OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb to Save Humankind?
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 01.26.06
Ten years ago I picked up a book called Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth by Williams E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel. A modest volume, but was to have far reaching implications for the future of mankind. In short, the authors suggested that if all humans were to realise the lifestyle enjoyed by those in ‘western’ countries, then we were grossly exceeding the capacity of the planet to sustain life. Indeed they concluded that if we 6 billion lived like westies then we would need another 3 to 5 more Earths. Many said “Don’t worry, science will find an answer.” And how right they were. Astronomers from 12 countries have just discovered another planet that “has several characteristics needed to support life” including a gravity like ours. And the great news is that its 5.5 times bigger than Earth. Woo hoo. Problem solved. But don’t buckle up for blast off just yet. It's a bit further away than the corner shop — 20,000 light years to be roughly precise. And remember to take a scarf and gloves, coz it’s minus 225oC (-337oF) on the surface. Given such hurdles, might we suggest simply taking care of this one precious planet that we do have. (If you want to learn more about eco-footprinting try a simple quiz here, here, or for a really quick one: here.)
Isn't it ironic how some people have dreams of terraforming Mars so we could someday migrate there and colonise it... while we seem to be doing a fairly proficient job of DE-terraforming our own planet!
just for scientific accuracy-- -225C is -337F not -437F, which would be just above absolute zero (it's -459F). it's not *that* cold.
Thanks Alex, I'm happy to yield to superior technological knowledge. My computer conversion program still shows -437oF. Oh well. But just checked a second translator and your correction is - correct. Mercy Bucket.
so true, so true. The damning fact isn't the amount of earth it would take to support the planet's current population as Westies. The damning fact is how long that fact has been around. Last I heard about that was 15 years ago... and not a dang thing has changed... Except economic growth... We'll see what happens with Lester's new book and the 2006 global risk report that was just released today citing that:
"Hydrocarbons drive the world economy. As demand grows, with economic growth in India and China in particular, there are fears that prices will rise and geopolitical competition to secure resources for future supply will sharpen. There is certainty that higher emissions will cause further environmental damage. The scenario is that of an oil price spike above US$ 80/bl in the short term, which has both a very high probability and a very severe impact."
Saddle up! Multiple countries in the big leagues are looking to expand, and there isn't enough resources to fuel all of the expansions at once. We, as a collective people, had a choice for awhile now... We consciously chose to ignore conservation, ...meaning that we chose, by default, the demise of our civilization. We deserve nothing less than extermination to the brink of extinction with our increasing threats to the earth with human-induced global climate change threatening to possibly release 10,000 billion tons of methane hydrates and acidifying the oceans, collapsing massive amounts of the cycle of life.
but then again... if you havn't seen this article from NewScientist, here's a brief glimpse:
"A controversial paper outling a motor, that would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds, is making waves in military & scientific circles... It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner..." - NS
Alas, by my calculations (and now we know they are susceptible to error) it would still take about 400 years to get to Ogle, even aboard the Millenium Falcon and its new Hyperdrive thingamee.
I'd like to say that this "eco-footprint" idea, while an interesting concept, is a bunch of crap. It's statistics seem to be drawn by comparing a suburban American wealthy family to a blighted family in a relatively unindustrialized nation -and then imposing population statistics with geography to further magnify those differences. Its completely unfair.
I live in Chicago where I bike to work, raise a good percentage of produce in my back yard, do not have any kids, live in a 100 year old house, plant only native species in my garden, avoid plastics, wear 70% second hand store clothing, and eat meat.
Because a huge majority of my life needs are used, or pre-exist, somehow my global footprint is bigger because I'm a westerner. It doesn't add up. I know folks who live in villlages in South America who have kids, burn rainforest woods to cook wild animals they've hunted, and throw all their trash in the river. They're not following any western model, but somehow their eco-footprint would be considered better than mine.
While I'll admit that not perfect, cities are more efficient than people give them credit for. They keep people out of the wild, economize land and food use extremely well, if done concientiously, will prevent people from having to waste fossil fuels, and best of all, cities allow a stronger social structure for positive change to occur. Something which never happens in the insular suburbs and countryside.
If I'm guilty for any eco-crime, its for having a computer. If you look at it hard enough, the electronics industry is equal to, if it doesn't surpass, the auto industry for serious detrimental global pollution.
To sum it up, the global footprint quiz that articles like these keep refering to is horribly, horribly flawed if not militantly over the edge. I'd like to see someone take a crack at creating a much more realistic version.