Humans consume 17% of all life on earth every year...

[Guest ajc]

Bill Gates' book review of Harvesting the Biosphere by Vaclav Smil.

 

The discussion focuses on percentages of land used for farming worldwide, sustainability of the ocean's fish populations and realistic alternatives to grain-fed meat among other things.

 

Clearly, any and all of these could have a major impact on social stability, food prices and public health if things got too far out of whack so they could well become a whole lot more meaningful globally over the next few decades.

 

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Energy/Harvesting-The-Biosphere?WT.mc_id=07_29_2013_HTB13_tw&WT.tsrc=Twitter#page2

[JEast]

When are we ever going to get a book that instead of telling us 'What We Have Taken from Nature' ask the question of 'Why Has Nature Provided Us With So Much'. 

 

Malthusian books seem to be a dime a dozen these days.

[meiroy]

"Humans consume 17% of all life on earth every year..."

 

I make it a point to eat 17% of all the neighbors in my building, every year. Also their dogs. And cats. Squirrels. Ants. Flies. Gerbils...

 

 

 

 

[value-is-what-you-get]

and what percentage of this 17% is raised by humans specifically for consumption

[Guest ajc]

and what percentage of this 17% is raised by humans specifically for consumption

 

Ha, that's what you shell out your bucks for if I'm not mistaken!

 

If I read the review right though, then what you're driving at is exactly the point the book makes.

Basically, the majority of that sounds like it's produced by us but when it comes to the oceans and forests then we're literally eating into our principal.

 

There is this talk though -

by Matt Ridley which takes the opposite view on climate change though so I'm not saying I'm enough of an expert to judge, but I think the Smil book also makes no attempt to take a moral stance on this but instead just tries to provide the data for what we consume and whether or not production of that specific resource is increasing enough to keep up with demand or not.

As I say, it seems like for numerous things it is and for others it clearly isn't.

 

Not that I'm rushing out to buy it or anything (what with 100-plus books already on my to-read list) but this is clearly an issue that has global consequences and as well as that I can't see how it doesn't potentially have a huge impact (upwards or downwards) on the prices of certain goods going forward purely from an investment perspective.

[meiroy]

 

The article is quite different than what might be understood from the title of this thread... :)

 

"'Humans will harvest roughly 17% of what the biosphere grows this year.'

 

Smil tries to figure out what portion of the biosphere's primary productivity — the amount of plant life generated each year by photosynthesis — is consumed by humans. He estimates that we will harvest roughly 17 percent of what the biosphere grows this year — mostly plants. (He admits it could be as little as 15 percent or as much as 25 percent."

 

[Guest ajc]

 

The article is quite different than what might be understood from the title of this thread... :)

 

"'Humans will harvest roughly 17% of what the biosphere grows this year.'

 

Smil tries to figure out what portion of the biosphere's primary productivity — the amount of plant life generated each year by photosynthesis — is consumed by humans. He estimates that we will harvest roughly 17 percent of what the biosphere grows this year — mostly plants. (He admits it could be as little as 15 percent or as much as 25 percent."

 

I'm not sure he's added your previously mentioned consumption habits into the equation, my guess is that takes the number up closer to 30%.

In other words, things are not looking good...

 

(Thanks alot, meiroy!)