media release
Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
Contact:
Arne Mooers, (Vancouver resident), 778.782.3979, 604.818.1627 (cell), amooers@sfu.ca, skype: arnemooers
Carol Thorbes, PAMR, 778.782.3035, cthorbes@sfu.ca
Using scientific theories, toy ecosystem modeling and paleontological evidence as a crystal ball, 21 scientists, including one from Simon Fraser University, predict we’re on a much worse collision course with Mother Nature than currently thought.
In Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise spans a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careering towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.
Earth’s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climate's increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems’ growing connectedness and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.
Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.
“The last tipping point in Earth’s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state. Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That’s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year,” explains Arne Mooers. “Importantly, the planet is changing even faster now.”
The SFU professor of biodiversity is one of this paper’s authors. He stresses, “The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.
“Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there’s no going back. So, if a system switches to a new state because you’ve added lots of energy, even if you take out the new energy, it won’t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn’t have any memory of the old state.”
These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, such as climate change, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away.
This study concludes we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth’s surface or we won’t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse.
We’ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, making Earth increasingly susceptible to an environmental epidemic.
“In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren’t there,” says Mooers. “My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth’s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.”
— 30 —
Backgrounder: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
Coming from Chile, Canada, Finland, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States, the authors of this paper initially met at the University of California Berkeley in 2010 to hold a trans-disciplinary brainstorming session.
They reviewed scores of theoretical and conceptual bodies of work in various biological disciplines in search of new ways to cope with the historically unprecedented changes now occurring on Earth.
In the process they discovered that:
Human-generated pressures, known as global-scale forcing mechanisms, are modifying Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and climate so rapidly that they are likely forcing ecosystems and biodiversity to reach a critical threshold of existence in our lifetime.
“Global-scale forcing mechanisms today “include unprecedented rates and magnitudes of human population growth with attendant resource consumption, habitat transformation and fragmentation, energy production and consumption, and climate change,” says the study.
Human activity drives today’s global-scale forcing mechanisms more than ever before. As a result, the rate of climate change we are seeing now exceeds the rate that occurred during the extreme planetary state change that tipped Earth from being in a glacial to an interglacial state 12,000 years ago. You have to go back to the end of the cataclysmic falling star, which ended the age of dinosaurs, to find a previous precedent.
The exponentially increasing extinction of Earth’s current species, dominance of previously rare life forms and occurrence of extreme climate fluctuations parallel critical transitions that coincided with the last major planetary transition.
When these sorts of perturbations are mirrored in toy ecosystem models, they tip these systems quickly and irreversibly.
The authors recommend governments undertake five actions immediately if we are to have any hope of delaying or minimizing a planetary-state-shift. Arne Mooers, an SFU biodiversity professor and a co-author of this study, summarizes them as follows.
“Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It’s a very tall order.”
—30—

Ah, ... what does that first sentence mean, ... really??? Are optimal areas at higher density the $600/sf micro suites the Vancouver condo industries offers for sale? Who are the "folks" who must be made significantly poorer?
Regarding the recommendations
"Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly"
Any good ideas for that? I don´t know how that should be achieved. Birthcontrol would be the only human way.
"More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover"
That makes sense because the more dense the population the more effective is the supporting infrastructure. That was the theme of a Ted talk some time ago.
"Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term."
That means stopping the insanity of capitalism which can only survive if its products have a limited lifespan an must be replace as quickly as possible. This would be the simplest task i think. Governments would only have to have the necessary laws to force corporations to consider the environmental footprint in the prices of their products or to force them to recycle their products themselves without producing any trash at all. That is surely possible it´s only not economical in the current way of thinking. Currently the designers of products are motivated to do the exact opposite, design a product that lives only as long as legally necessary. In this question I am a great fan of Jaque Fresco and the venus project. He expresses exactly my thoughts. In some social questions I don´t agree with him or at least I hope it will not become as bad as he predicts.
"We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species." Food production is merely a question of energy and water. If you have enough energy and water you can grow plants in skyscrapers or under the earth. Water in itself is a question of energy too. We have more than enough water on the planet the question is only how to make it useable.
Under the bottom line we just have to stop the insanity that´s going on everywehere and start thinking and act (!) like rational beeings that we pretend to be.
Finally, we need to support a "gold rush" of mining operations in the asteroid belt & move all of our heavy industry off-planet, and set up lots of colonies in space. If we could move 1/3 - 1/2 the population off-planet comfortably with lots of resources, everone, incluiding the planet wins.
This is a great way forward because it is heroic in scale and inspirational in vision. Psychologically it's rewards will off set the resentment of inequality that will be created by any "short term" sacrifices.
Keep this idea alive!
Spread it around, make it a meme.
Read Arthur C. Clark's "The Fountians of Paradise"
For further relevant inspiration :( space elevator )
I'd like to know why the text I type in this box gets deleted when I click the mouse button. That is a far more serious situation than what some over funded climate change nutters have to say.
“Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly."
Now that's what I call jumping to a conclusion! People in Berkley, California ( where this study originates ) consume and waste orders of magnitudes more energy and resources than 90% of the rest of the world's people. They also pollute orders of magnitude more as well! Maybe they should do like Michael Jackson and "Start with the man in the mirror" and change their ways?
"More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover."
How many trees can I plant in the city?
How many square feet of gardens can I grow in a city?
How independent can I be from corporate/government control ( which these Berkley scientists represent ) if I have no way to produce my own livelihood? These Berkeley people are probably the same to call subsistence farmers in their own country "white trash".
"Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term."
Folks, forced, poor. Folks forced poor. Hmmm... well their plan is going well if we are poor enough in mind ( due to government schooling ) not to see that the agenda this study represents is just eugenics wrapped in environmental clothing.
Isn't it clever how they have replaced Catholic/Christian guilt with this new enviro-guilt?
"We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It’s a very tall order."
It's called Permaculture. Look it up! Yes it is a tall order for snobby Berkley types who probably never had to do a hard day's labor in their life and spend their time flying around in jets to conferences.
We need to call this out as pure emotional manipulation. Yes our environment needs to be taken better care of. That means shutting down the a-holes destroying it. Forcing poverty and strain on people already struggling will only make people more desperate to accept whatever control agenda these wads are really working on. Control freaks like these guys can't get enough. Dear control freaks, don't worry, the universe will go on just fine without you worrying about it!
Apparently they've never heard of video conferencing or Skype etc
Hypocrites ....
http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf
I take comfort in the vision of the Baha'i community of the world as one country, and am pleased to lend my shoulder the their efforts to build human reseources and community links through their programmes, although they are only able to shine a glimmer of possibility and like us all, have to shrug of the yoke of a presumptive right to material comforts.
We should not look upon these changes as punishment for environmental profligacy, but as an incentive to change the way we do life on the planet.
Funny that in this age of intellectual bankruptcy the free market is seen as an enemy of a healthy society. What most people don't realize about laissez-faire capitalism is that greed is counterbalanced by fear. And fear drives population down.
We could use a dose of fear right now.
Is this what you are trying to say?
Is this what you are trying to say?
“This is the voice of doom: The sky ids falling”
“What should we do?”
“Listen the yo-yo champ and go to the fox’s cave”
Well, those scientists are truly yo-yo champs
“This is the voice of doom: The sky ids falling”
“What should we do?”
“Listen the yo-yo champ and go to the fox’s cave”
Well, those scientists are truly yo-yo champs
Surely, no one today can determine the real effect of combined action of all the factors brough to the table by the current humanity development stage.
Things we may be certain of:
Consuming products as we do today is bad.
Producing meat food for 7 billion people as we do today is bad.
Producing veggie food for 7 billion people as we do today is bad.
Stopping technology investments and innovation just to stop these effects is worse.
What we need is to evolve our consciousness of all these causes and their effects, try to reduce them.
The planet won´t go back to a previous state, independent of any action.
Let´s use our brains. Find INNOVATIVE solutions to the problems our predecessors built.
The scientists are wrong in one thing. WE will collapse, not the planet. The planet will stay on its track with a new set of species.
There is a professor out of UBC looking into this issue as well. He states that we need to reconstruct our idea of Sustainability. He believes we won't go back to being cavemen without technology, nor will we continue on the path we're currently on of environmental destruction, but we need to find a balance. Our problem is we cannot, nor can the planet, sustain more human growth. Our consumption is too much, our population is too high, and the carrying capacity of Earth has been exceeded. We need to realize that economic growth is not a goal we should be striving for. Balance is key. Hopefully someone out there will put these words into action and accomplish something in regards to sustainability during our lifetime.
We deserve to be exterminated just for the fact that we ever could have had the arrogant idiocy to think and claim that we are the master of the natural world. As Oscar Wilde once said: “The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.” I do most eagerly agree that population growth must be drastically curtailed, I have been saying this for years, but humans made it a taboo to even suggest such a thing.
I might go down with everyone else, but what satisfaction I will experience seeing this miserable species being eaten up by the fires of hell along with its arrogant presumptions, exemplified by Eric’s comments, that scientists’ calculations are just emotional manipulation and fear tactics.
The planet will indeed go on as usual, developing yet another set of species, but what scientists are trying to bring to our attention to is that the conditions necessary for HUMAN life will cease and if we want to avert this cataclysm, we better stop breeding incessantly (in this capacity, we do resemble animals who are driven solely by instinct), stop our selfish drive sacrificing everything in the name of profit and start cooperating rather than competing as well as start having some Goddamn respect for the entire medium in which we live and which provides us with all the necessary ingredients that make life possible.
He said that whatever we do it is too late. The human race will become extinct in les than a hundred years
Of cours it is not going to be a certain Monday of October 2099...T has already begun..
The malthusianism has always advocated for reducing the population, returning it to a more sustainable level.
It seems like this is the only way for saving our Planet. Birth control, reduce by half, if not more, the population in a few decades to stop our frenetic race to chaos and destruction of our planet.
This sounds very much like a "final solution," as advocated in the last century for various segments of the population - in places like central Europe and Cambodia.
Why do I suspect that this "destroy the village to save it" mentality is very-well funded through corporate research grants, endorsed by powerful, wealthy individuals - who would never be subject to the horrors concealed under the dispassionate phrasing: "drastically lower our population, very quickly"?
My suggestion? It would be best to lead in the virtue of what one advocates through personal example.
Only a paradigm shift of personal and collective commitment to real change is needed. I’ve stated recently, along with others, that the US appears to be in the 4th stage of cancer while still stuffing it’s body with Big Macs for the cure.
• A question arises: What is the carrying capacity of the earth in the long term? This question brings up lots of interesting questions about who gets a house, swimming pool and car and who gets a yurt and goat? Of course it’s an absurd question to think about parceling out standards of living to make the utopian ideal. I’m guessing there’s going to be a lot of suffering before a new dawn of clarity comes.
When will these people learn that change is the only constant and we can't run around being constantly afraid of change. The current state of things is based largely on the current configuration of ocean basins and landmasses. That will not change appreciably for millions of years and so we can look forward, more or less, to reasonable stability, with punctuated periods of change as represented by the Medieval Warm Period and the last Little Ice Age - two periods that the climate alarmists seem determined to deny ever occurred. Apparently these folks didn't get the memo, though, because, contrary to alarmist dogma, they admit that normal, natural climate change can be both rapid and dramatic.
2) More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. [Are you willing to give up your home and move to a tiny urban apartment in a crime-ridden zone? I didn't think so - you want everyone else to do it, but not you. How do you plan to impose this requirement on us and will you join us?]
3) Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. [Again, lead the way, show us how you think we should live, do it for at least a decade then we will decide if we want to join you - but you're planning on imposing this on us, too, aren't you? Another case of "Do as we say, not as we do?"]
4) We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. [Doubt PETA and other "animal rights" groups will go for this because you're basically talking factory production of protein and they're already hardcore against this. Or are you planning to force us to all go vegan? Again, are you going to lead the way or just impose this on the rest of us?]
Pragmatic solutions are in experiment in different places worldwide, see : http://www.transitionnetwork.org/