I think we've done this to a certain extent, but the difference is that we are smart enough to predict carrying capacity and what to do to keep people alive and living well. The question really remains whether or not we'll do those things. I remember in the 80s people wondered if the eco-balance was on the tipping point. Today people are asking the same questions. There's a point where, if we go too far, the system won't be able to recover itself.
In the case of the reindeer, there was the unfortunate fact that the only male was infertile. If he hadn't have been I'm sure that system, as unnatural as it was, would have reached a balance point as well.
I've gone back and forth over the years on how I feel about different things. I'm against unnecessary government regulation, but the struggle comes in deciding what's necessary and what isn't. A current example is the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. I feel like the market has been doing a really good job of innovating, which has encouraged a lot of people to switch to cfls, so why ban incandescent bulbs? There are situations where they are a smarter choice. They give off the most accurate light spectrum and represent color the best, and for some instances that's really important.
The carrying capacity of Earth has always increased with better technology. We've been able to produce more with less. The transition to doing this same thing without the use of petroleum products won't be that difficult. There's plenty of arable land that we aren't using that could be used with almost no impact to the natural environment (because we already destroyed it in these locations). The global warming debate isn't over yet either. I'm certain (as a person can be) that we've had an impact on the environment, but I also have reason to believe that it's less dramatic than many of the scientists have claimed over the past 5 or so years.
This, pretty much. Yes, we have increased our consumption pretty consistently over the years, but we have increased the efficiency of creating those consumables even more. Heck, just look at the difference in the amount of energy and resources it took to move cargo from the east to west coast of the US just 150 years ago vs now. I also hold out hope that we'll eventually get our buts off this rock and find resources elsewhere in our solar neighborhood before we can't afford the resources to reach them. ...though that's gonna require either some really rich people backing it or the general public pulling their heads out of their collective...ah, but I digress. I've ranted enough about public space exploration policy elsewhere.
TBCS 5TB Club :: coilgun :: bench PSU :: mightyMite :: Zeus :: E15 Magna EVThat we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.
--Benjamin Franklin
what a shame reindeer can't grow crops
Can't grow crops when a lot of the genetically engineered crop is depleting more minerals than we can replace with proper crop rotation. Check out the farmers committing suicide in India after growing some of the new super crop that was supposed to be so fantastic.
GM is meaningless without good farming practices. Like a Ferrari is meaningless without petrol.
People want an easy answer. Well-engineered (and I stress that part) crops are only a part of that puzzle, but a very significiant one.
I don't think we should be meddling with it at all in my eyes, you start with engineering it and then it could mutate out of control. We as a people need to stop living grossly outside our means on all fronts, economically and globally but that's just my two pennies
Food today would be drastically different without GE.
We have been selective breeding since we started domesticating anything. There is barely a crop grown in the developed world today we haven't 'meddled' with.
Whilst I agree that the devloped world really needs to cut down on waste, I think it's offensive to suggest that the developing world should 'go swing' - my perspective is that it's them that really need the GM crops, not us!
Doesn't necessarily mean better or worse
Selective breeding, and going in and chopping it up in a laboratory and adding things to it that may have never been there through cross pollination is something different. I am not sure what your "go swing" comment means but never once did I say the developing world should just suffer while the rest of us are comfortable. Not once did I say anyone should suffer for that matter do I come off that sadistic? At any rate most of what we do to try and provide food clothing and shelter seems to be retroactive to the populations gluttonous use of resources, want an example of that childhood obesity. In combination with most kids not going out and playing and the availability of gluttonous junk we have a health problem that had never even existed 30 years ago.