Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
June 11, 2012

Drivers of a potential planetary-scale critical transition (credit: Anthony D. Barnosky et al./Nature)
Using scientific theories, toy ecosystem modeling and paleontological evidence as a crystal ball, 21 scientists predict we’re on a much worse collision course with Mother Nature than currently thought.
In Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise spans a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careenng towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.
Earth’s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climate’s increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems’ growing connectedness, and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.
Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.
“The last tipping point in Earth’s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state. Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That’s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year,” explains Simon Fraser University Professor Arne Mooers, one of this paper’s authors. “Importantly, the planet is changing even faster now.”
He stresses, “The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.
“Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there’s no going back. So, if a system switches to a new state because you’ve added lots of energy, even if you take out the new energy, it won’t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn’t have any memory of the old state.”
These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, such as climate change, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away.
This study concludes we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth’s surface or we won’t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse.
We’ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, making Earth increasingly susceptible to an environmental epidemic.
“In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren’t there,” says Mooers. “My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth’s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.”
Backgrounder: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
Coming from Chile, Canada, Finland, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States, the authors of this paper initially met at the University of California Berkeley in 2010 to hold a trans-disciplinary brainstorming session.
They reviewed scores of theoretical and conceptual bodies of work in various biological disciplines in search of new ways to cope with the historically unprecedented changes now occurring on Earth.
In the process they discovered that:
Human-generated pressures, known as global-scale forcing mechanisms, are modifying Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and climate so rapidly that they are likely forcing ecosystems and biodiversity to reach a critical threshold of existence in our lifetime.
“Global-scale forcing mechanisms today “include unprecedented rates and magnitudes of human population growth with attendant resource consumption, habitat transformation and fragmentation, energy production and consumption, and climate change,” says the study.
Human activity drives today’s global-scale forcing mechanisms more than ever before. As a result, the rate of climate change we are seeing now exceeds the rate that occurred during the extreme planetary state change that tipped Earth from being in a glacial to an interglacial state 12,000 years ago. You have to go back to the end of the cataclysmic falling star, which ended the age of dinosaurs, to find a previous precedent.
The exponentially increasing extinction of Earth’s current species, dominance of previously rare life forms and occurrence of extreme climate fluctuations parallel critical transitions that coincided with the last major planetary transition.
When these sorts of perturbations are mirrored in toy ecosystem models, they tip these systems quickly and irreversibly.
The authors recommend governments undertake five actions immediately if we are to have any hope of delaying or minimizing a planetary-state-shift. Arne Mooers, an SFU biodiversity professor and a co-author of this study, summarizes them as follows.
“Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It’s a very tall order.”
Ref.: Anthony D. Barnosky et al., Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere, Nature, 2012, DOI: 10.1038/nature11018
Comments (80)
by Mark OBlazney
Well I hope it all works out the way it’s supposed to, don’t you?
by SomeoneInAsia
Hey, bring ‘em on, Mother Nature! Our species has now descended to such a sorry state — just look at all the posts here — that I honestly don’t see myself shedding any tears when it goes!
by Melaniki
Asia, I partly agree with you. Only my worry for my children and grandchildren makes me hold out hope that humanity or enough of us who are part of it will change in time to stop the madness. Peace.
by J. Marczyk
The claims in this study, like in many similar studies, are surely based on math models of the biosphere. Two things to keep in mind:
1. Our understanding of the dynamics biosphere is still very very limited. Our math is too “digital” and it cannot capture many natural phenomena.
2. The most important things in a model are those it doesn’t contain.
by Sylvan
Yes, we don’t know for sure yet what will happen or why it will happen. By the time we know for sure we will all be crispy critters. You don’t have to understand how and why a runaway train happened in order to know you should get out of it’s way and slow it down. Doing something now to lessen our impact on our life support system is not a waste of time. Even if we find later on that it wasn’t necessary, at least we will have become more responsible. But allowing current systems to continue could be a form of species suicide.
by MikeK
Let’s learn how to terraform planets, ship people to other worlds, develop clean fusion and anti-matter energy, use stars efficiently, expand, grow, keep all life sacred.
by anthrobotic
The Numbing Screams of Environmental Apocalypse are Numbing. Let’s Optimism!
“Apocalyptic proclamations usually involve a fanatic and the book of his or her spooky vengeful father figure in the sky, but sometimes they’re delivered by a group of gangly, socially awkward lab coats packing a peer-reviewed scientific journal!”
http://goo.gl/jsUsm
by Sylvan
De Nile is not just a river in Africa.
by Marcos
Wow. This is an impressive and exciting divergent thread!
Surely, no one today can determine the real effect of combined action of all the factors brough to the table by the current humanity development stage.
Things we may be certain of:
Consuming products as we do today is bad.
Producing meat food for 7 billion people as we do today is bad.
Producing veggie food for 7 billion people as we do today is bad.
Stopping technology investments and innovation just to stop these effects is worse.
What we need is to evolve our consciousness of all these causes and their effects, try to reduce them.
The planet won´t go back to a previous state, independent of any action.
Let´s use our brains. Find INNOVATIVE solutions to the problems our predecessors built.
by IshMi
VEGANISM IS THE WAY!
Food for everyone with 16 times less resources than producing Flesh/Blood-consumption/LiveStock!
by egore
On that happy note, lets all go sunbathing on Titan.
by egore
A group called the I–U–nati are working on a population of 500 million, as I understand. These people are real and not to be taken for granted.
by tflahive
What is ” I–U–nati “?
by Sylvan
Illuminati
by trakk
Hitler was a huge supporter of population growth.he wanted europe cleared of minorities to create living space for german population growth….a***ole
by Mr.x
@Trakk: Yeah.How about killing the Indians, Blacks in Africa (colonial powers), minorities in China, Asians in Russia etc.Hitler probably drank water- it should be forbidden as well.A little bid more self-reflection would not be harmfull to you, I bet your country of origin did horrible things too.There is no reason to change the topic like that.We should not ask who did what and when except as a means to know which choice is objectively the best we can make given our knowledge base and which ones are absolutely to be avoided (e.g through study of past approaches and modeling how their equivalent would fare in todays world.)
Btw: “Living space” was to be in the European part of the Sovjetunion (Ukraine, Belarus, parts of Russia and Poland) not the whole of Europe.Think about it, otherwise Hitler would not have targeted minorities but other local majorities, e.g like the French in France.Minorities in West Europe and other places etc came under attack for ideological reasons.Misrepresenting this leads to people severly underestimating the chances of something like that happening at their own places, maybe even through their own hands.I would go even as far as to claim that a white-black worldvies is a necessary prerequisit for this kind of madness (I say this because the same actions could be initiated because of technocratical considerations, given the respective technocrats world view).Religious people are especially good in painting themselves immun in their own minds, therefore being an easy prey for being prompted to self-righteous and self-righteous, rigors action.
“If we dont do something, nature will do it for us…something like black death which wiped out more than half of the european population in the 13th century.”
Anyway, why am I even talking to someone as educated as you are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
Read the first paragraph, think about the word ‘nature’, reread your own comment.No, you do not need to thank me.I like to help others.
Ps: It is nothing personal, but I dislike the low-selfawareness that causes mistakes like unconsciously accepting concepts etc, the reality we have formed in our minds to explain stuff, as the reality that is external from us.Many emotionalzing, non-related, not solution-oriented claims would not be made if we would bother to check our own understanding of things and ourselves before we comment and thereby risk heating up an issue, which lowers our chances to bring about a reasonable solution.
by trakk
If we dont do something, nature will do it for us…something like black death which wiped out more than half of the european population in the 13th century. europe transpormed from being a filthy overpopulated continent to an ideal place with perfect living conditions…..ecologically and economically.
Now i have feeling that this time the whole world COULD face something like this.
by egore
Just kidding. things are bound to get better. Just ask anyone.
by egore
Things probably will not get too bad until we start eating each other for sustenance,.At that point we will have to watch so we do not contact any dispariging diseases from this.
by Carlos
So, how much time do we have left? Will I be able to watch the dark night?
by Eastmanweb
Only if you pre-order your tickets.
by Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Winter is coming!!!
by fred
I see what you did there.
by Mr.x
Surely not (and yes, I got the reference). Sometimes I think people like it to think that they live in such hard times, have to endure so much etc.It is like two low-wage workers arguing about who works harder.Never understood that. Maybe some people should study history to put things into perspective.
Maybe some winter would actually be good…
by Brian Cardarella
Pretty scary stuff
by Kevin Haskell
lol. Excellent mockery of the charlatans and the fools who listen to them.
“Using scientific theories, toy ecosystem modeling and paleontological evidence as a crystal ball, 21 scientists predict we’re on a much worse collision course with Mother Nature than currently thought.”
Well done. ;)
by GatorALLin
Lots of fear about over population on Earth in the future. It all comes down to how many babies you average per family, per country. Some countries that used to make many babies now only have 1 (thanks China), some that used to always have 6-8 still do (Congo), but mostly the average rate has come way down to 2. Thus the population of the future is limited to 10 Billion total. Hard to prove unless you track tons of stats per country and have the data to back this up. Don’t believe me, then check out this video here http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
We don’t use resources well right now….but in the future we could if we communicate better/faster/cheaper (thanks cell phones). We have a long ways to go, but education is just one big thing changing (yes, even world wide). I hope you do watch the ted video… tons of other great videos on ted as well. From the comments here I can see most have not see this one at least… hope to change that.
by Eastmanweb
Thanks for the link to that TED talk video. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Everybody in this thread should view it.
by Jens
With a Resource based economy, the earth could hold 7 billion people. (You can google Resource based economy if you’re uncertain)
by Satan
“I vote for not more than 2 billions human beings on Earth”
- I vote for 666 billion!
” and I plan to have only one child ”
- walk the talk, have none.
Most(not all) humans are overly optimistic about themselves and overly pessimistic about everyone else.
by Sher
Hi Satan…..with 666 billion, we’ll have to sustain on algae or plankton, or something like that. That’s a cool idea. Hope you like green smoothies as much as I do…..actually I’m into more berries, so I hope there will be enough berry bushes to go around.
by Sher
I live in an upper class (corporate/dr/lawyer/tech community) 1 hr. north of NYC. I educate my wealthy friends by telling them Target is the Evil Bullseye and I shop and recycle at Goodwill ( I found the snootiest shopkeeper ever, in a consignment shop recently, …so that’s a good barometer of where the economy is going…..a rich woman “controlling” other rich women’s hand-me-downs, with attitude……). I also deeply care as much about the Chinese citizens walking in their chemo-fog as I do my next door neighbor, so I refuse to buy what comes out of the fog. We are all one. Everyone must start with themselves. Other’s will watch and want to become “part” of the collaboration…slowly but surely. Like adolescents they’ll rebel and buy and spend even more extravagantly and end up in the poor house. (Look at all the discount mansions out there.) I rent out room in my house to others to collaborate. I think Ohmaar, above, hit the nail on the head. It’s about “me, me, and me”, and buying into the “appearance” of luxury and hi-end living as an extension of EGO. We are now in a spiritual shift where EGO is being challenged….we ARE coming together as a collaborative unit, as a united species. But those white, dred-locked vegans, referred to above, know something about speciesism. As a veg for 30 years and a vegan wanna-be, I’ve totally bought into the fact that we need all of our species on this planet to survive. Hello out there, It is a system! Cows and chicken by the multitude are not natural. Stop eating them! I’m beginning to give up dairy and fish and turning to beans. .Get excited about collaborative endeavors and watch the reaction of others. You can’t buy that inner glow of knowing that you RESPECT all species and feel compassion towards others who cannot. Forgive them…they are addicts and need help. Addicted to animal based food, addicted to material objects, addicted to ego. Come on folks….we are EVOLVING…..come join! Do we want to continue to be a society of cave men or advance to the next stage? (Grateful to be educated by this group. I am humbled by your intellect and expertise in all matters tech.)
by ben
Agree.
We need a change of social system, bottom line.
Check out http://www.thevenusproject.com
Read, Educate and Discuss
by Chris Pontello, P.E.
Just because all the facts aren’t all lined up in nice little rows, doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem. It’s hard to predict the next global shift but we can predict approximately when people that get their water from melting glaciers will no longer have thier water source. Our little minds are capable of seeing individual pieces of the puzzle but we can’t see the whole picture yet. This can be comforting or disconcerting depending how you look at it.
by melajara
It is estimated that there were circa 150 millions people alive around Jesus Christ time. By Napoleon time, Earth supported her first billion.
Two billions by 1900, three by 1950 and now more than seven billions!
In absence of space conquest, this pandemy of human beings – most being driven in a very stupid consumerist way of life – has to stop, willingly or not. Better to make it a deliberate choice. I vote for not more than 2 billions human beings on Earth and I plan to have only one child to be consistent with this responsible choice.
by Chris Pontello, P.E.
As an environmental engineer I deal with the problems of overpopulation. You are correct, the earth’s population should be controlled at 1-2 billion.
by Big O
Agreed. Who’s going to be the first, you and your family?
Ray Kurzweil pushes for human immortality, Capitalism’s drive for economic efficiency will have robots replace all humans, Japan is trying to bribe its people to have more children to stave off the population collapse that has started and is having a negative economic impact on that country, etc.
The acdemic elite believes that since we are now enlightened, can control our environment and therefore we can create paradise.
It’s a shame we have no wisdom.
by Steven Osborn
Ok, so lets start off by killing 2/3s of the worlds population. Let’s start with you and the two people closest to you. Which on of you gets to stay?
by Mr.x
@Melajara:Some states/people could not survive such a shrinkage in the longterm.Not everyone is that keen on being assimilated.I mean, think of it, if the population of a country falls under a certain treshold, it’s inhabitants won’t be able to wholly create and consume their own stuff anymore- the output would not suffice to serve all needs.Most things would have to be supplied otherwise, e.g through dubbed material, which would be culturally foreign.I think that would not be fair, and certainly not in the interest of potentially affected countries.
If everyone gets to have one child etc then some countries (those who would still be big) will be able to dominate others even more easily, in every domain (military surpremacy: large fronts would spread the defenders thin because they must avoid encircling and thetaking of “centers of power”- colonel blotto models fail to take space into account- , economical surpremacy: more minds and wallets means more output and therefore paves the way to cultural domination).Some cultures would become endangered.I think adcovating this approach is pretty self-serving for someone living in a country that is rather rich population-wise (and has a good geo-strategic position).Others know their own payoffs too and would not support (in fact probably oppose) moves in that direction.I think overpopulation has to be solved locally, as that’s where it is.Btw, in other animals population growth manages itself, stop sending aid to Africa and let then go through the harsch transition from being dependent to self sufficent- they would lose a lot of people.In the long run that would be more humanistic as trading the future of them and ourselves for short-term rewarding pushing of emotional buttons .Of course, outsiders should refrain from flooding their markets with cheap products.
Anyway, there is no practical way to fullfill such central-planning inspired dreams as yours. I strongly believe it won’t happen in any way.If you want to know why, study probability theory.
“In absence of space conquest, this pandemy of human beings – most being driven in a very stupid consumerist way of life – has to stop, willingly or not”
The west = rest of the world?Furthermore the consumer craze is much stronger in the English speaking ‘world’ than it is for example
in Europe (and yes I am aware that the UK exists and belongs, in some ways, to Europe).I have a certain disdain for the fact that people from a certain country equal themselves with the whole “world”.Most of the world population lives in places that you would refer to as backwater, as some of you may live in places I would refer to as backwater.The majority of us humans are certainly not the embodiment of consumerism.
“Better to make it a deliberate choice. I vote for not more than 2 billions human beings on Earth and I plan to have only one child to be consistent with this responsible choice.”
Why two billion? Are there any reasons for this number or did you just chose it because it sounds so nice?
If you are refering to capitalism with “your stupid way of life” remark then you should also take into account that a strong/big economy is necessary to fuel scientific effort, especially those efforts who form the basis of later applications as opposed to pure technology.
Shrinking our population voluntarily and thereby strangeling our progress through economic decline is akin to trying to win a fight (hand-to-hand combat) through defense alone.You get hit and suck it up, then you get hit again and suck…. undefined repetitions.One may hold his ground for some time, but it is just a matter of time till he gets knocked down, chocked out or other ugly stuff.In this analogy getting knocked down and then losing the fight can be tantamount to the human species going instinct (e.g having a new stone-age like world filled with technical artifacts, not being able to cope with natural changes).The attacker in this analogy would be physics (‘nature’).If you do not go about mastering (in a fight, controlling) the enemy or situation, you will lose the fight.Therefore, I think, to play it safe, mankind should invest more in science (which, to some extent is happening anyway through the emerging powers) and refrain from shrinking defensively, which may or may not bring short-term relief but is long-term stupid.
by Jay
“Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.”
Remember? Remember what.. that out-dated and wrong historical opinion?Advanced human civilizations were already thriving on this planet well before the end of the last ice age. New evidence of this fact is uncovered every day. Hunter gatherers my ass. Really sick of this grade-school nonsense perspective on our history.
by Ian
Pure fantasy.
by tedhowardnz
So many fallacies in that report it is hard to know where to start, which is a real pity, because there is also some very useful stuff in there.
Concluding that we must reduce population is nonsense, as it makes many assumptions that are not necessarily valid.
All we need to do is change technologies.
The biggest barrier to technological change is economics, and the inertia of short term vested interests as predominantly demonstrated by quarterly shareholder reports.
It is possible to survive quite comfortably on a vegan diet –I know as I changed 2 years ago. The transition was not easy, and after 6 months I was starting to enjoy food again.
We could feed the earth’s entire population on one third of the arable land in the USA, if we went vegan, and had localised water storage (store a couple of years worth of flood water under ground under the crops it would nourish.
All doable technically, but not in the interests of centralised control and optimisation of money flows.
And it is pleasing to see more and more people becoming aware of the very real problems we face.
I am confident that we can solve them all, and it is going to require some very real change, and many different levels of societal organisation (which is all doable, once sufficiently many people want it to be done).
by Sher
Hi Ted….read your blog. Sending you joy and kale energy….good for heart! Gotta pick some up for myself today. Always wanted to see NZ. If I do, will look you up and your family. With love, Sher @ showplace@optonline.net
by Spikosauropod
“The authors recommended that we immediately adopt a more collectivist form of government centered on the writings of Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels…”
Well, not actually. I do get suspicious whenever physical scientists start recommending specific social changes.
by Egil Borg Bromée
Don’t you see how it’s interconnected? Social science is as important to the world as the physical, you can’t solve problems by just looking at somethhing from one field only!
by Phil Osborn
Global warming we actually can deal with. It appears at least 90% certain that we can reduce global temperatures at will, using sulfur dioxide crystals blasted into the stratosphere near the poles, where they will predominently reflect nearly all the UV back into space. Blocking UV is not a problem and it carries a lot of energy, compared to seeable light. The cost is only in the $billions – at worst, tens of $billions – to lower global temps by two or more degrees. We’ve got plenty of SO2. But that will only indirectly reduce CO2, and probably not by very much, and that brings us to the problem that we can’t yet see how to fix…
The real problem is the acidification of the oceans, due to all that CO2, which may rather quickly sterilize them for most practical purposes. The only fish left may be in the fish farms and close in to the river deltas, etc. Goodby, dolphins. And 99% of the other ocean species. How this will impact other factors, such as production of O2 by algea, remains to be seen, but the experience of “dead zones” in the Gulf and elsewhere is not encouraging. Just eliminating 90% of all fishing will result in major food shortages worldwide.
by eldras
I dont find this proven as there are too many unknowns like cosmic forces. BUT building Accelerating Artificial Intelligence which some H+ have been lobbying for over decades would be able to deal with it. A.I. is being commercially driven as A.I. for the first time and in the 2020′s some real smart systems will be converging fulfilling Verner Vinge’s 1993 NASA prophesy post human intelligence would be here before 2030. Coupled to microrobots, then quantum robots, we should, be able to control our climate.
by Seth Matrisciano
anyone who’s taking seriously an agenda that starts with “we need to drastically lower our population very quickly” should go hang out with hitler.
by Laura C.
+1
by Robert Pike
We’ve known this for a while, now. Al Gore said in “inconvenient truth” we need to “shock the frog” in order to rescue it…
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
by xman
A lot of you are the kind of religious zealots you claim to despise, except your religion is a worship of yourself (in the form of putting total reliance and faith in human ingenuity and moral initiative despite historical evidence to the contrary) instead of an external force. You ridicule all evidence without investigation which appears contrary to your blind faith.
You and billions like you are the reason why our race doesn’t have a chance. When faced with severe bad news, you take refuge in closing your eyes like a child, hoping the news couldn’t possibly be true. A mature race would dispassionately assess the situation and change its course accordingly. You on the other hand bicker, fight, ridicule, walk away from personal responsibility, and irrationally hope that the universe couldn’t possibly be so ‘unfair’ that it would interfere with your will.
by Bennie Beavere
I do concur with your comment. You’re very much right on. The famed SF writer Isaac Asimov once said something like, if the population continued to grow at the rate in 1979, human flesh and blood would weigh more than the known universe within about 5,000 years.
We can decide to be more reasonable about population growth or reap the pangs of over-population growth….or control it in a historical fashion through disease, famine, and war. Yes, science and technology may save the day for some time to come, but should we put all our hopes in that possibility. Most scientist believe that we should still find ways to reduce population growth just as the article suggest. Sure, more people in the interim may help to accelerate scientific advance, but in time we will likely need to control population growth. It may be that natural changes in human relationships will lead to a reduced population growth as we can see marriages falling apart and single relationships growing. Maybe life and evolution is stranger than most people ever imagined….There are a number of possibilities.
The article above makes a lot of sense to me and we should think about it seriously. extinction is not so new in the history of this world. One question I have is whether scientist should be emphasizing just how much material pain may be necessary. I believe this approach may scare many people into disbelief even before they seriously consider outcomes.
Those quick to disbelief should take a little more time studying past history of life on earth. They might just imagine a new approach to evolution and the future….All views are good to listen to but I aggree with those who say that time is running short. It’s very close to time to decide if you can believe in the article above, and I do!
by David
“Planetary collapse”?? The planet isn’t going anywhere soon. A little perspective here. 1,000 years is not “our lifetime”. Where is the scientific objectivity and balanced presentation?
by slater
read the article again, its says its happening faster the the previously 1,000 year change
by Gorden Russell
There is one technology that can save us.
Phovoltaic carbon nanotechnology could take carbon out of the air and weave it into carbon nanotubes, graphene, buckminsterfullerene and diamonds. This will clear the atmosphere of the burden of CO2, tying up all that carbon in consumer goods, houses and cars.
by Lord Penguin
Bri, new technology might make it easier to repair our planet, but that doesn’t mean it’ll be done. Much easier for the government to tell everyone to wear an airmask, after all. Running out of fossil fuels might stop carbon pollution, but there are other chemical pollutants that businesses will not hesitate to release.
This comes on the day a Chinese city (Wuhan) with 9 million people, and surrounding areas, experienced a thick chemical smog. Whether or not the environment will “collapse”, the longer we wait the harder it’ll be to fix it. For every species that goes extinct that we don’t have a means to recreate, that’s one more thing we cannot fix with any technology, no matter how advanced.
by Mike Lorrey
This paper is a complete unscientific sham. Firstly, they make the unsupported and unsupportable assertion that humans have “used up” 43% of the earth’s surface, without any concrete, objective, quantitative standard of what that even means, and then they go on to make the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that if we “use up” 50%, that the earth’s ecosystem will suddenly and magically collapse. This has to be one of the worst papers ever published by this publication and you should use more of your rational critical thinking skills to skeptically examine the claims of the climate alarmists before sullying your own reputation by pimping their junk science.
by Torsten Kasberg
Sad thing is, most people just don’t care. As long as there is enough oil to fill their tanks with, they will drive their cars and live happily and blissfully ignorant in their world of “total freedom”. Greenpeace makes some suggestions for the big summit in Rio: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/A-just-and-fair-economy/
by Gabor
It’s not that individuals don’t care but people as a whole don’t care because everybody is fighting for their own survival. We were fighting over resources in the caves and we are fighting over resources now in relative abundance. It’s our nature to fight and want more, conserving however is not part of that picture. Any one person CANNOT make a difference and throughout our evolution, trusting others to do the “right” thing didn’t pay out. So we are conditioned to be selfish or die (suffer). We will have to change our genetic makeup to care as a society. Sorry, that’s just the way it is, and we would’ve died out long time ago if we were not this way. Just think about it. “Nice guys finish last” is absolutely the rule, anyone convinced otherwise is just kidding themselves and/or belong to the few exceptions. Look at animals, they don’t share either. Anything that appears otherwise is just because we are associating a human behavior with a particular animal act, not thinking of it from an evolutionary point of view as necessary for their survival (for food or procreation (because it feels good)). Giving up does not feel good, especially when the opposite wins recognition!
Finally, I don’t think of this fact as sad, but I do appreciate that many people recognize it as said which means we are moving forward. Global connectivity is helping in awareness and recognizing problems that we have to face eventually as a global society.
BTW, these problems could be actually not the same ones we are thinking of today but ones we are oblivious yet.
by Gabor
Uhum! Yes. Hmm. OK. What do you propose?!? Maybe more funding for your senseless study? We already know that negative news pays. Religion born on the pretext of “if you don’t then you’ll suffer for eternity…” and look at what it brought to us: The Dark Ages! and thousands of years of fighting evolution.
My point is that these studies are utterly pointless. “Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly.” the authors say. Seriously? Shouldn’t we start with “smart” people who spend our intellectual and physical resources on senseless studies?
By now most of us know that the only way to prevent the above mentioned disaster is to transcend it with the help of technology. So, resources should be spent accordingly.
by Robert Pike
The smartest already are the ones with the lowest population growth. As education increases, fecundity decreases; well known for decades. We need, as Al Gore hints in his vid “Inconvenient Truth” something to shock us in to action (frog in warming water…stays…frog dropped in to hot water…leaps out.) See this; http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ and google education level vs. Fecundity (actual family size).
by Mortran
They cite the beginning of the ice age as an example, but I thought we are in a period of global warming. This ,looks more like we are shifting away from such a catastrophic event.
Another quote: “we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.”
— “Most stable and benign periods”? – What is this assessment based on? The Wurm Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago. Does this guy claim that he has reliable and continuous climate data for every 10,000-years-interval since the Cambrian period? We are talking about 545 million years here.
Statements like these are totally baseless and show that these people have very dubious motivations.
Therefore we can safely discard this whole study as unscientific scaremongering.
It doesn’t mean that there is no threat for the global ecosystem, but this study will definitely not contribute anything useful to answering this question. May be some real scientists should look into it.
by swyne79
Looking at the facts…..it seems that the global economic and monetary system is what will bring civilization to a halt. When every decision is made solely on profit margin and fiat currency, the end result is ultimately collapse. An economy that requires infinite growth on a planet with finite resources…..this by law cannot be sustained. Energy can only go from usable to non usable. Unless the suppressed energy technologies are de-classified, the future does not look very bright. Last check there are over 5000 energy patents that remain classified. Why?
by Dante D'Anthony
Bullfeathers. “An economy that requires infinite growth on a planet with finite resources…..this by law cannot be sustained.” neither are we, nor our economy confined to a planet, so the premise is FALSE.
http://www.amazon.com/Mining-The-Sky-Asteroids-Planets/dp/0201328194
by gaoptimize
I support Dante D’Anthony’s comment and many others here that support using our intelligence to create as much growth and prosperity as we want.
by Doug
You seem to be the only one commenting here that has a clue. That’s almost as sad as the ones that cannot understand basic principles of nature. Of course, these suppressed technologies are all just a conspiracy theory, right? WRONG. Go and ask Major Ed Mitchell, 6th man to walk on the Moon. He’ll set you straight.
by Nautilus
typo snipe! “careering” should be “careening”!
by Editor
fixed, thanks
by smita1900
Don’t cry for me, earth…
by Matthew Fuller
Peer review is done in a vacuum.
by Bri
An honest examination of the rate of currant ecological transformation, in comparison to previous extinction events, would support their view, once we’re in space, the amount of energy available, plus nano tech, we’ll be able to Tera form this planet, plus Venus and mars. Good luck stopping humans from breeding. We all will want to live much longer lives. Our planet will mainly have nature reserves and lots of cities. Most of our sense of wild places will be virtual. Sorry all you environmentalists out there, people not only don’t care, they are more inclined to ask for a plastic bag a pack of gum, and then through it out the window! Which is more fickle? A meandering asteroid, or human sensibility?
by Alan Cayce
Nature: “imminent irreversible planetary collapse!”
“and you can learn more for $32!”
by Ohmaar
They left off “Because of this imminent danger, governments worldwide need to commit billions of dollars to us for further research and pay to send us to our numberous annual confabs held (completely coincidentally) at the worlds most exotic and exclusive vacation destinations.”
by BHS
Proof and references? Otherwise, your claims are nonsense.
by anthrobotic
Technology Will Eradicate Barbarians & Drum Circles and Fix Everything – Technological utopianism might be just as foolish as vegan white people with dreadlocks or those with a super-spooky, vengeful, punishing father figure in the sky. But I kinda really seriously doubt it. (http://goo.gl/2Geuc) – a bit dated here, but basically the opposite point of view.
by Laura C.
First thought: Hey, you think these guys would be open to a Simon-Ehrlich-style wager?
Second thought: Re: “we need to drastically lower our population very quickly” – have they really, seriously not noticed the dire demographic projections for after mid-century? We need to be thinking about spurring pop growth to avoid a Dark-Ages collapse, and then expanding online education to bring all those new minds to contribute to our store of intelligence.
Third thought: Yeah, these people really are control freaks. They think of the rest of us as commodities; they want us fewer, poorer, more under their heavy hand. For starters, maybe they should be sent complimentary copies of “Abundance.”
Fourth thought: Was this paper peer-reviewed? Really??
by Khannea Suntzu
Reposted here > http://www.scoop.it/t/endgamewatch
by Editor
KS: Thanks, awesome site
by Zen
Here’s hoping I’m affluent enough to land a spot in an arcology.
by gaoptimize
I was watching Dish Network’s “Earth TV” (a continuous image of our planet from Geostationary orbit) with my daughter, pinting our features of the ~western hemisphere. I pointed out that some of areas of cloud cover reflect more solar energy back into space than all the energy used by mankind, taking her though simple calculations of albido, area, energy flux, and the amount of energy currently consumed by man. The lack of perspective by these scientists is breathtaking. Besides, unlikely to happen before the Singularity. Why don’t they apply their talents to the more pressing systematic collapse in the global economy?
Highly recommend the version of The Who’s “Teenage Wasteland” by Minnesotans For Global Warming “Frozen Wasteland” on YouTube.