Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <26500101@inmet>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 16:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.26500101
Posted: Mon Sep 22 16:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 21:48:47 EDT
References: <26500079@inmet>
Lines: 47
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:26500079:inmet:26500101:000:2333
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 22 16:35:00 1986


>[Bob Hartman, quoted by Richard Carnes]
>>The premise is wrong: human population does not loom as large
>>vis-a-vis the rest of creation as some of its members believe. If
>>all the 5 billion of us were drowned in the Great Lakes, how much
>>would the water level rise? A fraction of an inch.

>This is true, but it's an improper measure.  It's not the combined
>volume of our bodies, but annual volume of food, fiber and fuel we
>consume that are the limiting factors, along with the capacity of the
>ecosystem to recycle our byproducts.

I was answering an assertion that, by multiplying, we are  crowd-
ing out "the rest of creation". The volume of our bodies *is* ap-
propriate to compare with the volume of other things in nature  -
which  includes the Great Lakes. The amount of stuff we *process*
is another measure; it can be compared to  the  amount  of  stuff
moving  about in nature. The answer would be the same - we are as
yet a (physically) minor effect in creation. We are not  crowding
out the Gulf Stream or the monsoons, we have no influence on vol-
canoes and earthquakes - and all of *these*  are  merely  surface
phenomena on one planet.

As to the "capacity of the ecosystem to recycle our byproducts" -
we are increasingly recycling them ourselves.

But if an ecosystem cannot recycle something - then it *changes*.
So what? Coral reefs aren't recycled - they grow. Why should
humans deny humans what nature allows to polyps?

And if eventually we become a *major* factor in the evolution  of
species  - what is wrong with that? All air-breathing vertebrates
are apparently descended from one fish species.   If,  some  day,
most  of them are descended either from humans or from human-bred
animals - need we wring our hands in advance? Maybe the change is
for the better - whatever *that* means...

No one can predict ecological changes with any accuracy. If some-
one wants to disprove that, all they have to do is to establish
a record of accurate long-term predictions. Failing that,  acting
on  some phony predictions would be folly. All we can do is react
to the situation as it changes. To be able to do so, we need  not
(necessarily)  more untouched nature, but (certainly) more sci-
ence and technology, more energy, greater  information-processing
capacity, a greater surplus GNP.

		Jan Wasilewsky