E. O. Wilson: Set aside half the Earth

[GliderGuider]

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

In ‘Half Earth,’ E.O. Wilson Calls for a Grand Retreat

This week, the biologist Edward O. Wilson, professor emeritus at Harvard University and recipient of two Pulitzer Prizes, will publish his 32nd book, a personal exhortation to conserve biodiversity titled “Half Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life.”

The book offers an improbable prescription for the environment: Dr. Wilson suggests that humans set aside roughly 50 percent of the planet as a sort of permanent preserve, undisturbed by man.

Reading your book, one senses you felt a great urgency to write it?

The urgency was twofold. First, it’s only been within the last decade that a full picture of the crisis in biodiversity has emerged. The second factor was my age. I’m 86. I had a mild stroke a couple of years ago. I thought, “Say this now or never.”

And what I say is that to save biodiversity, we need to set aside about half the earth’s surface as a natural reserve. I’m not suggesting we have one hemisphere for humans and the other for the rest of life. I’m talking about allocating up to one half of the surface of the land and the sea as a preserve for remaining flora and fauna.

In a rapidly developing world, where would such a reserve be?

Large parts of nature are still intact — the Amazon region, the Congo Basin, New Guinea. There are also patches of the industrialized world where nature could be restored and strung together to create corridors for wildlife. In the oceans, we need to stop fishing in the open sea and let life there recover. The open sea is fished down to 2 percent of what it once was. If we halted those fisheries, marine life would increase rapidly. The oceans are part of that 50 percent.

Now, this proposal does not mean moving anybody out. It means creating something equivalent to the U.N.’s World Heritage sites that could be regarded as the priceless assets of humanity. That’s why I’ve made so bold a step as to offer this maxim: Do no further harm to the rest of life. If we can agree on that, everything else will follow. It’s actually going to be a lot easier than people think.

I hope that in the not too distant future a great deal more than half the Earth will not be needed by the (few) remaining humans.

A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

[immoderate]

1. Makes absolute sense. It will never fly.

--imm

[longship]

2. EO Wilson is a great speaker, too.

He's an entomologist who specializes in social insects, mostly ants.

He has a fascinating history.

DURec

[-none]

3. To do that, we would have to cut our own numbers drastically.

We are already past the point where this planet will support as many of us as there are, in the long run.
As things are going now, we are getting ready to cut our numberst, but making large parts of the world uninhabitable in the process.

[bananas]

5. No, we don't, as he says in the article

It’s actually going to be a lot easier than people think.

Why?

Because many problems of human occupancy that we once thought of as insoluble are taking care of themselves. Demographers tell us that the human population could stabilize at about 10 or 11 billion by the end of the century.

High tech is producing new products and ways of living that are congenial to setting side more space for the rest of life. Instrumentation is getting smaller, using less material and energy.

Moreover, the international discourse is changing. I’m very encouraged by the Paris Climate Accords. I was excited to see at the time of the Paris meeting that a consortium of influential business leaders concluded that the world should go for net zero carbon emissions. Towards that end, they recommended we protect the forests we have and restore the damaged ones. That’s consistent with the “Half Earth” idea.

[-none]

6. Yes we do.

We are driving too many other species to extinction by our shear numbers, by encroaching in the territory they live in.
Thinking another 3 or 4 billion of us and the resources they would need is alright, is unconscionable. The land, the energy, the non renewable resources needed. The increased greenhouse gasses. We can't keep up now.
We have already over fished the oceans to the point some eatable species can't recover. To say nothing of the pollution.
We need to concentrate on global warming now, which is being driven in part by our excessive numbers already.

[The2ndWheel]

7. Nothing is easy

Or a lot easier.

The equation changes whenever a variable changes. There's no perfect state to existence. At no time will "You know what, we're good right here. Now we just need to make sure nothing ever changes ever again" come out of our mouths.

Allocating up to one half. It's amazing how much control we think we have.

It means creating something equivalent to the U.N.’s World Heritage sites that could be regarded as the priceless assets of humanity. That’s why I’ve made so bold a step as to offer this maxim: Do no further harm to the rest of life.

It just makes no sense.

If we can agree on that, everything else will follow.

And there's the rub. You can't get 10 random people to agree on something, let alone 10 billion.

[NickB79]

8. "Population could stabilize at 10 or 11 billion"

Oh, is that all? Another 3-4 billion on top of the 7 billion we already have, all of whom aspire for a 1st world standard of living, at a time when we've already passed the point of no return into catastrophic climate change, guaranteeing the planet's carrying capacity (that we've already exceeded by 3X what it is) will now start to decline fairly dramatically?

Gee, who knew it was so easy

[postulater]

4. Wise man with an admirable vision.