A solid ball of flesh many thousand light years in diameter
May 2, 2015 5:55 PM Subscribe
Overpopulation and overconsumption in pictures (SLGrauniad)
We're totally fucked.
posted by asperity at 6:40 PM on May 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by asperity at 6:40 PM on May 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
yep
posted by aubilenon at 6:45 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 6:45 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, I'd argue that this piece might be sending the wrong message.
Jamming all human activity into a few dense areas is far better for the environment overall. Picturing the population explosion in terms of low-density suburbs would be much more horrifying.
posted by schmod at 6:49 PM on May 2, 2015 [28 favorites]
Jamming all human activity into a few dense areas is far better for the environment overall. Picturing the population explosion in terms of low-density suburbs would be much more horrifying.
posted by schmod at 6:49 PM on May 2, 2015 [28 favorites]
I'd recommend this to people in one of the two ways I've suggested watching Vice: "Do you have hope for the future? You should probably take look at this; it'll fix that little problem."
posted by MarchHare at 6:50 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MarchHare at 6:50 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
A reminder of where half the US population lives...
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:03 PM on May 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:03 PM on May 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Jamming all human activity into a few dense areas is far better for the environment overall.
Yes. Those oil wells may look bad, but they're getting the most out of that patch of oil-rich land before moving on to another one.
The wave of trash, on the other hand, is inexcusable.
posted by Rangi at 7:21 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes. Those oil wells may look bad, but they're getting the most out of that patch of oil-rich land before moving on to another one.
The wave of trash, on the other hand, is inexcusable.
posted by Rangi at 7:21 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The wave of trash, on the other hand, is inexcusable.
To be fair, the trash is mostly plastic, which is a product of those oil wells.
posted by clarknova at 8:51 PM on May 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be fair, the trash is mostly plastic, which is a product of those oil wells.
posted by clarknova at 8:51 PM on May 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that albatross has to be one of the most beautiful horrific images I've every seen.
posted by alms at 9:22 PM on May 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by alms at 9:22 PM on May 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Why honey, according to these trash surveys, we're already dead.
posted by clavdivs at 9:33 PM on May 2, 2015
posted by clavdivs at 9:33 PM on May 2, 2015
Fantastic photos. Pretty bullshitty raising of awareness though.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:38 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by 2N2222 at 9:38 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
If our species had started with just two people at the time of the earliest agricultural practices some 10,000 years ago, and increased by one percent per year, today humanity would be a solid ball of flesh many thousand light years in diameter
... so it's probably a good thing that didn't happen, then?
posted by phooky at 10:41 PM on May 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
... so it's probably a good thing that didn't happen, then?
posted by phooky at 10:41 PM on May 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Halloween Jack: "(Yeah, I know that the joke is weak and tired, but the alternative is "yep, we're totally fucked.")"
I feel like there's at least a "yo mama" joke in there somewhere. Somewhere in the ball of flesh.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:51 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like there's at least a "yo mama" joke in there somewhere. Somewhere in the ball of flesh.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:51 PM on May 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like there's at least a "yo mama" joke in there somewhere.
"Yo mama is totally fucked"? Those would be fighting words in a lot of places.
The photos are striking, but not exactly representative of the entire earth.
A reminder of where half the US population lives...
I was surprised at how many of the populated counties are inland -- I would have guessed that the population weight would be more coastal than that map shows. Counties are really the wrong unit to use for that map, though; mapping by square mile (ideally) or census tract (if population/mile is not available) would make a lot more sense and would give a much fairer portrayal of population spread in the US.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:22 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Yo mama is totally fucked"? Those would be fighting words in a lot of places.
The photos are striking, but not exactly representative of the entire earth.
A reminder of where half the US population lives...
I was surprised at how many of the populated counties are inland -- I would have guessed that the population weight would be more coastal than that map shows. Counties are really the wrong unit to use for that map, though; mapping by square mile (ideally) or census tract (if population/mile is not available) would make a lot more sense and would give a much fairer portrayal of population spread in the US.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:22 PM on May 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
‘I don’t understand why when we destroy something created by man we call it vandalism, but when we destroy something created by nature we call it progress.’ Ed Begley, Jr.
So much this.
posted by billiebee at 3:02 AM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
So much this.
posted by billiebee at 3:02 AM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Always leery of the "population explosion" lot. "Way too much of you, just enough of me."
posted by resurrexit at 5:18 AM on May 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by resurrexit at 5:18 AM on May 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
A reminder of where half the US population lives... posted by JoeXIII007 at 10:03 PM on May 2 [6 favorites +] [!]
Just look at how much space the other half takes up!
posted by achrise at 5:54 AM on May 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just look at how much space the other half takes up!
posted by achrise at 5:54 AM on May 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, in some parts of the other half, particularly old, post WW2 subdivisions, humans are close to being integrated with the rest of nature, and its gorgeous. I count my parents' house as one of them.
But yeah, other, young and sprawling neighborhoods are awful in terms of environmental impact and appearances. They'll get back in the fold in time, however.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:02 AM on May 3, 2015
But yeah, other, young and sprawling neighborhoods are awful in terms of environmental impact and appearances. They'll get back in the fold in time, however.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:02 AM on May 3, 2015
A solid ball of flesh many thousand light years in diameter
Carl Sagan's Cosmos: 'The Meat Planet'
posted by Foosnark at 7:31 AM on May 3, 2015
Carl Sagan's Cosmos: 'The Meat Planet'
posted by Foosnark at 7:31 AM on May 3, 2015
Overpopulation is a reactionary concept and Malthus had a political agenda. The problem isn't that there are too many humans, the problem is that the people in power have been profiting from the destruction of our planet.
If they can guilt trip us into thinking we're collectively the problem, than the blame is shifted away from companies like Exxon or BP onto some nebolous collective humanity and this destruction becomes just the way things are that perhaps we should do something about on a individual and hence ineffective level. That, or we just give up.
But the thing isn't that "we use too much plastic" frex, it's that companies are happy to waste it -- just look at how much plastic your everyday groceries contain in the form of packaging and such -- and governments loathe to regulate.
We could've been working much harder at solving climate change in these last three decades; like ozone depletion the science was settled in the mid seventies at the latest, but business interests held up legislation for decades. With the first we got lucky and the measures taken came just in time, with the latter not so much because oil companies and ideological motivated zealots are still fighting a rear guard battle against the science.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:16 AM on May 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
If they can guilt trip us into thinking we're collectively the problem, than the blame is shifted away from companies like Exxon or BP onto some nebolous collective humanity and this destruction becomes just the way things are that perhaps we should do something about on a individual and hence ineffective level. That, or we just give up.
But the thing isn't that "we use too much plastic" frex, it's that companies are happy to waste it -- just look at how much plastic your everyday groceries contain in the form of packaging and such -- and governments loathe to regulate.
We could've been working much harder at solving climate change in these last three decades; like ozone depletion the science was settled in the mid seventies at the latest, but business interests held up legislation for decades. With the first we got lucky and the measures taken came just in time, with the latter not so much because oil companies and ideological motivated zealots are still fighting a rear guard battle against the science.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:16 AM on May 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
Overpopulation is a reactionary concept
Well, that's a strange thing to say. The meaning of "reactionary" has something to do with being opposed to the revolution, right? The revolution in question can only be the onset of exponential human population growth, which happened something like 5000 years ago. People today can barely comprehend what it would be like to live in a modern way without its effects. Bit of a late reaction.
These pictures don't tell much of the story, of course. The really scary stuff comes in the form of figures and charts. So what if one hillside got clear-cut? It's hardly the end of the world, except for whatever people or animals lived there. Doing it to all or most of the thousands of forested hillsides in the area, that's where it starts to get problematic. Try and photograph the real problem and you end up with something it takes expertise in GIS to decipher. It's not hard to find nice-looking pictures of densely-populated places if you live in downtown Strasbourg for example, and alternately if you're in some place like Kenora it's relatively easy to find scenic places that actually aren't dominated by human settlement, recreation, or industry.
That's why the dead bird is the only one that lives up to the headline. It's the least localized despite showing the smallest patch of ground. That albatross accumulated the plastic trash in its guts over probably thousands of miles of flying across the sea, about as far from over-population as one can get.
posted by sfenders at 11:57 AM on May 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, that's a strange thing to say. The meaning of "reactionary" has something to do with being opposed to the revolution, right? The revolution in question can only be the onset of exponential human population growth, which happened something like 5000 years ago. People today can barely comprehend what it would be like to live in a modern way without its effects. Bit of a late reaction.
These pictures don't tell much of the story, of course. The really scary stuff comes in the form of figures and charts. So what if one hillside got clear-cut? It's hardly the end of the world, except for whatever people or animals lived there. Doing it to all or most of the thousands of forested hillsides in the area, that's where it starts to get problematic. Try and photograph the real problem and you end up with something it takes expertise in GIS to decipher. It's not hard to find nice-looking pictures of densely-populated places if you live in downtown Strasbourg for example, and alternately if you're in some place like Kenora it's relatively easy to find scenic places that actually aren't dominated by human settlement, recreation, or industry.
That's why the dead bird is the only one that lives up to the headline. It's the least localized despite showing the smallest patch of ground. That albatross accumulated the plastic trash in its guts over probably thousands of miles of flying across the sea, about as far from over-population as one can get.
posted by sfenders at 11:57 AM on May 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
If our species had started with just two people at the time of the earliest agricultural practices some 10,000 years ago, and increased by one percent per year, today humanity would be a solid ball of flesh many thousand light years in diameter
Fortunately, people don't reproduce like bacteria, so the statement is pretty nonsensical
posted by Renoroc at 1:54 PM on May 3, 2015
Fortunately, people don't reproduce like bacteria, so the statement is pretty nonsensical
posted by Renoroc at 1:54 PM on May 3, 2015
Look in the bright side: this civilization thing and its effects, are strictly temporary. Sooner or later Yellowstone will go off, the flank of a Canary Island will collapse, an asteroid will hit, or any of the dozens of other Black Swan events will occur.
The world economy will collapse, 90-95% of humanity will starve to death, and civilization will fall, never to recover. Then a few hundred thousand or a couple million years down the line, some geological or climactic shift will cause our last few descendants, scratching out a stone-age existence, to go extinct. A far as catastrophic events go, humanity will be neither the worst or longest lasting.
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on May 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
The world economy will collapse, 90-95% of humanity will starve to death, and civilization will fall, never to recover. Then a few hundred thousand or a couple million years down the line, some geological or climactic shift will cause our last few descendants, scratching out a stone-age existence, to go extinct. A far as catastrophic events go, humanity will be neither the worst or longest lasting.
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on May 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Fortunately, people don't reproduce like bacteria
That's not how bacteria work either. My calculator can't handle numbers big enough, but if bacteria increased in number at one percent per century, I guess they would have filled up at least the entire universe by now. Whether people can do better than bacteria depends on how we react when we hit that "stationary phase."
"Next to no research has assessed the likely impacts of human-caused climate change, ecosystem disruption, or energy and resource scarcity on the two main determinants of demographic change: births and deaths." I'm confident that no amount of research is going to be able to predict it with any confidence at this time. Do we find a way to keep on with the demographic transition as things get bad, or not? Maybe some of you are young enough you'll get to find out.
posted by sfenders at 3:42 PM on May 3, 2015
That's not how bacteria work either. My calculator can't handle numbers big enough, but if bacteria increased in number at one percent per century, I guess they would have filled up at least the entire universe by now. Whether people can do better than bacteria depends on how we react when we hit that "stationary phase."
"Next to no research has assessed the likely impacts of human-caused climate change, ecosystem disruption, or energy and resource scarcity on the two main determinants of demographic change: births and deaths." I'm confident that no amount of research is going to be able to predict it with any confidence at this time. Do we find a way to keep on with the demographic transition as things get bad, or not? Maybe some of you are young enough you'll get to find out.
posted by sfenders at 3:42 PM on May 3, 2015
My calculator can't handle numbers big enough, but if bacteria increased in number at one percent per century ...
If bacteria increased by 1% every century, they'd increase tenfold every 23141 years. So after a million years you've added 43 more zeroes on to the end of whatever number you started with. Before the second million years has finished you have made more bacteria than there are atoms in the universe. That's pretty gross, so please don't do that.
posted by aubilenon at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2015
If bacteria increased by 1% every century, they'd increase tenfold every 23141 years. So after a million years you've added 43 more zeroes on to the end of whatever number you started with. Before the second million years has finished you have made more bacteria than there are atoms in the universe. That's pretty gross, so please don't do that.
posted by aubilenon at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2015
I don't think it matters whether Malthus was wrong or right. The developed world is using the planet's resources at rates expressed in multiples of sustainable Earths. We have an economic system predicated on a base percentage of annual growth (in population, oil production, ROI). On a growth curve where each doubling of (population or extraction) uses up as many resources as the entire previous history of that measure, how do we see the next generation* faring? Even if the Club of Rome was wrong on the timing and details in 1972, all those limits still exist. Instead we listen to the voices of the Mont Pelerin Society, who tell us that everything is ok, business as usual means stability, and continued growth is the only way forward.
We could change our economy, but the groups who benefit from its pyramid-scheme returns aren't going to help. We'll probably have to wait until things get really dire before... what? The Revolution?... and then hope there's enough bio-diversity/water left to carry on until humans smarten up.
* Should there be an "s" there?
posted by sneebler at 5:04 PM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
We could change our economy, but the groups who benefit from its pyramid-scheme returns aren't going to help. We'll probably have to wait until things get really dire before... what? The Revolution?... and then hope there's enough bio-diversity/water left to carry on until humans smarten up.
* Should there be an "s" there?
posted by sneebler at 5:04 PM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
If our species had started with just two people at the time of the earliest agricultural practices some 10,000 years ago, and increased by one percent per year, today humanity would be a solid ball of flesh many thousand light years in diameter.
Can somebody check my math? I'm not a genius, but Excel will happily handle 10,000 rows of a(n)=a(n-1)*1.01 ..., and I get 3.27x1043 people after starting with 2. Google tells me there are 8.47x1047 cubic meters in a cubic light-year. Figure a human at 1 cubic meter and that's still a cube less than a tenth of a light-year on side.
Maybe innumeracy and hyperbole will be our downfall.
posted by achrise at 5:21 PM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Can somebody check my math? I'm not a genius, but Excel will happily handle 10,000 rows of a(n)=a(n-1)*1.01 ..., and I get 3.27x1043 people after starting with 2. Google tells me there are 8.47x1047 cubic meters in a cubic light-year. Figure a human at 1 cubic meter and that's still a cube less than a tenth of a light-year on side.
Maybe innumeracy and hyperbole will be our downfall.
posted by achrise at 5:21 PM on May 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The mass of human flesh and/or bacteria would collapse into a supermassive black hole long before it got bigger than even 1 AU, and then gravitational time dilation would slow down its growth. Well, either that or it would explode in a sort of squishy supernova first. We may need to call in an astrophysicist here, preferably one who knows as little as possible about biology. Either way though, a thousand-light-year solid ball does seem unlikely at any reasonable growth rate.
posted by sfenders at 6:14 PM on May 3, 2015
posted by sfenders at 6:14 PM on May 3, 2015
« Older "Are you going to finish that?" | WHAT KIND OF HAT IS IT? I call it a fedora. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
...The Aristocrats!
(Yeah, I know that the joke is weak and tired, but the alternative is "yep, we're totally fucked.")
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:26 PM on May 2, 2015 [3 favorites]