Feb 1 2013: I think that came from the heart, or at least the experiences of 10 years as a model whatever they may be. As with so many talks it is not a scientist that is speaking and that makes it all the more easy to relate to.
Feb 20 2012: Of course Earth is still here, with us... having come back from every single catastrophe.
Homeostasis as is referred to in the video. Us however, like the algae in the video we use the nutrients and face the odds. Increases in efficiency will only delay this, if the same consumption patterns and processes are kept in place. One caveat is the so called demographic shift where the birth rate of countries decreases as the living conditions and well being of their inhabitants increases.
Now, having said that the vast majority of people, more than 4 billion have not gone through this transition, hence their rates of multiplication are high and exacerbate the problem of resource or nutrient depletion. This places us in the following conundrum, in order to control population growth by lowering population increase rates we have to raise standards of living, and this of course requires that an unbearable burden to the planet's resources if all of us are to live like Europeans do, let alone the Americans...
Finally, contrary to the video we can use something outside the petri dish, namely solar energy instead of the closed system's nutrients.
Of course as is the case often, this is more easily said than done...so all bets are off as to how this plays out...
Feb 20 2012: While the scale of the process is small as some argue does this make it inconsequential to the people?
At the end of the day this is what counts, in Canada or in California or anywhere.
The way some viewer's comments are constructed comes across as a portrayal of the environment as stuff that are out there. But aren't we living in it? or for that matter the indigenous people of Canada?
So what is our answer to them? that tar sands is small operation in scale compared to what?
Anyone having a good answer should go and live next to them then.
Feb 20 2012: While the scale of the process is as you say small, is it inconsequential to the people? you don't answer this. at the end of the day this is what counts, in Canada or in California. The way you construct your argument comes across as a conceptualising the environment as stuff that are out there. But aren't we living in it? or for that matter the indigenous people of Canada?
is this your answer to them? that tar sands is small in scale?
Won't you go and live next to them then.
Feb 20 2012: My answer is yes, irrespective of how you define crash, a sudden change, or otherwise. I could just point to limits to growth book, but it's basic thermodynamics. Collapse will happen once the energy flows that sustain the considerably complex human structures stop, or when the climate system driven by energy flows shifts to a new dynamic equilibrium as has done so many times in the past in our planet and in others. A subsequent question you might want to ask is the extent to which humans drive this process.
TEDCred score: +0.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Cameron Russell: Looks aren't everything. Believe me, I'm a model.
A reply on Conversation: Is it possible for our planet to "crash" due to being a closed biological system?
Homeostasis as is referred to in the video. Us however, like the algae in the video we use the nutrients and face the odds. Increases in efficiency will only delay this, if the same consumption patterns and processes are kept in place. One caveat is the so called demographic shift where the birth rate of countries decreases as the living conditions and well being of their inhabitants increases.
Now, having said that the vast majority of people, more than 4 billion have not gone through this transition, hence their rates of multiplication are high and exacerbate the problem of resource or nutrient depletion. This places us in the following conundrum, in order to control population growth by lowering population increase rates we have to raise standards of living, and this of course requires that an unbearable burden to the planet's resources if all of us are to live like Europeans do, let alone the Americans...
Finally, contrary to the video we can use something outside the petri dish, namely solar energy instead of the closed system's nutrients.
Of course as is the case often, this is more easily said than done...so all bets are off as to how this plays out...
A comment on Talk: Garth Lenz: The true cost of oil
At the end of the day this is what counts, in Canada or in California or anywhere.
The way some viewer's comments are constructed comes across as a portrayal of the environment as stuff that are out there. But aren't we living in it? or for that matter the indigenous people of Canada?
So what is our answer to them? that tar sands is small operation in scale compared to what?
Anyone having a good answer should go and live next to them then.
A reply on Talk: Garth Lenz: The true cost of oil
is this your answer to them? that tar sands is small in scale?
Won't you go and live next to them then.
A comment on Conversation: Is it possible for our planet to "crash" due to being a closed biological system?