological footprint" with "light carbon footprint". It is true that in many parts of, say, Africa, the carbon footprint of the average person is much lower than in, say, Western Europe. However, the ecological footprint of an African may be just as damaging due to the burgeoning population and increasing encroachment on the rest of the biosphere in that region of the world.

Don't think that's how it works. Ecological footprint takes into account carbon, by including the need for waste assimilation. USA has one of the highest ecological footprints, most of Africa sits around half the global per capita bio-capacity. The ecological footprint - which is most inclusive metric we have, is low for Africa, far (~5x) lower than Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human ... tprint.jpg

Oh come now CLV. You know full well that ecological degradation may or may not involve carbon consumption. I'm fairly sure the non-renewable carbon footprint of the Easter Islanders was probably around zero. You're dodging the point put to you.

[clv101]

Sorry, I don't understand what I'm dodging? My point is that ecological footprint is more inclusive than just looking at the carbon, it includes carbon. In Western Europe for example we are increasing tree cover and improving a whole range of ecological metrics - that doesn't stop us having a far higher ecological footprint than our low-carbon African friends, even as they cut down their forests.

[Little John]

Sorry, I don't understand what I'm dodging? My point is that ecological footprint is more inclusive than just looking at the carbon, it includes carbon. In Western Europe for example we are increasing tree cover and improving a whole range of ecological metrics - that doesn't stop us having a far higher ecological footprint than our low-carbon African friends, even as they cut down their forests.

So, by your metric, the Easter Islanders, the Sumerians and all of the other civilisations that have been shown to have collapsed throughout human history; they all had fantastically low ecological footprints since they also had little if any non-renewable hydrocarbon footprints.

Yes?

In any event, the "ecological footprint" is defined as the equivalent amount of land and sea that would be required to provide the living standards of a given humans or human population. In other words, if a human is dependant on non-renewable hydrocarbons for a part of their lifestyle, then their hydrocarbon consumption is recalculated, for the purpose of defining their ecological footprint as the amount of equivalent land required to produce an equivalent amount of energy.

Consequently, Westerners will have a massive theoretical ecological footprint when hydrocarbons are recalculated in such a way. However, in terms of actual ecological footprint, that is to say the actual amount of land that is used to support a given human, the point I made earlier stands. In other words, the use greater use of hydrocarbons by Westerners means that their actual ecological footprint compared to non-westerners, at least in the shorter term, is not as big as you are suggesting. Indeed, it may even be lower than an average Bangladeshi person who, although they consume far less hydrocarbon per person, this simply means that they must consume far more renewable resources to sustain themselves than the average Westerner. This, in turn, means that they are forced to consume far more of the biosphere, as a population, just to supply them with the basics of life than the average Westerner.

Obviously, the average Westerner consumes far more rubbish than a Bangladeshi. However, much of this tat comes from hydrocarbons and so does not encroach on the rest of the biosphere in the immediate sense.

The point I am getting at is that whilst hydrocarbons are screwing us over the longer term in the form of AGW, in the shorter term hydrocarbons are acting as a mask on our environmental degradation. When they become sufficiently expensive that most people of the world people are forced to live like Bangladeshis, then the total size of the actual ecological footprint of 7 billion humans will rise, not fall.

At which point we get Easter Island writ at the planetary scale.

[clv101]

Sorry, I don't understand what I'm dodging? My point is that ecological footprint is more inclusive than just looking at the carbon, it includes carbon. In Western Europe for example we are increasing tree cover and improving a whole range of ecological metrics - that doesn't stop us having a far higher ecological footprint than our low-carbon African friends, even as they cut down their forests.

So, by your metric, the Easter Islanders, the Sumerians and all of the other civilisations that have been shown to have collapsed throughout human history; they all had fantastically low ecological footprints since they also had little if any non-renewable hydrocarbon footprints.

Yes?

Ah, right, yes! The Easter Islanders and others did have low global ecological footprints. Their trouble wasn't that they had high ecological footprints, it's that they didn't have the globe to play with. On their little island, the sustainable footprint per capita was far lower than ours (with our 7-9bn on the whole planet). If all 7bn of us lived today, with the ecological footprint of the average Easter Islander, we'd have no problem at all. They weren't running an industrial society, which I've heard Destroys Mind and Environment.

[Little John]

Sorry, I don't understand what I'm dodging? My point is that ecological footprint is more inclusive than just looking at the carbon, it includes carbon. In Western Europe for example we are increasing tree cover and improving a whole range of ecological metrics - that doesn't stop us having a far higher ecological footprint than our low-carbon African friends, even as they cut down their forests.

So, by your metric, the Easter Islanders, the Sumerians and all of the other civilisations that have been shown to have collapsed throughout human history; they all had fantastically low ecological footprints since they also had little if any non-renewable hydrocarbon footprints.

Yes?

Ah, right, yes! The Easter Islanders and others did have low global ecological footprints. Their trouble wasn't that they had high ecological footprints, it's that they didn't have the globe to play with. On their little island, the sustainable footprint per capita was far lower than ours (with our 7-9bn on the whole planet). If all 7bn of us lived today, with the ecological footprint of the average Easter Islander, we'd have no problem at all. They weren't running an industrial society, which I've heard Destroys Mind and Environment.

Quite apart from the fact that you have now repeatedly avoided dealing with the main points put to you (in this last case, the point about the official definition of ecological footprint being based on theoretical equivalent land usage and not actual land usage) that's just rubbish logic CLV.

If the earth had the same ratio of land mass to people that Easter island had, then the result would be the same. If the earth had a reasonable fraction of the land mass to people ratio of Easter island, the result would be the same, it would just take a bit longer to reach collapse. your "logic" merely extends to making an argument that since we "only2 have 7 billion, we have nothing to worry about. all of which neatly ignores the myriad of previous civilisations whose populations overshot the land mass they existed in to the point where they suffered collapse. This is not a one off phenomenon CLV. It may almost be regarded as the norm for human civilisations

Easter island is an extremely good metaphor for the globe since is represents a closed system. Given our global population we may justifiably also regard the entire earth as a closed system that we are now pushing at the limits of. On the one hand, we have access to historical records of previous civilisational collapses and so this should allow us to have the sense to pull back from the brink. On the other hand, we also have access to the masking effects of hydrocarbons that the Easter islanders did not have. What this means is that we have been able to go right up the the brink and then hang around there for some considerable time while we allow our populations to rise to insane levels. Long enough, even, for otherwise intelligent people to actually delude themselves this is all anything but insane.

All of which means that when the hydrocarbons run out, there will be no turning back from collapse, both for humans and also for the rest of the biosphere. If we don't get it with hydrocarbon-driven AGW, well get it with 7 billion people trying to scrape a living without the cushion of hydrocarbons.

By the time we’re through, the earth will be picked clean, just like Easter island.

[RenewableCandy]

Well yes, but it is worth pointing out, as Monbiot once did, the fact that there are orders of magnitude difference between the damage done by very-rich individuals and that done by normal people in the "west", and the best part of a further order of magnitude between us in the "west" and, say, someone from Afghanistan.

The population emphasis assumes implicitly that the latter will end up with our industrial lifestyles in the future.

Of course, population issues are worth working on for other reasons.

[UndercoverElephant]

Long enough, even, for otherwise intelligent people to actually delude themselves this is all anything but insane.

Yes. If we look at it objectively, which is almost impossible unless you aren't leading a "normal" life, the entire human operation on Earth at the start of the 21st century is insane. Especially those who don't think we've got an overpopulation problem.

The problem is trying to resolve what we know to be true from a scientific perspective with purely human concerns like ethics, politics, economics and our own lives (for "normal" people.)

[clv101]

Easter Island: low per capita ecological footprint in a tiny area = equal overshoot and collapse
Earth (once we reign in the crazy ecological footprints of the top billion or so): moderate ecological footprints in a huge place

The data is very clear, that on Earth, with the 7bn of us, once you strip out the crazy behaviour of the wealthy industrialists, most of our global population is living below the sustainable ecological footprint. It really is the case that a minority (us) are spoiling the place for everyone else. This is why we can't ignore the structure - the story is in the structure, not the 7-9bn figure.

The hydrocarbon mask is an interesting effect. It appears much bigger than it really is. When the hydrocarbons are gone - we certainly won't be running the current system (with industry, cars, planes, 100s of GW electricity) etc on the biological capacity of the planet. We only use (waste) all this fossil energy 'cos we can.

[Little John]

Well yes, but it is worth pointing out, as Monbiot once did, the fact that there are orders of magnitude difference between the damage done by very-rich individuals and that done by normal people in the "west", and the best part of a further order of magnitude between us in the "west" and, say, someone from Afghanistan.

The population emphasis assumes implicitly that the latter will end up with our industrial lifestyles in the future.

Of course, population issues are worth working on for other reasons.

The point I am getting at RC, is that environmental degradation occurs by per capita consumption and also by total consumption. All of which is offset by the inputs of resources form outside of the biosphereric system. Hydrocarbon consumption represent just such an input from outside the system.

Therefore, to simply say that because a given African consumes fewer hydrocarbons than a given westerner, this means that the African has a lower actual ecological footprint is simplistic and may even be factually incorrect because it is based on a definition of "ecological footprint" that takes hydrocarbon use and turns it into an equivalent measure of land use that, in real life, does not actually occur.

All of which is entirely separate from the moral argument that hydrocarbons and other industrial resources should be distributed more equitably around the world.

[RenewableCandy]

Well yes, but it is worth pointing out, as Monbiot once did, the fact that there are orders of magnitude difference between the damage done by very-rich individuals and that done by normal people in the "west", and the best part of a further order of magnitude between us in the "west" and, say, someone from Afghanistan.

The population emphasis assumes implicitly that the latter will end up with our industrial lifestyles in the future.

Of course, population issues are worth working on for other reasons.

The point I am getting at RC, is that environmental degradation occurs by per capita consumption and also by total consumption. All of which is offset by the inputs of resources form outside of the biosphereric system. Hydrocarbon consumption represent just such an input from outside the system.

Therefore, to simply say that because the average African consumes fewer hydrocarbons than the average westerner, this means that African has a lower actual ecological footprint is simply simplistic

which, of course, is why I didn't mention hydrocarbons in my post

"Damage" comes in all shapes and forms, including for example the sort of biodiversity loss mentioned in that article about the metal cube in the cornfield, changes in albedo, dead areas in the sea, etc etc. There exists a way of calculating total "land footprint" which takes account of all this.

[Little John]

Well yes, but it is worth pointing out, as Monbiot once did, the fact that there are orders of magnitude difference between the damage done by very-rich individuals and that done by normal people in the "west", and the best part of a further order of magnitude between us in the "west" and, say, someone from Afghanistan.

The population emphasis assumes implicitly that the latter will end up with our industrial lifestyles in the future.

Of course, population issues are worth working on for other reasons.

The point I am getting at RC, is that environmental degradation occurs by per capita consumption and also by total consumption. All of which is offset by the inputs of resources form outside of the biosphereric system. Hydrocarbon consumption represent just such an input from outside the system.

Therefore, to simply say that because the average African consumes fewer hydrocarbons than the average westerner, this means that African has a lower actual ecological footprint is simply simplistic

which, of course, is why I didn't mention hydrocarbons in my post

"Damage" comes in all shapes and forms, including for example the sort of biodiversity loss mentioned in that article about the metal cube in the cornfield, changes in albedo, dead areas in the sea, etc etc. There exists a way of calculating total "land footprint" which takes account of all this.

Let's construct a thought experiment;

An island exists with a population of humans on it. They decide to split the island down the middle because they can't agree on how to live.

On one side of the island, they clear fell some of the land and turn it over to gardens and fields to grow their food. As their population grows, they are forced to clear fell more land until, finally, they cut down the last bit of virgin forest. The only trees that are left are those in plantations for the purpose of creating firewood, paper etc. At this point their population stops growing because of the limits to the physical growth of their economy based on the limited renewable resources at their disposal. Meanwhile, virtually all forms of life other than those directly required by the population (apart from the few that can manage to scrape a living at the margins) are driven to extinction. Finally, over time, the constant farming of the land leads to soil degradation and lower food production and so the population begins to decline.

On the other side of the island, they discover an oil well. With this abundance of energy, the brightest amongst them invent tractors and hydrocarbon based fertilisers. consequently, they are able to produce an abundance of food from a tiny fraction of their land via intensive farming methods. Additionally, they are able to produce tools and other items such as clothes that are durable and last far longer than such items from renewable alternative resources. Meanwhile, because much of their land remains virginal, many other forms of life are able to coexist on their side of the island. As their population grows, they are forced to consume ever larger amounts of hydrocarbons to account for it. Eventually, they reach peak oil production and their population stops growing. Finally, over time, the depleting rate of oil production leads to lower food production and so the population begins to decline.

The question we should ask ourselves is this;

Which of these populations is the "greenest"? Which has the "lowest ecological footprint"? In short, which of of them has had the least negative impact on their eco-system?

Of course, in the real world, humans engage in both of the above types of living. We are both using up all available biospheric resources and we are utterly reliant on hydrocarbons. The point I am getting at is that hydrocarbon consumption per-se, is not a valid measure, in itself, of the pressure a given population may put on its environment. It's just not that simple. What is incredibly simply to understand, though, is that all of the above being equal, more humans means more damage to the eco-system. Particularly and immediately so when there are no external inputs to that system. However, in the case of hydrocarbon inputs, the damage still occurs, it just does so in a more indirect but, in the long run, at least as damaging way.