[61.8.0.84])
by mx2.vicnet.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49B6BC05E43
for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:31:30 +1000 (EST)
[61.8.0.87])
by mailout1.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id
i6L4VR4u003108
for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:31:27 +1000
[203.143.247.35])
by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with SMTP id
i6L4VQnk007904
for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:31:26 +1000
From: "Tim Murphy" <>
To: "Birding-Aus" <>
Subject: Human diet and Bird Habitats
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:31:27 +1000
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Importance: Normal
Current world population is 6 billion and counting. The UN prediction
is 9
billion in 2050. Meanwhile we ruin the environment and decimate wild
life.
In the last 100 years we have used 40% of the world oil reserves and, at
present rates we will have got through the lot by 2050.
Sender:
X-Loop:
Precedence: bulk
I know of almost no reason to think that the human population will not
crash
in the next 100 years - it must be far the most likely eventuality.
Historians of the future (if such exist) will talk of this century as
the
century of 'the great dieing. We'll take a lot of species with us
unfortunately but it seems almost inevitable. I am trying to work with
some
conservation groups to help avoid the crash - or at least save as much
as we
can.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to know what to do - let alone
to
convince others of the correct actions. For one example, some people
have
pointed out that, since we do not have the internal flora to digest
grass,
while it takes 10 kilos of grass to build one kilo of meat, using
cattle (or
Kangaroos) to digest the grass is the only option for much of the land
(and
the sea for that mater as we can hardly graze plankton). Some ethical
systems may argue against this but they are not 'a priori' (I find Kant
unconvincing you may judge).
A rather pessimistic (and open for suggestions)
Tim Murphy
-----Original Message-----
From:
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 7:57 AM
To: Birding-Aus; John McAllister
Subject: Human diet and Bird Habitats
Dear John & Birding Aus
It is clear that all development probably endangers some aspect of
wildlife.
I recall seeing some beautiful birds near Wakerstroom. One point is
clear
though that because of the huge energy loss in each step
up the trophic levels of any ecosystem it takes a lot more land to get
1kj
of energy via meat than it does via plant matter. On top of this there
are
the individual cases such as the one that John points out and
we all need to be careful if we want our grand children to enjoy the
diversity of wildlife that we currently enjoy.
Look, and think about and enjoy
Mike
Prof Mike Tarburton
Dean: School of Science and Technology
Pacific Adventist University
PMB, Boroko
Papua New Guinea
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
