Whatever we do is likely to lead to death on a scale that makes all previous wars, famines and disasters small. To continue business as usual will probably kill most of us during the century.
If circumstances were to conspire to cause a human die-back over this century, from our current population of 6.7 billion to a more sustainable 1 billion in 75 to 100 years, the excess death rate would at times exceed
200 million people per year, and would average about 100 million per year over the century. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for six years. Such a die-back would be like having ten World Wars raging on the planet simultaneously for the entire century.
Here's why I think Lovelock is an optimist:
We can adapt to climate change and this will allow us to make the best use of the refuge areas of the world that escape the worst heat and drought.
and,
During the global heating of the early Eocene, there appears to have been no great extinction of species and this may have been because life had time to migrate to the cooler regions near the Arctic and Antarctic and remain there until the planet cooled again. This may happen again and humans, animals and plants are already migrating.
Lovelock makes no mention of the speed of the change we are experiencing, which is far faster than any planetary event except for asteroid strikes. The
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), one of the most rapid and extreme (up to 6°C at high latitudes) global warming pulses recorded in geologic history, lasted around 20,000 years. In contrast, we could experience the same degree of warming over just 100 years --
200 times faster than the most intense thermal event in recent planetary history There is no chance whatsoever that plants and animals could migrate fast enough to stay in isothermal locations. Not all species would go extinct, of course, some small number of individuals who are lucky or live at the extreme cool edges of their range would be able to survive.
Unfortunately for humans, the lifeboat refuges Lovelock posits are nowhere near large enough, or well enough resourced, to support large numbers of us. The lifeboat analogy is even more appropriate because the potential for these areas to be swamped beyond their capacity by an influx of panicked refugees is very high.
IMO the best hope for humanity is to do what we have always done: adapt in place, strengthen our immediate communities, encourage the growth of wisdom in the old and young, and try to make sure every decision has a net positive outcome.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(291 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
