The
first major test of my Half-Earth Hypothesis is in progress. Analysis
of new data indicates that, if the hypothesis is correct, within
a year humanity will begin consuming the ecological
producers that maintain those ecological supporters that enable
our basic survival. This will likely
result in several hundred million casualties in the next decade,
followed by several billion in the first half of the following
decade, potentially leading to our
effective extinction soon after.
This
"hard shutdown"
is a consequence of our historical behavior, but we may still have a
chance of converting it into a "safe" shutdown by
controlling both our population size and the amount of resources lost
by our excess consumption. If competition for resources is the main
cause of the initial casualties, we might in the best
case be able to eliminate it and keep our population constant
while reducing our individual consumption to a sustainable level and
maintaining it there. This assumes that the lost producers can be
recovered, and that their loss hasn't triggered a cascade of further
environmental degradation.
If
we can't control the population loss, then it may be kept from
growing back as individual consumption continues to fall. In this
case, protective policies might also prevent further casualties,
and the drop in individual consumption may be stopped before it
jeopardizes the maintenance of a civil society.
In
my opinion, the best case future is about as improbable as the one
most governments and businesses appear to expect, which is predicated
on limitless
growth. Based on that expectation, the other possibilities
represent risks that merit little attention in the form of tweaks to
their plans that may account for only a few-percent of additional
costs in the distant future ("distant" being more than five
years out).
Combining
the scenarios discussed here and using
my own estimates of their probabilities, I anticipate that the
world will experience a serious food crisis just as the U.S.
presidential race reaches its peak. During the new president's first
term, the death toll will mount into the millions and people will
attempt to grow much more food, exacerbating the problem. The next
election will occur just as the population begins to recover, but
consumption will have already begun falling. How far it falls, and
whether we will suffer a much more massive loss of life, will be
determined during the following decade.
Whether
or not these scenarios are accurate, they provide a useful context
for discussing how carbon emissions may decrease, voluntarily and
involuntarily. The obvious preference should be for the best case;
and we should put the mechanisms for creating it in place, regardless
of motivation. We can similarly study the mechanisms involved in
creating the disastrous alternatives so we can reduce their
probability of becoming reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment