How To Save The Planet

[seafoid]

Not wanting to be pedantic here - but neither is an unrenewable or perched aquifer.  The withdrawal of water in both is happening at a rate that exceeds the renewing of the water source.  That's due to overuse - the same would happen to a river or a lake if you were withdrawing the water quicler than rainfall was replenishing it.

I think both are effectively unrenewable given the speed at which they being depleted. But it's just a language thing. The main point is that the depletion is not sustainable.   
That is not good news for global food security.

[Eamonnca1]

No, people in western cities manage to live in huge numbers in densely-packed urban areas without turning the environment into a Chinese-style hell-hole with unbreathable air. China is not an example of overpopulation, it's an example of lax environmental regulation.

Ah come down off your high horse Eamon. What do you do for the environment that the average Chinese person doesn't? Separate your rubbish and buy a few energy-saving light-bulbs? Do you think that's what's making the difference to air pollution?

China is a recently impoverished country with a massive population that has developed new found wealth from becoming the workshop of the world. We're all happy to buy up the cheap stuff that China exports to us, while complaining about the pollution it causes. The west even exports waste to China. And you can't really expect people who work 6 days a week for $200-$300 dollars a month(which is the lot of the average Chinese person) to give a sh!t about the environment.

You're right about the lax environmental regulation but at least in the west, people have the right to protest against the government putting the economy before the environment. Try that in Beijing and you'll be taken away for a couple of years of re-education.

Did you actually read what I wrote? It's got nothing to do with high horses or anything I'm doing personally. I said it's about government regulation. In the western world there are strict regulations about what you can kick out of the tailpipe or up a chimney. In China there isn't.

[omaghjoe]

I am actually talking about what is best for society/civilisation, which is actually what we are all really talking about isn't it? That we are destroying the planet in such a way that will lead to the collapse of human civilisation?
The planet will be here after we destroy ourselves if we do indeed do that, so if you are only talking about the planet dont worry, it will be fine, the question is: Will we be? isn't it?
Economic considerations are a huge part of that so to is sustainability on this planet to provide us with what we need.

Humans along with many other animals have always being changing nature, that is an undeniable fact. Nature usually suffers but has shown remarkable resilience to both bounce back and/or adapt sometimes we even come to celebrate the change as natural in itself. The blanket bogs in Ireland are a great example, completely man made and for the most part completely lacking any real biodiversity, however they are preserved by law.

The question of morality ( more ethics than morality I feel, but lets not split hairs) is entirely seperate, and one that will fall on deaf ears if the sustainability issue is not included. This is because morality of destroying nature will be balanced against the morality of not providing humans with their requirements for life. There will be only one winner in this case.
Other arguments in favour of preservation could include
- Physical Health (medicines, good clean unprocessed foods, clean air&water)
- Mental Health and Inspiration  (relaxation, new ideas etc you could perhaps even include "nature morality" here)
- Economic (tourism etc)

These arguments all have practical benefits to humans you will note, which as I stated at the outset is really what we are talking about.

The planet will still be here after we're gone Joe, but what will be left on it? Animals are becoming extinct at 1,000 - 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. Half of the rainforests are already gone and we're still destroying 1% per year. Most natural habitats are being destroyed by man. You say nature is resilient but where is the evidence of this resilience? All available evidence shows that nature is being obliterated and is proving about as resilient as Hiroshima was to the atomic bomb.

I don't think the debate should just focus on what's best for the human race, but you're right that there will only be one winner when the choices boil down to nature v economics. But we'll get our comeuppance for our selfishness. Our innovation won't save us with 99% of viable agricultural land already in use, and getting increasing yields from current land will require more fertilisers and damage to the soil. An increasing population and an increasingly damaged environment is a time-bomb waiting to go off. And when it does, who could say we won't deserve what we get?

A few examples of nature's resilience:
Angkor in modern day Cambodia, was the largest city on the planet only a 1000 years ago, it was completely reclaimed by the jungle.
Same thing happened Tikal on the Yucatan. Mass deforestation, urabnisation, and the most modern technology of the time used, all reclaimed in a few years by ainforest.
Same thing would happen to every city in the world if they were abandoned by humans it would take a little longer in non-tropical regions but it would still happen.
Even the preserved artificial blanket bogs in Ireland that have existed for 1000s of years would return to their natural environment if they were abandoned agriculturally.
Also the most severely polluted place on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone, nature has more or less retaken the area, albeit with high levels of radioactivity which are falling.
If the human population on earth took a massive hit or was wiped out nature would reclaim what we put here

On a side note the first 2 provide us with dramatic example of what happens when civilisations are not adaptable to change and continue with unsustainable methods. Their civilisation falls and the people revert to a more basic society but ultimately another civilisation either replaces it or a new one grows up from its ashes.

I did not say nature v economics. What I actually said was the morality of not destroying nature v not providing humans with their requirements for life and it was only in a response to the raising the issue of morality of destroying nature. That is what you will countered with by using the morality card. Or how about the morality of killing bears v mosquitoes both are dangerous pests to humans and neither endangered
I put forward a set of proposals for the argument for nature preservation that I believe are viable in my previous post.

I am confused, you say it is not about what is best for humans but you constantly referring to the doomsday scenario for humans.
Is your ultimate aim:
- To save the planet/mother nature - as stated earlier it is much more durable and resilient than humans, will most likely be fine and dandy - unless we manage to block out the sun
- Save all current species - not possible, evolution and natural selection will put paid to that anyway
- To save "important species" - Again mosquito v bear  scenario which is more important... probably the mosquito
- Have humans thriving on this planet in a happy and healthy way.

We have consistently provided innovation to overcome challenges in our civilisations and when civilisations have not been able to, society reverts to a more basic way of life for a while but ultimately comes back.
Is there a reason why you believe in this era of mass education and invention that we are on the verge of suddenly running out of innovation?

[seafoid]

I am actually talking about what is best for society/civilisation, which is actually what we are all really talking about isn't it? That we are destroying the planet in such a way that will lead to the collapse of human civilisation?
The planet will be here after we destroy ourselves if we do indeed do that, so if you are only talking about the planet dont worry, it will be fine, the question is: Will we be? isn't it?
Economic considerations are a huge part of that so to is sustainability on this planet to provide us with what we need.

Humans along with many other animals have always being changing nature, that is an undeniable fact. Nature usually suffers but has shown remarkable resilience to both bounce back and/or adapt sometimes we even come to celebrate the change as natural in itself. The blanket bogs in Ireland are a great example, completely man made and for the most part completely lacking any real biodiversity, however they are preserved by law.

The question of morality ( more ethics than morality I feel, but lets not split hairs) is entirely seperate, and one that will fall on deaf ears if the sustainability issue is not included. This is because morality of destroying nature will be balanced against the morality of not providing humans with their requirements for life. There will be only one winner in this case.
Other arguments in favour of preservation could include
- Physical Health (medicines, good clean unprocessed foods, clean air&water)
- Mental Health and Inspiration  (relaxation, new ideas etc you could perhaps even include "nature morality" here)
- Economic (tourism etc)

These arguments all have practical benefits to humans you will note, which as I stated at the outset is really what we are talking about.

The planet will still be here after we're gone Joe, but what will be left on it? Animals are becoming extinct at 1,000 - 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. Half of the rainforests are already gone and we're still destroying 1% per year. Most natural habitats are being destroyed by man. You say nature is resilient but where is the evidence of this resilience? All available evidence shows that nature is being obliterated and is proving about as resilient as Hiroshima was to the atomic bomb.

I don't think the debate should just focus on what's best for the human race, but you're right that there will only be one winner when the choices boil down to nature v economics. But we'll get our comeuppance for our selfishness. Our innovation won't save us with 99% of viable agricultural land already in use, and getting increasing yields from current land will require more fertilisers and damage to the soil. An increasing population and an increasingly damaged environment is a time-bomb waiting to go off. And when it does, who could say we won't deserve what we get?

A few examples of nature's resilience:
Angkor in modern day Cambodia, was the largest city on the planet only a 1000 years ago, it was completely reclaimed by the jungle.
Same thing happened Tikal on the Yucatan. Mass deforestation, urabnisation, and the most modern technology of the time used, all reclaimed in a few years by ainforest.
Same thing would happen to every city in the world if they were abandoned by humans it would take a little longer in non-tropical regions but it would still happen.
Even the preserved artificial blanket bogs in Ireland that have existed for 1000s of years would return to their natural environment if they were abandoned agriculturally.
Also the most severely polluted place on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone, nature has more or less retaken the area, albeit with high levels of radioactivity which are falling.
If the human population on earth took a massive hit or was wiped out nature would reclaim what we put here

On a side note the first 2 provide us with dramatic example of what happens when civilisations are not adaptable to change and continue with unsustainable methods. Their civilisation falls and the people revert to a more basic society but ultimately another civilisation either replaces it or a new one grows up from its ashes.

I did not say nature v economics. What I actually said was the morality of not destroying nature v not providing humans with their requirements for life and it was only in a response to the raising the issue of morality of destroying nature. That is what you will countered with by using the morality card. Or how about the morality of killing bears v mosquitoes both are dangerous pests to humans and neither endangered
I put forward a set of proposals for the argument for nature preservation that I believe are viable in my previous post.

I am confused, you say it is not about what is best for humans but you constantly referring to the doomsday scenario for humans.
Is your ultimate aim:
- To save the planet/mother nature - as stated earlier it is much more durable and resilient than humans, will most likely be fine and dandy - unless we manage to block out the sun
- Save all current species - not possible, evolution and natural selection will put paid to that anyway
- To save "important species" - Again mosquito v bear  scenario which is more important... probably the mosquito
- Have humans thriving on this planet in a happy and healthy way.

We have consistently provided innovation to overcome challenges in our civilisations and when civilisations have not been able to, society reverts to a more basic way of life for a while but ultimately comes back.
Is there a reason why you believe in this era of mass education and invention that we are on the verge of suddenly running out of innovation?

Tikal on the Yucatan was abandoned because the Mayan society there collapsed.
I think they ran out of food.
On Easter Island they cut down all the trees and the society collapsed.
Nature goes on but societies don't always make it.
Innovation is often overrated. We eat and drink mostly like people did 500 years ago. Milk, beef, fish - it's all dependent on nature and a stable climate.

[Eamonnca1]

Tikal on the Yucatan was abandoned because the Mayan society there collapsed.
I think they ran out of food.
On Easter Island they cut down all the trees and the society collapsed.
Nature goes on but societies don't always make it.
Innovation is often overrated. We eat and drink mostly like people did 500 years ago. Milk, beef, fish - it's all dependent on nature and a stable climate.

The thing about those civilisations is they were isolated communities from the rest of the world. What's different about today is we increasingly have a global civilisation. If one goes down, do we all go down? The biggest threats that I see (apart from the usual suspects like asteroid impacts):

• Global warming, rapid climate change and rising sea levels. (Go away, deniers. Don't divert this thread, there's another one somewhere else devoted to this topic.)
• A big solar eruption that wipes out the power grids that we've become so dependent on. We could live with that in pre-industrial times and would barely have noticed. Not anymore.
• It only takes one virus to evolve that has a long enough incubation period to spread to the ends of the earth within a few days via mass air travel before the symptoms appear, then we're in deep trouble.

[omaghjoe]

I am actually talking about what is best for society/civilisation, which is actually what we are all really talking about isn't it? That we are destroying the planet in such a way that will lead to the collapse of human civilisation?
The planet will be here after we destroy ourselves if we do indeed do that, so if you are only talking about the planet dont worry, it will be fine, the question is: Will we be? isn't it?
Economic considerations are a huge part of that so to is sustainability on this planet to provide us with what we need.

Humans along with many other animals have always being changing nature, that is an undeniable fact. Nature usually suffers but has shown remarkable resilience to both bounce back and/or adapt sometimes we even come to celebrate the change as natural in itself. The blanket bogs in Ireland are a great example, completely man made and for the most part completely lacking any real biodiversity, however they are preserved by law.

The question of morality ( more ethics than morality I feel, but lets not split hairs) is entirely seperate, and one that will fall on deaf ears if the sustainability issue is not included. This is because morality of destroying nature will be balanced against the morality of not providing humans with their requirements for life. There will be only one winner in this case.
Other arguments in favour of preservation could include
- Physical Health (medicines, good clean unprocessed foods, clean air&water)
- Mental Health and Inspiration  (relaxation, new ideas etc you could perhaps even include "nature morality" here)
- Economic (tourism etc)

These arguments all have practical benefits to humans you will note, which as I stated at the outset is really what we are talking about.

The planet will still be here after we're gone Joe, but what will be left on it? Animals are becoming extinct at 1,000 - 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. Half of the rainforests are already gone and we're still destroying 1% per year. Most natural habitats are being destroyed by man. You say nature is resilient but where is the evidence of this resilience? All available evidence shows that nature is being obliterated and is proving about as resilient as Hiroshima was to the atomic bomb.

I don't think the debate should just focus on what's best for the human race, but you're right that there will only be one winner when the choices boil down to nature v economics. But we'll get our comeuppance for our selfishness. Our innovation won't save us with 99% of viable agricultural land already in use, and getting increasing yields from current land will require more fertilisers and damage to the soil. An increasing population and an increasingly damaged environment is a time-bomb waiting to go off. And when it does, who could say we won't deserve what we get?

A few examples of nature's resilience:
Angkor in modern day Cambodia, was the largest city on the planet only a 1000 years ago, it was completely reclaimed by the jungle.
Same thing happened Tikal on the Yucatan. Mass deforestation, urabnisation, and the most modern technology of the time used, all reclaimed in a few years by ainforest.
Same thing would happen to every city in the world if they were abandoned by humans it would take a little longer in non-tropical regions but it would still happen.
Even the preserved artificial blanket bogs in Ireland that have existed for 1000s of years would return to their natural environment if they were abandoned agriculturally.
Also the most severely polluted place on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone, nature has more or less retaken the area, albeit with high levels of radioactivity which are falling.
If the human population on earth took a massive hit or was wiped out nature would reclaim what we put here

On a side note the first 2 provide us with dramatic example of what happens when civilisations are not adaptable to change and continue with unsustainable methods. Their civilisation falls and the people revert to a more basic society but ultimately another civilisation either replaces it or a new one grows up from its ashes.

I did not say nature v economics. What I actually said was the morality of not destroying nature v not providing humans with their requirements for life and it was only in a response to the raising the issue of morality of destroying nature. That is what you will countered with by using the morality card. Or how about the morality of killing bears v mosquitoes both are dangerous pests to humans and neither endangered
I put forward a set of proposals for the argument for nature preservation that I believe are viable in my previous post.

I am confused, you say it is not about what is best for humans but you constantly referring to the doomsday scenario for humans.
Is your ultimate aim:
- To save the planet/mother nature - as stated earlier it is much more durable and resilient than humans, will most likely be fine and dandy - unless we manage to block out the sun
- Save all current species - not possible, evolution and natural selection will put paid to that anyway
- To save "important species" - Again mosquito v bear  scenario which is more important... probably the mosquito
- Have humans thriving on this planet in a happy and healthy way.

We have consistently provided innovation to overcome challenges in our civilisations and when civilisations have not been able to, society reverts to a more basic way of life for a while but ultimately comes back.
Is there a reason why you believe in this era of mass education and invention that we are on the verge of suddenly running out of innovation?

Tikal on the Yucatan was abandoned because the Mayan society there collapsed.
I think they ran out of food.
On Easter Island they cut down all the trees and the society collapsed.
Nature goes on but societies don't always make it.
Innovation is often overrated. We eat and drink mostly like people did 500 years ago. Milk, beef, fish - it's all dependent on nature and a stable climate.

Seafoid, in terms of food production alone human innovation has had a tremendous impact.
Irrigation, animal husbandry, cultivation, mechanisation have all helped to provide a massive increase in food production and dramatically reduced any impact of climate change on food production.

[seafoid]

I am actually talking about what is best for society/civilisation, which is actually what we are all really talking about isn't it? That we are destroying the planet in such a way that will lead to the collapse of human civilisation?
The planet will be here after we destroy ourselves if we do indeed do that, so if you are only talking about the planet dont worry, it will be fine, the question is: Will we be? isn't it?
Economic considerations are a huge part of that so to is sustainability on this planet to provide us with what we need.

Humans along with many other animals have always being changing nature, that is an undeniable fact. Nature usually suffers but has shown remarkable resilience to both bounce back and/or adapt sometimes we even come to celebrate the change as natural in itself. The blanket bogs in Ireland are a great example, completely man made and for the most part completely lacking any real biodiversity, however they are preserved by law.

The question of morality ( more ethics than morality I feel, but lets not split hairs) is entirely seperate, and one that will fall on deaf ears if the sustainability issue is not included. This is because morality of destroying nature will be balanced against the morality of not providing humans with their requirements for life. There will be only one winner in this case.
Other arguments in favour of preservation could include
- Physical Health (medicines, good clean unprocessed foods, clean air&water)
- Mental Health and Inspiration  (relaxation, new ideas etc you could perhaps even include "nature morality" here)
- Economic (tourism etc)

These arguments all have practical benefits to humans you will note, which as I stated at the outset is really what we are talking about.

The planet will still be here after we're gone Joe, but what will be left on it? Animals are becoming extinct at 1,000 - 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. Half of the rainforests are already gone and we're still destroying 1% per year. Most natural habitats are being destroyed by man. You say nature is resilient but where is the evidence of this resilience? All available evidence shows that nature is being obliterated and is proving about as resilient as Hiroshima was to the atomic bomb.

I don't think the debate should just focus on what's best for the human race, but you're right that there will only be one winner when the choices boil down to nature v economics. But we'll get our comeuppance for our selfishness. Our innovation won't save us with 99% of viable agricultural land already in use, and getting increasing yields from current land will require more fertilisers and damage to the soil. An increasing population and an increasingly damaged environment is a time-bomb waiting to go off. And when it does, who could say we won't deserve what we get?

A few examples of nature's resilience:
Angkor in modern day Cambodia, was the largest city on the planet only a 1000 years ago, it was completely reclaimed by the jungle.
Same thing happened Tikal on the Yucatan. Mass deforestation, urabnisation, and the most modern technology of the time used, all reclaimed in a few years by ainforest.
Same thing would happen to every city in the world if they were abandoned by humans it would take a little longer in non-tropical regions but it would still happen.
Even the preserved artificial blanket bogs in Ireland that have existed for 1000s of years would return to their natural environment if they were abandoned agriculturally.
Also the most severely polluted place on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone, nature has more or less retaken the area, albeit with high levels of radioactivity which are falling.
If the human population on earth took a massive hit or was wiped out nature would reclaim what we put here

On a side note the first 2 provide us with dramatic example of what happens when civilisations are not adaptable to change and continue with unsustainable methods. Their civilisation falls and the people revert to a more basic society but ultimately another civilisation either replaces it or a new one grows up from its ashes.

I did not say nature v economics. What I actually said was the morality of not destroying nature v not providing humans with their requirements for life and it was only in a response to the raising the issue of morality of destroying nature. That is what you will countered with by using the morality card. Or how about the morality of killing bears v mosquitoes both are dangerous pests to humans and neither endangered
I put forward a set of proposals for the argument for nature preservation that I believe are viable in my previous post.

I am confused, you say it is not about what is best for humans but you constantly referring to the doomsday scenario for humans.
Is your ultimate aim:
- To save the planet/mother nature - as stated earlier it is much more durable and resilient than humans, will most likely be fine and dandy - unless we manage to block out the sun
- Save all current species - not possible, evolution and natural selection will put paid to that anyway
- To save "important species" - Again mosquito v bear  scenario which is more important... probably the mosquito
- Have humans thriving on this planet in a happy and healthy way.

We have consistently provided innovation to overcome challenges in our civilisations and when civilisations have not been able to, society reverts to a more basic way of life for a while but ultimately comes back.
Is there a reason why you believe in this era of mass education and invention that we are on the verge of suddenly running out of innovation?

Tikal on the Yucatan was abandoned because the Mayan society there collapsed.
I think they ran out of food.
On Easter Island they cut down all the trees and the society collapsed.
Nature goes on but societies don't always make it.
Innovation is often overrated. We eat and drink mostly like people did 500 years ago. Milk, beef, fish - it's all dependent on nature and a stable climate.

Seafoid, in terms of food production alone human innovation has had a tremendous impact.
Irrigation, animal husbandry, cultivation, mechanisation have all helped to provide a massive increase in food production and dramatically reduced any impact of climate change on food production.

There has been a lot of innovation particularly in irrigation and fertilszer use but for every step forward the global population has increased.
And a lot of technological improvements bring problems that we don't ever think about in a systematic way. Fertilsier run ofdf ends up in the seas and causes algal bloom. Petrol use leads to increases in global temperatures.

Food margins are very thin and they broke down in 2008 and 2011 when the price of food soared

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

Climate change is going to hit food production hard. There will be more droughts and more flooding.
And it's going to mean a lot of people have to get by with less food. So there will be political instability.
And I don't expect a technological fix.

[omaghjoe]

I am actually talking about what is best for society/civilisation, which is actually what we are all really talking about isn't it? That we are destroying the planet in such a way that will lead to the collapse of human civilisation?
The planet will be here after we destroy ourselves if we do indeed do that, so if you are only talking about the planet dont worry, it will be fine, the question is: Will we be? isn't it?
Economic considerations are a huge part of that so to is sustainability on this planet to provide us with what we need.

Humans along with many other animals have always being changing nature, that is an undeniable fact. Nature usually suffers but has shown remarkable resilience to both bounce back and/or adapt sometimes we even come to celebrate the change as natural in itself. The blanket bogs in Ireland are a great example, completely man made and for the most part completely lacking any real biodiversity, however they are preserved by law.

The question of morality ( more ethics than morality I feel, but lets not split hairs) is entirely seperate, and one that will fall on deaf ears if the sustainability issue is not included. This is because morality of destroying nature will be balanced against the morality of not providing humans with their requirements for life. There will be only one winner in this case.
Other arguments in favour of preservation could include
- Physical Health (medicines, good clean unprocessed foods, clean air&water)
- Mental Health and Inspiration  (relaxation, new ideas etc you could perhaps even include "nature morality" here)
- Economic (tourism etc)

These arguments all have practical benefits to humans you will note, which as I stated at the outset is really what we are talking about.

The planet will still be here after we're gone Joe, but what will be left on it? Animals are becoming extinct at 1,000 - 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. Half of the rainforests are already gone and we're still destroying 1% per year. Most natural habitats are being destroyed by man. You say nature is resilient but where is the evidence of this resilience? All available evidence shows that nature is being obliterated and is proving about as resilient as Hiroshima was to the atomic bomb.

I don't think the debate should just focus on what's best for the human race, but you're right that there will only be one winner when the choices boil down to nature v economics. But we'll get our comeuppance for our selfishness. Our innovation won't save us with 99% of viable agricultural land already in use, and getting increasing yields from current land will require more fertilisers and damage to the soil. An increasing population and an increasingly damaged environment is a time-bomb waiting to go off. And when it does, who could say we won't deserve what we get?

A few examples of nature's resilience:
Angkor in modern day Cambodia, was the largest city on the planet only a 1000 years ago, it was completely reclaimed by the jungle.
Same thing happened Tikal on the Yucatan. Mass deforestation, urabnisation, and the most modern technology of the time used, all reclaimed in a few years by ainforest.
Same thing would happen to every city in the world if they were abandoned by humans it would take a little longer in non-tropical regions but it would still happen.
Even the preserved artificial blanket bogs in Ireland that have existed for 1000s of years would return to their natural environment if they were abandoned agriculturally.
Also the most severely polluted place on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone, nature has more or less retaken the area, albeit with high levels of radioactivity which are falling.
If the human population on earth took a massive hit or was wiped out nature would reclaim what we put here

On a side note the first 2 provide us with dramatic example of what happens when civilisations are not adaptable to change and continue with unsustainable methods. Their civilisation falls and the people revert to a more basic society but ultimately another civilisation either replaces it or a new one grows up from its ashes.

I did not say nature v economics. What I actually said was the morality of not destroying nature v not providing humans with their requirements for life and it was only in a response to the raising the issue of morality of destroying nature. That is what you will countered with by using the morality card. Or how about the morality of killing bears v mosquitoes both are dangerous pests to humans and neither endangered
I put forward a set of proposals for the argument for nature preservation that I believe are viable in my previous post.

I am confused, you say it is not about what is best for humans but you constantly referring to the doomsday scenario for humans.
Is your ultimate aim:
- To save the planet/mother nature - as stated earlier it is much more durable and resilient than humans, will most likely be fine and dandy - unless we manage to block out the sun
- Save all current species - not possible, evolution and natural selection will put paid to that anyway
- To save "important species" - Again mosquito v bear  scenario which is more important... probably the mosquito
- Have humans thriving on this planet in a happy and healthy way.

We have consistently provided innovation to overcome challenges in our civilisations and when civilisations have not been able to, society reverts to a more basic way of life for a while but ultimately comes back.
Is there a reason why you believe in this era of mass education and invention that we are on the verge of suddenly running out of innovation?

Tikal on the Yucatan was abandoned because the Mayan society there collapsed.
I think they ran out of food.
On Easter Island they cut down all the trees and the society collapsed.
Nature goes on but societies don't always make it.
Innovation is often overrated. We eat and drink mostly like people did 500 years ago. Milk, beef, fish - it's all dependent on nature and a stable climate.

Seafoid, in terms of food production alone human innovation has had a tremendous impact.
Irrigation, animal husbandry, cultivation, mechanisation have all helped to provide a massive increase in food production and dramatically reduced any impact of climate change on food production.

There has been a lot of innovation particularly in irrigation and fertilszer use but for every step forward the global population has increased.
And a lot of technological improvements bring problems that we don't ever think about in a systematic way. Fertilsier run ofdf ends up in the seas and causes algal bloom. Petrol use leads to increases in global temperatures.

Food margins are very thin and they broke down in 2008 and 2011 when the price of food soared

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

Climate change is going to hit food production hard. There will be more droughts and more flooding.
And it's going to mean a lot of people have to get by with less food. So there will be political instability.
And I don't expect a technological fix.

The increases in food production have been matching world population, they are not dictated to by food production capacity rather they are dictated by market demand.
Food production is not running anywhere near its capacity, you only have to examine the amount of land that food producers are being paid to set aside. 
The market's driving force is population size and what they want, food producers will match that demand as in any market arrangement.
What happened in 2008 was an increase in production costs and a change in demand from the markets particularly in Asia where an increasing affluent demographic wanted greater variety.There was easily enough food capacity to feed the world

As I asked a previous poster where is the evidence that we are on the verge of running out of ideas in an era of mass education and invention?
What evidence is there that food production has reached capacity when there is land lying ideal and new technologies waiting in the wings to further increase supply such as GM crops, and livestock cloning?

Viewing the future from our curent standpoint can often be intimidating but history tells us that are our society evolves to meet the demands.

[seafoid]

What evidence is there that food production has reached capacity when there is land lying ideal and new technologies waiting in the wings to further increase supply such as GM crops, and livestock cloning?


All the marginal land that is being taken into the production system, the desertification in Africa and Asia, the limitations on yield growth in wheat in Europe, the initial impact of climate change, the spread of disease like the Roya fungus, also climate related (40% of coffee in a few Central American countries wiped out in 2013.)
The changes in Asian diet as people get more prosperous is a key influence. The Amazon is being cleared to grow soya to feed pigs in China and for cheap beef for the rest of the world.
   

[omaghjoe]

Food production levels are not at capacity or anywhere near it, what you have listed are things that in theory could lead to changes in capacity, they are not indicators.

Desertification is not an indication of food capacity dropping, it is an indication of desertification.

Climate change is an indication of climate change not a drop in food capacity.

Temporary dips in supply of certain types of foods are not an indication of reaching food production capacity.

What happens is price increase and this dents demand consumers revert to a different food type until supply increases lowering prices and consumer demand returns to normal. Diseases such that you mentioned can be controlled by modifying agricultural methods such as blight in out own country.

The customer demands of food are changing it is also not an indicator of reaching food capacity, it is a case of markets and producer adjusting to meet these demands.

As I asked before how can we be at capacity when huge swaths of land lie idle? They lie idle because we would produce too much food driving prices down and many food producers out of business. The market will tell us if we reached food capacity by driving the food price index up for a sustained period not theoretical root causes, even then consumers are likely to adapt with new diets based on the cheaper foods.

[seafoid]

Food production levels are not at capacity or anywhere near it, what you have listed are things that in theory could lead to changes in capacity, they are not indicators.

Desertification is not an indication of food capacity dropping, it is an indication of desertification.

Climate change is an indication of climate change not a drop in food capacity.

Temporary dips in supply of certain types of foods are not an indication of reaching food production capacity.

What happens is price increase and this dents demand consumers revert to a different food type until supply increases lowering prices and consumer demand returns to normal. Diseases such that you mentioned can be controlled by modifying agricultural methods such as blight in out own country.

The customer demands of food are changing it is also not an indicator of reaching food capacity, it is a case of markets and producer adjusting to meet these demands.

As I asked before how can we be at capacity when huge swaths of land lie idle? They lie idle because we would produce too much food driving prices down and many food producers out of business. The market will tell us if we reached food capacity by driving the food price index up for a sustained period not theoretical root causes, even then consumers are likely to adapt with new diets based on the cheaper foods.

Go on then Joe. Show us where all the idle land is.

And customer demand changing may be an indicator of capacity when you think of how many kgs of grain are required to produce 1 kg of beef. It takes up to 13 kg of grain to produce just 1 kg of beef, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 kg of wild-caught fish to produce 1 kg of farmed fish flesh.

Or how many fish species are under threat of extinction. Or can we invent an app to stop that ?
If desertification destroys what previously was food producing land I think your argument is weakened.

[omaghjoe]

I pretty sure USA idles about 10% of arable cropland.
The official reason given by the government is sustainability but the real reason is to reduce the amount of food produced to avoid a glut and its consequences like I mentioned previously.
It is also used as a diplomatic weapon in trade negotiations. Basically a nuclear option saying we can flood the global crop markets with cheap food forcing your producer out of business if you don't meet our demands.

The EU does the same thing, not sure on the amount of arable land that lays idle but I sure you can find data on it somewhere if your really interested.

Inventing an app to produce more fish would not work, software and electronic technology is unrelated to food production.
Anyway I though farmed fish were fed crop based feed not other fish?

[omaghjoe]

If desertification destroys what previously was food producing land I think your argument is weakened.

Yes IF
However IF farmers adapt to climate change and increased demand and produce more food than your argument will be weakened.

[ONeill]

For starters, who here eats eels? Rakes of them here and no one eating them.

[muppet]

For starters, who here eats eels? Rakes of them here and no one eating them.

What would the wimmin (and Bono) stand on then?