If we cannot save the coral reefs, we will not save ourselves.
Working in proper harmony with and within nature, we humans are every bit as beautiful and wonderful as the most entrancing coral sea. Working under the influence of the testosterone storm, we are destructive and terrible.
No human technology compares to the magical living technology of the Great Barrier Reef. Soon now It will be dead
The first two pictures give some idea of the extent of the living Great Barrier Reef (Visible from space, it is 2300 kilometres long). The next two speak for themselves, although the green peace ad could be misleading. It is not coal per se that is killing the reef, it is the global warming brought about by burning fossil fuel. Coral can survive only within very limited temperature boundaries (ours are nowhere nearly as limited). Our addiction to fossil fuels means that the ph level of the oceans is changing drastically and very fast. Again, the corals have very limited tolerances to changing ph level and we are forcing them so fast that the corals have no chance to adapt.
These are the worst threats to coral reefs, but there are many more, all brought about by outrageous human stupidity: garbage, overfishing, over-exploitation for human recreation, poison, over fishing. We don't actually harvest coral, but we do harvest the fish that depend on them and that help to maintain a healthy balance in the reefs. Without fish predation, sponge (last picture) smoother the reefs.
So, yes, all the living reefs will be gone soon.
If we kill the greatest engineering feat of all, the coral reefs, all the magic of human science is empty hubris.
If this is the only way we can feed ourselves, are there too many of us wanting way too much?
The USA has lost a third of its topsoil over the last century. The loss is made up for with infusions of chemical fertilizers and biological engineering.
These pictures show the condition of the sea floor after the sweep of a bottom trawler: rich life before, death and destruction after.
This is a picture of beautifully managed modern agriculture. BUT the fertility of the soil will be eroding AND what about those thousands of fellow creatures who never see more than a few square metres of space before they are carried off to the factory slaughter house. This is all profoundly disrespectful of life.
It’s not just awful cruelty: it’s terrible disrespect for the contract that lends us life.
As an apex predator evolved for omnivorous predation, I am adapted to eat meat. Nature expects that much of me, but I think that I am also required to honour and respect that which sustains me.
More of us+more technology+new enabling technology=more CO2=disaster
I have been looking for a clear explanation for why, despite our growing understanding of the terrible risks involved, and our seemingly herculean efforts to green our energy consumption, our annual output of greenhouse gasses continues to rise. Our untrammelled population explosion is the root cause. Have a look at the World Population Clock: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ The second cause must be the increasing demand by the have-nots for the stuff the haves have. These travellers would, I am sure, prefer to travel in cars, even if it means waiting in a traffic jam.
The third cause must be the ongoing demand on the part of the haves for more stuff - more enabling technology. These add-ons mean new carbon emissions that probably pretty much cancel out the benefits of moving to renewable energy sources. Coming soon: the skies cluttered with robotic stuff. There is no excuse for this, but we will do it because we can, and maybe because we can't help ourselves.
Myth: Digital tech is wed to nature. How much coal do we burn to power our digital stuff? http://goo.gl/rrnvxG
Dreams of the Future: green the Sahara, forget about Mars.
The science of greening the Sahara is extremely complex. However, handled properly it should have wonderful outcomes for the biosphere. Greening mars would be a desperate act of end-game science. There is no planet B