Lets look more closely at how we can effectively lessen the impact upon nature. Let us start by summarising how human impact upon the earth is viewed to escalate over the next 50 to 100 years.
A simple formula for this is
I = PCT,
where
I = our impact (I) upon the environment,
P = Population (numbers)
C = average consumption per person
T = Technology
Currently, there is not much that we can do about population growth. We need to assume that predicted numbers will be attained, these ranging from the "10 billion by the year 2050" quoted in 'Nature's Holism' to an estimate of 9.5 billion by the year 2100 (Eldredge, 1999). The additional three to four billion people may also try and attain a better standard of living than their parents. Paul and Anne Erlich, in presenting the above formula, assumed that consumption, due to greater general affluence, would quadruple. This placed a very heavy demand upon technology to effectively counter the current growth trends by the year 2050, so as to reduce our technological intensity to 1/16 of its present level . However, we need to take a closer look at the average consumption per person.
Firstly, we now possess the technology to invent materials that can either be recycled, or are not polluting. Glass, essentially sand, in various forms, could replace many of today's materials. Foamed glass could even replace the concrete of modern buildings (Amato, 1999). Technology also has the potential to vastly improve the efficiency of production. Improved efficiencies translates into less waste and pollution.
Secondly, and just as importantly, a great reduction in our impact upon the environment can be achieved through the adoption of a more vegetarian diet. It is quite feasible for the average westerner to reduce meat consumption to 1/10 of the current level. Ayres (1999) noted that the per capita consumption of meat doubled between 1950 and 2000. Ayres estimated that 7 kg of feed grain are required to produce 1 kg of feedlot beef. The biological conversion efficiency is generally quoted at 10%, so a ratio of 7:1 is good. By reducing meat consumption to 1/10 of the current level, we effectively free about 6 kg of grain per kilo consumed. The rate of consumption of this meat, being a tenth of the previous level, also has other benefits over and above gross consumption. Simply, the demand upon the environment from this component of the human impact upon nature, can be reduced. If the population does double, while we do manage to reduce meat consumption to 10% of the current level, the impact of this component need only be about 20% of the current level by 2100.
Another very viable area for renewable resource conservation is in all the fish trawled from the oceans that are converted into fish meal. This is an extremely healthy source of proteins and essential fatty acids. These fish, such as sardine, feed quite low on the food chain, so ecologically, it makes sense to eat them. As a rough figure, at each step in the food chain, only 10% of the energy is recovered, though in reality this may range from 0.05% to 20% (Beck et al, 1991). When we eat the tuna that ate the fish that ate the sardine that ate the zooplankton that ate the algae, we are being, in ecological terms, very inefficient, occupying a role at the top of the food pyramid, that is not easily sustained. By feeding lower on the food chain, eating either the algae or the animal that eats the algae, we will immediately find that there is a lot more food available. Similarly, by converting fish to fish meal and feeding this to animals for human consumption, we are wasting a superior food resource to culturally induced preferences. Eating the fish immediately provides ten times more protein than converting it into beef or chicken protein for human consumption, so we can also afford to reduce our trawling intensity by a significant percentage. This will allow some fish populations to recover to the numbers that existed before exploitation.
By eating the fish instead of feeding it to cattle, we also recover grazing land and reduce the production of methane gas from these livestock. Forests can be replanted rather than be cut down to make space for grazing.
Ayres included fish in his reckoning of costs of "hugely inefficient
use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock faeces,
rising rates of heart disease and other degenerative illnesses, and
spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet's life
depends." However, fish fit only a few of these categories. The healthy
fatty acids found in marine fish oils, especially 22:6w3 and 20:5w3,
are guaranteed to
lessen cardiovascular diseases that are caused by consuming animal
fats.
See also Deep Ecology Platform:
Moving it from Biocentric to Ecocentric and then to Ecotaoist.
