Among the many messages AIA Convention attendees got Thursday morning, May 3, in San Antonio was an illustration from biologist David Suzuki, host of Canada’s longstanding CBC program the Nature of Things, on how exponential growth works in the consumption of resources.
You start with a vial of nutrient and one microbe, Suzuki said. In his model, the microbe and its progeny will divide once every second. Exponentially, that is a doubling of the population per second: after two seconds, there are four microbes, in three seconds you have eight microbes, and so on. At 60 seconds, in Suzuki's example, all the food will be gone and the vile will be filled with microbes. Working backward, that means that at 59 seconds, the vile was half full of microbes and half full of food, which doesn’t sound too dire. And at 57 seconds, with only a few seconds left till the end, the vile is only 1/8 full of microbes, with what might seem like (at least to the microbes) a plentiful 7/8 of a vile of food.
Human consumption of Earth’s resources is not moving at that speed in real time, of course, but it is moving exponentially, which, Suzuki exclaimed, is ultimately a suicidal pace. And, given homo sapiens’ ability to consume resources so voraciously, especially over the last century (Earth’s population has tripled even since 1936, from 2 billion people to 6 billion), we must take control of our wasteful habits now.
To use his microbial analogy, Suzuki says, the human race is at the 59th minute. The mission of his foundation has a positive message, though: Sustainability Within a Generation. And he explains on his Web site what that means. Take a few minutes to look through it and tell us:
What do you think?
Comments (10)
The really sad thing is that the AIA gives Gore and Suzuki a pass and a platform to spread propaganda . . . unchallenged. (Though ineffective, Gore attempted to deny press access to his presentation. Sound a bit strange does it? If the threat were all that serious, the AIA should have leased the Alamodome and the presentation should have been covered by every network worldwide.) And there certainly are a great number of credible challenges to be made. Science is not consensus. Anthropocentric global warming via carbon dioxide generation is not at all "settled science." This is not a matter to be politicized for the purpose of higher taxes and bigger government. Neither is it a matter of "feelings" or "good intentions."
If the AIA wants to be more than a giant PAC or indoctrination institution it better be prepared to examine issues and stop pandering to the Kyoto accords, the UN, or anyone else who would try to escape scrutiny and debate.
Posted by Michael S. Adams, AIA | May 10, 2007 7:14 PM
Posted on May 10, 2007 19:14
Here are some other "giant PACs and indoctrination institutions" that agree that we are facing "dangerous anthroprogenic interference with the climate system" -
Adademia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Ascademia des Sciences, France
Deutsceh Akedemia der Naturforscher Lepoldina, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Soceity, UK
National Academy of Sciences, USA
Maybe at next year's convention the AIA can give equal time to the Flat Earth Society.
Posted by A friend of reason | May 11, 2007 12:56 PM
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:56
I have taken note of the giant PACs and indoctrination institutions that agree that we are facing dangerous anthroprogenic [sic] interference with the climate system provided by "a friend of reason" and will add them to my cocktail party A list.
If "a friend of reason" wishes to give equal time to the Flat Earth Society at next year's convention . . . well, knock yourself out. On the other hand, since we have already endured Gore and Suzuki, the Flat Earth Society would merely be redundant.
We might wish to consider discontinuing conventions completely. How would we ever offset such a huge "carbon footprint?"
Posted by Michael S. Adams, AIA | May 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:16
"We might wish to consider discontinuing conventions completely. How would we ever offset such a huge "carbon footprint?""
Good point.
I don't know how it could be offset. Maybe the better question is how it can be justified.
Posted by A friend of reason | May 11, 2007 4:44 PM
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:44
Well Mr. Adams I am sure you know some of the "Flat Earth" people.
BTW: who discovered America?
Posted by JEBERLY | May 11, 2007 5:23 PM
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:23
LOL. Actually Mr./Ms./Other JEBERLY I don't know any "Flat Earth" people except those who continue to sip the Algore Kool-Aid. BTW, I would tell you who discovered America . . . I just don't think you would know any of them.
If you are not in a state of brain freeze, you might learn a lot by viewing the following.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en
Have a really nice day.
Posted by Michael S. Adams, AIA | May 11, 2007 9:10 PM
Posted on May 11, 2007 21:10
Well that's a cop out. Come on give me your answer!
Posted by JEBERLY | May 12, 2007 10:47 PM
Posted on May 12, 2007 22:47
May have been someone who came over a land bridge from Asia sixty or so thousand years ago.
Posted by Anonymous | May 12, 2007 10:59 PM
Posted on May 12, 2007 22:59
Okay, but who does the "scientist" say?
The land bridge-ers or Eskimos?
Leif Ericson and the Vikings?
or Christopher Columbus?
There are people you can find for every one of those, but the point is the science!
Posted by JEBERLY | May 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Posted on May 13, 2007 23:28
How many times will the obvious be stated, the rate and drive to consume always responds proportionately to demand. In the case of our present cultural persuasions, we are now objecting to the survival rate of our specie.
Through our ingenuity and drive, we have become the most survivable specie inhabiting space ship earth.
Let us agree that the resources necessary to sustain life are, or have become, finite. If we are the generation that must acknowledge our current and historic survival/growth rates are no longer sustainable, then it also falls to us to revise our survivability goals.
If we wish to continue maintaining or growing our survival rate, then we need to do something about balancing our reproduction rate. Demand can be brought back in line with supply, even a green supply, if we wish. We need to find better ways of balancing our numbers (demand and consumption), real progress towards maintaining our history will only come from our will to remain a viable specie on the face of the planet.
I agree such changes are intercultural issues. Some societies have already begun to move along a path of ecological balanced and sustainment.
There may always be down-sides to the curbing of population growth, several societies are discovering that sustainability plays an important role as they seek to improve this balance between consumption and demand.
We need to embrace a new social and cultural norm, and we need to understand better how an environmentally enhanced balance will ultimately insure that our history will be told to future generations of humankind.
Green is beautiful, but what is green if we don't actually organize ourselves to live within a paridigm sustained by the demands of our rates of societal growth and survivability.
Posted by glen hamner | May 18, 2007 3:20 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 15:20