
Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife? - benbreen
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?all&no-ist
======
grondilu
> 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.

~~~
protonfish
The largest environmental impact the Earth has ever seen was caused by its
original life form (probably some type of cyanobacteria.) They depleted most
of the atmosphere's CO2 and replaced it with toxic gas. (O2) It caused the
oceans to rust. It is hard to know the exact scope of the effects, but they
were significant.

~~~
Retric
The earliest life forms where not photosynthetic. Further the change was slow
enough to give life plenty of time to adapt.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis)

~~~
NotAtWork
We're watching a second family of mammals adapt and speciate a bunch of new
winners in this domain of man, in in our own homes!

Even the human mass extinction has given life time to adapt, by way of crops,
farm animals, pets, etc. We've even helped make sure that hundreds or
thousands of species across many different kinds of life are 100% going to
survive along with us if it's remotely in our power.

There are likely hundreds or thousands of other species like raccoons,
pigeons, rats, jellyfish, various kinds of insects, etc that are going to
thrive in our cities and continue to coevolve as parasites.

I'm not entirely convinced a human caused mass extinction is really all that
much worse than other kinds, because we provide some guaranteed survival
routes to animals that can coevolve with us, and be useful in some way.

~~~
efuquen
I've never heard this apologetic argument for mass extinction, it's somewhat
disheartening. Do you think domesticated animals and scavengers are going to
make up for the lost in biodiversity and ecological damage? Basically whatever
can survive in our concrete jungles and farms will be alright, screw the rest?

The other parts of this earth play an essential role in maintaining ecological
balance on this planet, and a world with just farms and cities and the animals
that can survive within is not going to bode well for us or any other species.
Hopefully that's a good enough argument if you still don't think that mass
extinction and habitat lose isn't a negative outcome in and of itself.

~~~
tedks
>The other parts of this earth play an essential role in maintaining
ecological balance on this planet, and a world with just farms and cities and
the animals that can survive within is not going to bode well for us or any
other species. Hopefully that's a good enough argument if you still don't
think that mass extinction and habitat lose isn't a negative outcome in and of
itself.

Why?

Humans don't even need animals. It's brutally cruel to enslave, torture, kill
and eat animals the way we do. Humanity can be fine on its own.

Regardless of whether or not you like things like, say, hippos, or mosquitoes,
or prairie voles, _humanity does not need them._

Should we set half the earth aside for wildlife? I think it'd be better used
by humans.

~~~
pyre
Let's be frank. I don't need you. So if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten,
should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Saying "I don't need animals so _fuck_ them" is not a great attitude to have.

Not to mention that we _do_ need plants/trees, and we'd find it difficult to
keep them going without the biospheres that they survive in.

~~~
tedks
I think you're misrepresenting my argument, which isn't "actively perpetuate
harm on non-humans", but rather "let's build a world with mostly humans via
the most humane way possible."

>if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or
should I help you?

Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered sexual
assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any reason
to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women from
spaces.

But as to your question, that depends. Do you think anything sentient has some
sort of right not to suffer, or do you generally prefer a world without
sentient suffering? If so, it'd be morally consistent to help me, and it'd
also be morally _inconsistent_ to eat meat or consume animal products in
general.

As a vegan myself, I'm generally opposed to actions that perpetuate the
suffering of sentient life. However, this only applies, critically, to _life
which exists_. I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a _species_ , because
a species is a concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability
to suffer.

So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human species
and just letting them go extinct. I'd honestly rather use that space and
resources for humans than animals. I care about humans more and I generally
think a world with more humans is more interesting and diverse (information-
theoretically) than a world with more animals than humans.

We need oxygen, not trees. Algae makes most oxygen. As a matter of self-
preservation I'm okay with algae; we can eat them anyway so it's a useful
symbiosis.

~~~
pyre
> Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered
> sexual assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any
> reason to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women
> from spaces.

Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus so
intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all
rape-survivors?

Also, first you say:

> I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a species, because a species is a
> concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability to suffer.

Then you go on to say:

> So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human
> species and just letting them go extinct.

Having no moral obligation towards action (actively supporting a species)
doesn't imply the a moral obligation towards the opposite action (actively
'destroying' a species).

~~~
tedks
>Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus
so intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all
rape-survivors?

Because women are excluded from tech communities more than men.

Try not to make everything about yourself.

------
spodek
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
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.

~~~
Daishiman
One of the purposes international treaties and organizations attempt to solve
is this very coordination problem. The fact that such organizations have had a
certain level of success as far as deweaponization (as far as biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons), commerce treaties, and pollution control
guidelines means that a global framework for reducing carbon emissions and
increasing land conservation efforts is possible.

A minor example of this is the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which have a
certain protected legal standing, which has been fairly effective in its goal.
Maritime laws and emissions control for large ships is another one where
global legal frameworks have worked.

~~~
Brakenshire
If you wanted coordinated global action on climate change, with teeth, you
would make it a prerequisite of the trade treaties.

~~~
Daishiman
We might be getting there, since the Chinese have most of the parts in place
for a carbon tax framework. The only question is whether it's too little, too
late.

------
drzaiusapelord
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.

~~~
therealdrag0
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.

------
junto
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.

~~~
gizmo686
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
> 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
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/

------
burtonator
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.

~~~
Smudge
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
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.

~~~
jessaustin
The problem, then, is somehow getting rid of the four-wheeler and jeep
drivers. (I actually haven't noticed dirt-bikers themselves causing many
problems, but they're often accompanied by the others.) As long as they exist
they'll be able to lobby the USFS for off-trail access rights to certain
locations. In the vast majority of national forest acreage, they are
restricted to roads and trails that can handle them just fine.

However, a part of me wants to keep the motor enthusiasts around. They
obviously cause more damage than I do as a hunter, so while they are tolerated
in places I expect I'll also be tolerated.

~~~
character0
I think a less black and white approach needs to be taken with recreation in
our parks. You alienate a whole group of people that could be some of your
greatest supporters by not creating an environment of trust and mutual
respect. Increasing programs to educate and incorporate people that want to
explore recreation activities outside of traditional hiking will be a huge aid
in getting people interested in conservation.

------
DodgyEggplant
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
Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.

~~~
mrfusion
Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an
income tax that discourages working.

~~~
minikites
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?

~~~
jeremyt
This is just false.

Even Slate, which is hardly a right-wing bastion, concedes that there is an
effect
([http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/if_they_tax_do_we_relax.html))

If we subjected you to a 99% tax rate tomorrow, would you work less than
before? A yes answer is all that is needed to concede the point theoretically.
Then, we're just arguing about magnitude. And I just don't believe you if you
answer no: Who is going to work a full-time $50,000 a year job when they're
only taking home $500/year?

For further reading, Paul Graham has argued that redistribution through higher
tax rates leas to less entrepreneurship
([http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html))

~~~
adrianN
This argument assumes that there is a monotonic effect of taxes on my desire
to work. I'd argue that if taxes were raised a little, I would work a little
more. I think therefore that it is more reasonable to assume that the
taxes->work hour function is concave.

~~~
jeremyt
I'm willing to concede that the effect is uncertain at low and middle incomes,
but I think it has been shown quite convincingly that when tax rates go up the
rich work less.

------
sxp
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.ht...](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-
night.html#.VBxS2_ldXp4)

~~~
adamnemecek
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.

------
dfc
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/...](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/marine-
reserves/pacific-tuna-need-marine-reserves/)

~~~
e40
_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
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_Marin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marine_Sanctuary)

[3]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

~~~
e40
There is one problem with your response ("The first is that not all of the
ocean is a shared resource.), 99% of the ocean is a share resource and there
are no fences between the shared and unshared portions, so fish and other wild
life can cross the boundary (during migrations, etc).

If the shared portion of the ocean were to be destroyed (over-fished or
polluted) then I dare say that the unshared portion would be, too.

~~~
dfc
You can dare to say whatever you like. The problem is that the experimental
results dare to tell another story:

    
    
       Studies have  consistently shown that organisms  within marine
       reserves tend to grow larger  and live longer than individuals
       in  adjacent  unprotected  areas. Monitoring results  from  89
       no-take marine reserves  around the world have  shown that, on
       average,  fish  density,  biomass,  size,  and  diversity  all
       increased  within marine  reserves  (Halpern  2003, Lester  et
       al. 2009). This is very important because fish that are larger
       and older tend  to produce significantly more  eggs and larvae
       than smaller fish. Also, larvae  produced from older fish tend
       to have a higher survival rate (Francis et al. 2007) [^1]
    

The behavior of the commercial fisherman near the MPAs in New Zealand is
extremely apropos:

    
    
       For  reasons  not  fully  understood, when  areas  are  closed
       to  fishing,  snapper  aggregate within  them,  forming  large
       resident  populations. Spiny rock  lobsters  (crayfish to  New
       Zealanders) do  the same. Their density inside  the reserve is
       about 15  times higher than  outside. Commercial crayfishermen
       have cashed  in on  the reserves  success because  the outward
       migration  of   crayfish—a  process  marine   biologists  call
       spillover—brings the crustaceans  to their pots, strategically
       placed just  outside the  boundary. These former  skeptics are
       now some  of the reserves staunchest  defenders. They refer to
       it  as our  reserve  and act  as  marine minutemen,  reporting
       poachers  and  boundary  cheats. ...  Reserves  where  fishing
       is  banned are  now  seen  as potential  stud  farms and  fish
       hatcheries, replenishing the surrounding seas. [^2]
    
    

[^1]: [http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-
resources/d...](http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-
resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf)

[^2]: [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-
coast/...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/warne-
text/2)

------
Htsthbjig
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
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-c...](http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-
can-elephants-survive-a-continued-ivory-trade-ban/)

------
tatterdemalion
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
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.

------
kolev
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.

------
bmh100
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.

------
zaroth
"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!

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

------
jccooper
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
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.

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

------
futbol4
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
No even close: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-
gang/pos...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-
gang/post/all-the-worlds-water-a-drop-in-earths-
bucket/2012/05/14/gIQAtowVPU_blog.html)

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

~~~
MrZongle2
...which then becomes, "oh, I didn't mean _these_ particular humans, try those
over _there_ ".

At some point, the NIMBY mindset comes into play.

------
rasz_pl
just nuke some land, worked great for wildlife in Cernobyl

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

no.

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

------
ilaksh
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
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.

~~~
ilaksh
Don't think I said that environments would be outside of nature. That's not
what I meant.

I wouldn't capitalize "nature". We are part of it, we can consciously direct
its evolution if we do it in a sophisticated enough way.

We are not separate from nature and we are not inferior to nature.

My point is that instead of sort of shutting down and reverting to feudalism
in the face of environmental challenges, we can continue to create a more
sophisticated technological system that integrates information about the
biosphere and continues to evolve it in new ways. My point is that humanity
should not worship untamed wilderness. Rather, we should continue to respect
the fragility and complexity of the biosphere, but still recognize our own
abilities and shape the universe.

------
monsterix
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
One way or the other, the solution goes through nuclear energy :)

~~~
monsterix
It actually does tie up all the parameters together: Evolution, Creation,
Destruction, Energy, Disorderliness etc. etc. :)

------
transfire
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.

~~~
ctdonath
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
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".

