Bernie Masters,

Could you quantify "Vast regions of the Antartic, inland Australia, northern Canada and Siberia" that you say "are largely devoid of human interference"?

It still seem to me that these "vast regions" still only comprise well under half the world's land mass.

As to our marine environment, much of it is, indeed, and has been for millions of years, relatively devoid of life. Areas of biodiversity such as the Great Barrier Reef or those other parts of the oceans which are (or were) teeming with fish, whilst comprising a relatively small part of the marine environment, is nevertheless, indispensible for the health of the planet.

The evidence is conclusive that the parts which are important for the planet's health have clearly been seriously degraded by human activities. If this is not stopped, we won't all be able to move into the deserts, Siberia or Northern Canada (even if the latter were to become more hospitable as a result of global warming) and there is no way that the ecological services provided by rainforests and other biologically diverse wilderness regions can possibly be provided, instead, by deserts and Arctic Tundra.

Bernie Masters, there might be reason for a quibble or two about some of the detail in the article, though hardly in regard to the concern underlying its general thrust.
There is every reason to take issue with your statement that the deep oceans are left untouched.
There are many with scientific credentials specifically related to the oceans who take a vastly different view from yours.
Tony Koslow is one of them. He is regarded as one of the world's leading deep-sea ecologists. An interesting book of his, on this subject, came out earlier this year: The Silent Deep from UNSW Press. ISBN 978 0 86840 4158 . The more we find out about the deep ocean the more concern is raised.

Dozer,

Glad to see that someone else out there doesn't dismiss out of hand the concept of human expansion into space. Realistically, I don't hold out much hope that it will happen. The remote hope for the successful human colonisation of space should definitely not be held out as a reason for us not to confront the serious ecological challenges of today, in particular, over-population.

---

I would be one who would find it hugely difficult to change to a hunter-gatherer existence. Neverhtheless, as I wrote, I think it is the most likely long-term outcome for humankind.

---

I completely concur with Divergence's arguments in regard to the relative human footprints in Australia, the US, Europe and the Third World.

Reply to Horus Friday, 2 November 2007 7:23:23 PM Kanga, on land-tenure systems:

This is a complex area, but, If you go to http://candobetter.org/sheila/ there are a number of papers which refer to this matter, but for a comprehensive but brief overview of systems click on "Submission to Victorian Government Housing Affordability Inquiry, Oct 2003."

The post revolution Napoleonic system of France and Western Continental Europe is infinitely superior to our British adapted one. It has a greater balance towards the commons, guarantees housing to citizens and anyone with a right to work or reside in the country, (but costs this impact of immigration, which in Australia was obscured and is now pushed as an inevitable cost which we all must pay for). Because of this proper costing of population impact EU countries were able to stop population growth and curb emissions and fuel use from the first oil-shock. They also avoided the debts which the anglophone settler states incurred.

Under the Napoleonic system children cannot be disinherited.and inheritance devolves back to the grandparents and clan where no children exist. This favorises local interests and control over local resources.

Contrastingly Britain was known from the 13th century as a country of disinherited children due to primogeniture of male lineage. This feature of the Salic Law which the Normans exploited, eventually resulted in the creation and maintenance of a large pool of dispossessed people who had nothing but their labour. (Remember Puss in Boots?) These classes in the British Isles who were kept alive through the dole (from the 13th C) which increased if they had children. They were compelled to work for any landowner. When they rebelled (Wat Tyler) they were hidiously suppressed. Such a system trends towards major aggregation of private land and the development of the corporate system. With nothing to control speculation and profits, and with the corporatisation of government which has occurred, malignant growth as an ethic and profits trump environmental sanity and democracy.

Reply to Bernie Masters

Strictly or literally speaking I should have said that humans use most of the arable and accessible land on the planet. They also harvest from areas which they cannot actually inhabit in great numbers and use the products of those areas to fuel the giant metropolises, rural production, and other heat creating overactivity.

Each human (on average) occupies a great deal more territory and has much more impact than they would if they were living outside of a fossil-fuel powered and sculpted materials-charged prosthetic system. You don't have to build a house in Antarctica to impact on it.

The earth is occupied by species in densities which reflect climate, soil fertility, water and terrain. Human distribution reflects those constraints too but we harvest from everywhere we can get a foothold and our impact is perceptible in every place on earth that soil, a plastic bag, or toilet paper can blow to. Our species overwhelms other species in competition for the best spots and we overdevelop them.

Our capacity to use up food sources, deforest, destroy soil, and streamline natural systems (like the Missisipi in New Orleans) and silt up coastlines has been known since antiquity. [Perlin,<em> A Forest Journey</em>, 2005; Montgomery, <em>Dirt</em>, 2007]

We now compete on an industrial globalised scale with other creatures for food and building materials. We are now outfishing at a global level [<em>Happy Feet</em>]and rapidly altering inter-related ecosystems upon which our own survival and that of other species populations depends.

Sheila N
aka Kanga

So sad that the essential and hugely significant premise within this fine article has been entirely missed by the bulk of the resident intellects on this forum. On cue they have all reflexively rushed to peck at their favorite shiny things like a flock of myopic magpies.

This premise is that a sound and overwhelming scientific reason explains why life in its wild, natural formation should (must) be preserved unmitigated and in abundance. This reason is that life, and life alone, re-orders energy (and thus materials) on the planet in a way that fully supports life.

Life is a self-sustaining function. Humanity is a component part of that function and is necessarily a victim of any demise in its overall breadth or quality. Given humanity’s elevated position in the food chain, it is an early victim, compared to bacteria, cockroaches, etc. This vulnerability is masked by synthetic systems fed by fossil fuel, but that dependency is an immensely precarious one.

Stripping the capacity of biodiversity to regenerate and evolve itself, and thus its ability to capture, store and transmit solar energy throughout planetary bio-physical functions, is like taking bulldozer’s to a nation’s vital grid infrastructure. The living structures can re-grow over millennia if left partly intact, or over eons if severely diminished, but what a terrible set-back to life’s real progress, AND humanity’s real immediate needs. Those who think that putting nature above temporal human fascination is somehow a miserable act need to have a very deep look within themselves. In fact, what they are advocating is supremely miserable in its inevitable and tragically destructive effect.

Humanity is part of the natural world, but that pedigree does not enable humanity to act in discord with the physical laws of that world and not bear the consequences of that discord.

The sublime product of the author’s premise is that is allows discussion of nature conservation, and population impacts upon it, to transcend the bog of relative social values and be guided by an imperative revealed within an overarching scientific principle.