be a hunter gatherer... only way to save the Earth?

^{is separation from nature,” she says. “We don’t see that we are connected to the natural world.” With more people living in cities than in rural areas for the first time in human history, the delusion of separation is likely to worsen. A recent scientific study found that more children knew the characters of the video game Pokemon than could recognise an oak tree or an otter, according to the Ecological Society of America, a Washington DC-based organisation of 10,000 ecological scientists. Visits to national and state parks in the United States have declined by as much as 25 percent in the last decade, while kids remain indoors watching TV and playing computer games. And yet there is ample evidence that children who connect with nature perform better in school, have higher academic testing scores, exhibit fewer behavioural challenges, and experience fewer attention-deficit disorders, the ESA said in a recent statement.}

from OneWorld.net’s article, Happiness is a small eco-footprint.

is this Sunday. Worldchanging has several thoughtful articles on the subject for anyone interested.

i’m planning to sit down with my big worldchanging book and hopefully get some ideas on the best ways to build a green home in rural alaska. all suggestions welcome.

It is now well established that humanity is facing a resource shortage at relatively short term (here an example article on water shortage).

If we take as a key hypothesis that we do not stand the loss of even one life, an equation for humanity would be:

at every instant t:
1/ R>=N for each individual
2/ Sum of R >= available R
Where R is available resources for each and every individual’s vital needs N.

The progress of humanity as a whole would then be ensuring the equation is correct at any instant.

Or is it? Because resources are also necessary for the rest of life around us.

The equation would become:
at every instant t:
1/ R>=N for each living creature
2/ Sum of R >= available R
AND
3/ ensure remaining resources can sustain the global biosphere.
Where R is available resources for each and every individual’s vital needs N.

From there, humanity can act on several parameters:
- the headcount
- the nature and extent of so-called vital needs
- access to, production and management of resources
- the quality and diversity of the biosphere

There is also another parameter: accepting loss of human life.

The blue tit

I’m starting to get close to my 43 things limit for goals. Since this is very similar, if not the same thing for me, as making a smaller egological footprint, I will focus on that goal, instead of doing both.

this is mostly the same as my goal, make a smaller ecological footprint. However, I figure that people can always do more things and have more goals when it comes to the environment.

versus us.

Slate has a green challenge going on. and you could win a t-shirt! (woohoo!)

but more pertinent to the issue at hand, this week’s focus is food:

^{It takes 17 percent of the fossil fuel consumed in the United States to produce the food we eat. The result is three-quarters of a ton of carbon dioxide emissions per person, according to researchers at the University of Chicago. And that doesn’t account for the fuel it takes to get the products to market. Food travels an average 1,500 miles before it’s bought and eaten. Even carbon-friendly organic food comes with an emissions price tag—the CO2 given off by processing, packaging, and transportation. As organic food becomes mass-produced, there’s increasing debate about whether the movement is losing its soul and its ethic of sustainability. Whatever the upside of big organic, there’s no question that eating locally grown foods and shopping at your farmers’ market help reduce CO2 emissions by cutting down on transport.}

solutions? they’ve got ‘em. here’s an overview:

-Change agricultural practices (go no-till, organic)
-Buy locally grown food
-Buy organic food
-Avoid processed foods
-Cut back on meat
-Buy food that comes with minimal packaging
-Plant your own garden
-Read The Omnivore’s Dilemma
-Hunt
-Gather

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

[Continued at BBC site …]

Well, I probably won’t be there anymore at this time, when the fish will have gone.

The fish, and the whales, and the dolphins, the belugas, the sea lions, etc. The sharks will disappear, as well, as they won’t have anything to eat anymore.

“La mer, c’est dégueulasse,les poissons baisent dedans”
Renaud .

Edit=> I have just seen that postcard wrote an entry on the same subject two days ago.

^{The world’s fish and seafood populations will collapse by 2048 if current trends in habitat destruction and overfishing continue, resulting in less food for humans, researchers said on Thursday. In an analysis of scientific data going back to the 1960s and historical records over a thousand years, the researchers found that marine biodiversity - the variety of ocean fish, shellfish, birds, plants and micro-organisms - has declined dramatically, with 29 percent of species already in collapse.}

^{The decline in marine biodiversity is largely due to over-fishing and destruction of habitat [...] This loss of biodiversity makes ocean ecosystems less able to recover from the effects of global climate change, pollution and over-exploitation.}

source.

i think i need to make a biodiversity goal next.