5.1: Review.
This section draws some conclusions from the previous chapters.
5.1.1: The Destruction of Global Photosynthesis.
The fivefold explosion in the number of cars (the transport industry), kids (ooman overpopulation), Cattle (the Animal exploitation industry), capitalism, and carnage (the military-industrial complex, wars, etc), is leading oomans to swarm around the Earth devastating the planet's Photosynthetic capacity. This might not seem of much significance until it is appreciated that the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is, in essence, the Earth's climate stabilization system, the planet’s life support system, and oomans' own life support system. The anthropogenic suppression and destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is wide-scale and is affecting virtually every habitat on Earth. Vast areas of Forest are being clear-cut or razed by multi-national timber corporations, plantation owners, pharmers, irrigators, and by an estimated two billion people in third world countries engaged in shifting cultivation or the collection of fuelwood. But, by far and way the biggest destroyer of Forests, and the greatest suppressor of Photosynthesis, is the Animal exploitation industry. Pastureland now covers at least a third of the Earth’s land surface - much of which was previously Forested. If this plague of devastation is not halted within the next few decades increasing numbers of oomans will destroy their local life support systems and, as they flee for survival to surrounding areas, they could trigger off further collapses in oomans' life support system. The damage this would cause to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity would boost global burning which, in turn, would cause more damage to global Photosynthesis, creating even more environmental refugees, and so on in a spiral of destruction around the planet. Whether this mutually destructive feedback process would eventually result in the devastation of oomans' life support system is not yet known but it is a distinct possibility and deserves to be investigated. Such an investigation is even more urgent given that anthropogenic devastation of the Earth's life sustaining processes could trigger off an even greater climatic disaster which not merely destroys oomans' life support system but the planet's life support system. The Earth would become as lifeless as its neighbouring planets. It's one thing for oomans to kill themselves but it's quite another to allow them to kill off the Earth.
Image taken from the Nasa website
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/11oct_sprawl.htm?list520488
October 11, 2002: While space technology was undergoing its spectacular birth during the 1950s and '60s, and visionaries were predicting the spread of human colonies into space, another kind of human colony was spreading rapidly--right here on Earth! It was the dawn of the modern suburb, a time of post-war prosperity when housing developments popped up across the landscape like mushrooms after a rain. Right: A reconstruction of the growth of Baltimore, Maryland, over the last 200 years. The U.S. Geological Survey used historical records as well as Landsat satellite data to create this sequence. Courtesy USGS. A half-century later, we now understand that many environmental problems accompany the outward spread of cities: fragmenting and destroying wildlife habitat, for example, and discharging polluted runoff water into streams and lakes. The emerging space technology of the 1950s has grown along with our cities. As you read this today, dozens of high-tech satellites are circling our planet, gathering terabytes of scientific data about the environment. These data provide a unique "big picture" view of the effects of urban sprawl.
5.1.2: The Anthropogenic Boost to Global Photosynthesis.
There is no doubt that oomans are devastating a substantial proportion of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity but the idea that they are causing permanent and irrevocable damage to their own life support system seems outlandish. Such an idea seems even more outrageous considering that oomans appear to be dramatically boosting global Photosynthesis through: firstly, Reforestation; secondly, the irrigation of desert lands; thirdly, the use of fossilized water; fourthly, the use of synthetic fertilizers; fifthly, the cultivation of leguminous crops; sixthly, the dumping of nutrients into the environment; seventhly, Wilderness restoration; and, finally, Wilderness reversion.
5.1.2.1: Reforestation, Wilderness Restoration and Reversion.
The deliberate boost to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity brought about through Reforestation, Wilderness restoration, and Wilderness reversion, is negligible.
5.1.2.2: Irrigation.
The boost to Photosynthesis through the establishment of irrigation schemes in arid/semi-arid areas is substantial. Where crops are being grown on previously Forested land, although irrigation produces an increase in crop productivity, the amount of Photosynthesis carried out by crops is much lower than that previously carried out by Forests. No matter how much irrigation might boost agricultural productivity it can never carry out as much Photosynthesis as Forests so where Forests have been replaced by irrigated crops there will always be a net reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
5.1.2.3: The Use of Fossilized Water, Synthetic Fertilisers, and Leguminous Crops.
The boost to crop productivity brought about by the use of fossilized water, synthetic fertilizers, and the cultivation of leguminous crops, is colossal. It has been estimated that the use of fossilized water has boosted agricultural productivity to such an extent it supports an increase in the population of approximately 480 million oomans - and unknown millions of livestock Animals. It has also been estimated that the use of synthetic fertilizers has created such an abundance of food that it is supporting an additional 2 billion people - and also an unknown number of livestock Animals. No estimate has been put forward concerning the consequences for livestock populations of the increase in soil fertility resulting from the planting of leguminous crops but since such plants provide double the amount of nitrogen that is released from the burning of fossil fuels, it must be substantial, “The cultivation of leguminous crops such as soybeans, peas and alfalfa accounts for about 25 per cent of anthropogenic nitrogen, and fossil fuel burning for about 12 per cent (Vitousek and others 1997).”[1] Oomans have boosted agricultural productivity to such an extent they have doubled the ooman population - half the ooman population wouldn't be alive today without such innovations.
5.1.2.4: The Dumping of Nutrients.
There is no doubt that oomans are dumping vast quantities of nutrients into the environment. Firstly, the burning of fossil fuels is releasing hundreds of millions of tonnes of nutrients into the environment. Other fossil fuels are being turned into washing powders/liquids - which eventually end up in the water supply system adding yet more nutrients to the environment. Secondly, synthetic fertilizers which have leaked into the environment. Thirdly, the mining, extraction, dredging, and construction, industries, which have disturbed vast amounts of soil, subsoil, and rocks, thereby unearthing yet more nutrients. Fourthly, the vast increase in livestock populations (both biped and quadruped) has correspondingly boosted the production of livestock manure - much of which is dumped straight into the environment. Fifthly, the run-off into the environment of decomposing silage on pharms. Sixthly, the release of nutrients from non-fossil fuel pollution. Seventhly, nutrients released by the draining of wetlands. Eighthly, the nutrients released by the burning of Forests and Grasslands. And, finally, wind/water erosion which is spreading vast quantities of soil around the Earth, “Worldwide 75 billion tonnes of soil are eroded each year, with at least 60% of that washed away into rivers or out to sea. According to pimental, that loss in nutrient terms is equivalent to several billion tonnes of fertilizer - nearly the total amount of fertilizer applied each year across the globe.”[2] In addition, a host of minor factors also contribute to the accumulation of nutrients in the environment.
The vast quantities of nutrients that oomans are dumping into the environment are undoubtedly boosting all forms of Photosynthesis around the Earth - both natural and agricultural. It has been proposed, “There is growing evidence that it is moderating the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Forests in europe and north america are probably growing faster because excess nitrogen stimulates plant growth, and fast growing Trees soak up more Carbon for Photosynthesis.”[3] Unep even argues that the dumping of nutrients into the environment might explain what is happening to the so-called missing Carbon, "Since nitrogen is normally a limiting factor in plant growth, increased available nitrogen may be enhancing overall plant growth which, in turn, would enhance the Earth's Carbon storage potential. This extra vegetation may explain the puzzle of the world's 'missing' carbon - the difference between the amount of carbon emitted and the amount known to be accumulating in the atmosphere each year. (Vitousek and others 1997).”[4]
5.1.2.5: Conclusions.
It has to be concluded that the inadvertent anthropogenic boost to Photosynthesis is considerable - although the deliberate boost to Photosynthesis is insignificant in comparison. It seems inconceivable that these factors have not also boosted the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The boost to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity may be so significant it might even be on the same scale as they are devastating the Earth's life sustaining processes, “Evidence is mounting that human activities are seriously unbalancing the global nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is abundant in the atmosphere but must be fixed by micro-organisms in the soil, water and in the roots of nitrogen-fixing plants before it is available for use by plants and the animal life dependent on them. The advent of intensive agriculture, fossil fuel combustion and widespread cultivation of leguminous crops has led to huge additional quantities of nitrogen being deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Human activities have at least doubled the amount of nitrogen available for uptake by plants (Vitousek and others 1997) and now contribute more to the global supply of fixed nitrogen than do natural processes: we are fertilizing the Earth on a global scale and in a largely uncontrolled experiment.”[5]
The scale of oomans' destruction and suppression of global Photosynthesis is extensive but, given the massive boost to crop productivity and the vast quantities of nutrients getting into the environment, how is it possible to even think that oomans might be threatening the survival of their own life support system? Surely such a proposition is just plain ridiculous? Common sense suggests the release of such vast quantities of nutrients will bring about such a massive boost to Photosynthesis that the result is likely to be the dramatic greening of the Earth. It would not be surprising if some overly-optimistic academic with an eye for wealth, fame, and social status, wrote a book proposing that the Earth is currently greener than it has ever been before. Seemingly even more absurd than the hypothesis that "oomans are devastating their own life support system", is the hypothesis that oomans could be threatening to bring about the collapse of the Earth's entire Photosynthetic capacity thereby destroying all life on Earth.
5.1.3: The Limits to the Anthropogenic Boost to Global Photosynthesis.
The anthropogenic boost to crop productivity and global Photosynthesis outlined above does not, however, automatically lead to an increase in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
5.1.3.1: Reforestation.
Anthropogenic Reforestation is a mickey mouse fantasy promoted by multi-national, Earth-rapist corporations, their political lackeys, and academic prostitutes. These corporations, politicians, and academics, are far better at forking out huge sums of money for propaganda about a fictitious green world than they are at greening the Earth. They erect green billboards along motorways to cover up the deserts spreading behind them. Unfortunately, such billboards seem to reassure the livestock - even though at the corner of every motorway there’s a drive-in burger bar with bright neon lights flashing the message ‘World’s Biggest Earth Rapists’.
It is a common phenomenon that the richer that people become, the more concerned they are about living in an attractive area - despite having little interest in what goes on beyond their own locality. The same is also true for rich nations. They have much more money to spend on environmental protection and enhancement than poor nations. They can afford to prettify the environment with landscaping schemes and strategic Tree planting - even if neither make any significant contribution to the Earth's life support system. It is one thing to argue that the rich nations are prettifying their environment but it is quite another matter to argue they have brought about a substantial improvement in the Earth's life support system and are balancing their Carbon budgets. It is simply not tenable to argue that natural Forests are spreading in the over-industrialized world. There may be more Trees in these countries but this is primarily because of an increase in Tree plantations and landscaping schemes e.g. the biggest Tree planter in brutland is the ministry for road construction.
Virtually all Forested/Wilderness areas in the over-industrialized world are being ruined firstly, by road construction and, secondly, by increasing numbers of people moving into such areas thereby creating more and more pockets of urbanization. In brutland, the leisure industry parks itself in the middle of Forests and yet politicians are all too happy to continue referring to these areas as Forests rather than leisure complexes surrounded by Woodland remnants.
5.1.3.2: The Dumping of Nutrients.
The vast quantities of nutrients being dumped into the environment are boosting Photosynthesis. But, there are a number of reasons why this may not be leading to an overall increase in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
Firstly, the greater oomans' decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, the less effective that anthropogenic nutrients are in boosting Photosynthesis. Quite obviously, if there were still vast Forests around the Earth they would extract a substantial proportion of the nutrients being dumped into the environment. However, since oomans have razed many Forests it doesn't matter how many nutrients are dumped into the environment - they aren't going to boost Photosynthesis. It has to be suspected that an increasingly significant proportion of the nutrients ending up in the environment are doing little to boost Photosynthesis - in other words, they are surplus to requirements. Unep has argued, “Large areas of northern Europe, where intensive agriculture and high fossil fuel combustion coincide, are now in a state of nitrogen saturation: no more nitrogen can be taken up by plants, and additional deposits are simply dispersed into surface water, groundwater and the atmosphere without playing any role in the biological systems for which they were intended.”[6]
Secondly, certain types of Photosynthesizer cannot take advantage of increased concentrations of atmospheric Carbon, “There are two main groups of plants with different systems for capturing Carbon dioxide through Photosynthesis. The first, C3 Plants, are so designated because the first product in the sequence of biochemical reactions involved in photosynthesis has three carbon atoms. These Plants include Wheat, Rice, Barley, Oats, Potatoes, Sugar Beet, Soya beans, sweet Potatoes, cassava, Bananas, Coconuts, Chickpeas, and most fruits and vegetables. They react positively to increased Carbon dioxide levels leading to greater growth and increased yields .. The second group, C4 Plants, in which the first product has four Carbon atoms, is less responsive to increased Carbon dioxide levels. C4 crops include Maize, Cane Sugar, Millet and Sorghum. C4 crops are mainly tropical and are grown most widely in africa. Many of the world’s major pasture grasses are also C4 Plants, so the carrying capacity of the world’s major grasslands is not likely to benefit significantly from Carbon dioxide fertilization.”[7]
Thirdly, whilst it is true that the nutrients dumped into the environment are likely to boost the growth of crops/pastureland, the increase in agricultural productivity is likely to be much less significant than the reduction in Photosynthesis brought about by replacing Forests with crops/pastureland. It doesn't matter how much of a boost that nutrients give to crop productivity, crops will never carry out as much Photosynthesis as the Forests that once existed on that land. In other words, the reduction in Photosynthesis brought about by replacing natural Photosynthesizers with synthetic Photosynthesizers is far greater than any increase in crop productivity brought about by excessive nutrients in the environment. What this means is that no matter how many nutrients are dumped into the environment, and no matter how much of a boost they give to agricultural productivity, they are not going to restore the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity to the levels it was at when the Earth was covered in Forests.
Fourthly, and much more importantly, the dumping of nutrients into the environment often damages the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. If nutrient dumping always boosted Photosynthesis then oomans would have little to worry about. But this is not the case. The problem is that the over-industrialized nations are importing vast quantities of nutrients from around the world and then, after they've been used or consumed, dumping them back into far smaller areas of the world. This is damaging the ecologies in these areas. The poison is the dose. It's a question of resource distribution. If these resources were consumed equally around the world and then dumped into the local environment, it is highly unlikely they would cause much damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity - on the contrary, they would almost certainly boost Photosynthesis. However, because these nutrients are drawn from around the world and then dumped into a far smaller area of the world, they invariably damage the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity in these areas. And the damage is often considerable. It can be suggested that the fertilization effect may be entirely illusory because of the damage being caused by over-fertilization. This is yet another clear-cut example of the way that global inequalities between nations are devastating the Earth's life support system.
Many of the over-industrialized nations are importing such vast quantities of feedstuffs for bipeds/quadrupeds that all the manure produced cannot be recycled by applying it to the land, "The EC now terms the netherlands, belgium and france "manure surplus" regions; they produce more manure than their land can absorb."[8] Given that france is many times larger than brutland with a similar size population, then if it is defined as a manure surplus country then so must brutland. Manure mountains are the inevitable consequence, perhaps even the symbol, of the rich world’s dominance of the rest of the world.
The massive pile-up of manure in the over-industrialized world isn't leading to ever richer, more fertile, soils. If the over-industrialized countries tried to recycle all of their manure by applying it to the land they would ruin these ecologies. The only way for them to prevent their expropriation of the world's resources from damaging their own environment is by incinerating increasing quantities of nutrients - thereby boosting global burning. The boost to global burning would not be anything like as great as it is, if it wasn't for the rich world's exploitation of the poor world - not forgetting the Animal exploitation industry.
The over-industrialized world's importation of nutrients from around the world is a threat to their environment. But it is also a threat to the third world. The third world's continual export of nutrients to the rich world is leading to the continual decline in their environments. This process is inevitably going to end in a catastrophe for the third world at some point in the future. The over-industrialized world is lucky in being able to avoid the ecological disasters that might result from this process because they can incinerate their waste nutrients, but the third world is unlikely to find such an easy escape route from their fate. A few commentators have drawn attention to the ancient romans' importation of grain from northern africa which led to the impoverishment of african soils and the spread of the saharan desert. Rome had to build aqueducts to prevent the city from being buried in mountains of manure, “North Africa was once the breadbasket of Rome and from its forests, Hannibal drew the elephants with which he invaded Europe. Now the region is desert.”[9]; "The deserts, the bad fields of the maghreb countries of Northern Africa are still, 2,000 years later, to a large extent the sad outcome of anti-ecological practices, of the way the corn was ground in order to be shipped to Rome, to be the panem part of the panem et circenses formula. And there it was eaten, and it went down the sewers into the Mediterranean, and that was where the fertilizer went instead of being recycled back into the ground from which it was taken."[10] The current transfer of nutrients from the third world to the rich world is taking place on an even grander scale with results which could be far worse than in ancient times i.e. widespread desertification in the third world and widespread over-fertilization in the over-industrialized world. It is possible the dumping of colossal quantities of nutrients into the environment is causing more damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity than it is boosting global Photosynthesis.
To give another comparison to highlight the global, manure, merry-go-round. Four or five hundred years ago, vast numbers of bison would have migrated across the american continent. They would have chewed their way through vast areas of Grasses but left behind them enough manure to ensure the regrowth of these Grasses the following year. Today, however, vast numbers of quadrupeds are imprisoned in concentration camps producing vast quantities of manure. This manure has to be stored in lagoons. There is no way of spreading it over large areas of land in an ecological friendly fashion because the cost involved would make the industry unprofitable. So all pharmers are faced with the temptation of spreading the manure over as small an area of land as possible - which almost invariably means poisoning much of the land and the waterways within it. Even assuming there are the same number of quadrupeds in america today as there were four centuries ago, the concentration of Animals in a handful of locations guarantees there will be pollution incidents leading to the destruction of Photosynthesis. Bison spread their manure evenly over large areas of land thereby ensuring the fertility of the soil but oomans are incapable of acting as responsibly. The Animal exploitation industry is concerned primarily with increasing productivity i.e. creating ever greater concentrations of Animals under one roof, and then disposing of the manure, as quickly and as cheaply as possible, without causing so much damage to local ecologies that it outrages local people.
There is no empirical evidence about the net impact of over-fertilization but, it is probably having a bigger impact on the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity than fertilization thereby bringing about a reduction in Photosynthesis. Common sense insists the dumping of nutrients into the environment must be producing a substantial increase in global Photosynthesis but each source of nutrients is also damaging Photosynthesis.
* Fossil fuels are not only boosting Photosynthesis they are also poisoning Phytomass;
* the unearthing of nutrients is also unearthing poisons damaging to Phytomass;
* the creation of dams for irrigation projects is inundating Forested areas;
* synthetic fertilizers and soil erosion are leading to vast profusions of Algae in rivers and coastal waters;
* the vast production of manure is causing a vast increase in Algal blooms leading to eutrophication and the destruction of Phytomass.
To take one last example: Vast quantities of manure and industrial poisons are being dumped into the black sea. This is not producing a sea teeming with life but is causing a dramatic reduction in Photosynthesis, “The Black sea is dying. The total black sea annual catch is now about 100,000 tons, down from a peak of 800,000 in the 1980s. (The last few Monk seals are about to vanish followed by Dolphins and Porpoises). The black sea is now a cesspit for the six riparian states of turkey, russia, ukraine, georgia, romania and bulgaria. The rivers of 10 other countries also bear the effluent of 160 million people living and working in a catchment area that covers the poorest half of continental europe. By the time the ‘blue danube’ reaches the sea in romania, that great river alone discharges 60 tons of mercury, 1,000 tons of chromium, 4,500 tons of lead and 50,000 tons of oil every year. Rising salinity has condemned the sea of azov in the north-east. The level of lifeless, sunless water has now risen up to 120 metres below the surface, suffocating the once fertile north-western coastal shelf. The sea grass fields in the north-western coastal shelf have shrunk to a 50 square kilometre patch, 5% of their former extent.”[11] Unfortunately, it has not yet been ascertained whether over-fertilization is boosting or damaging the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.
In conclusion, the fertilization effect is
unlikely to be anything like as substantial as oomans’ destruction of the
Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. To put this another way: oomans are
cutting/burning far more natural Phytomass than is being added by the
fertilization effect. The additional Carbon absorbed through the fertilization
effect is much smaller than the amount of Carbon released into the atmosphere
as a result of anthropogenic deforestation, let alone the burning of fossil
fuels.
5.1.3.3: Irrigation, the Use of Fossilized Water, Synthetic Fertilisers, and Leguminous Crops.
If it is currently impossible to be definite about whether over-fertilization is boosting, or damaging, the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, there is no such uncertainty about the Photosynthetic consequences of irrigation in arid areas, the use of fossilized water, synthetic fertilizers, and leguminous crops. These four factors have undoubtedly led to a substantial increase in agricultural productivity. However, their damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity has also been substantial:-
Firstly, the growing of cash crops and the creation of many irrigation schemes around the world has been made possible by chopping/razing Forests.
Secondly, irrigation, the use of fossilized water, synthetic fertilizers, and leguminous crops, are all dependent on the global agricultural infrastructure which, in itself, also causes considerable devastation to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
Thirdly, irrigation, the use of fossilized water, synthetic fertilizers, and leguminous crops, are feeding roughly half the ooman population and an unknown proportion of the world's slave Animals. These people/Animals are causing a vast amount of damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, “More than 2/3 of all third world people rely on wood for cooking and heating.”[12] Vast numbers of livestock are being artificially fed and watered and then allowed to devastate whatever Phytomass they come across in arid areas with what are often extremely fragile ecologies. The increase in agricultural Photosynthesis, which supports vast numbers of livestock, is likely to be much smaller than the damage these livestock are doing to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
Fourthly, the financial costs entailed by the creation of irrigation schemes, the use of synthetic fertilizers, and the growing of leguminous crops, give rich pharmers a competitive edge over poorer farmers which enables them to expropriate land from the poor. This has led to vast numbers of cash crop refugees. Most end up moving to towns but many move into Forests to become slash and burn farmers.
The anthropogenic boost to agricultural productivity is by far and away the biggest cause of the destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity amongst the factors discussed in this chapter. It is responsible for a major part of the damage being inflicted on the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.
5.1.3.4: Conclusion.
Oomans are bringing about a massive boost to agricultural productivity through the use of irrigation, fossilized water, synthetic fertilizers, and leguminous crops. This is sustaining vast numbers of livestock who are decimating the Earth's Forests, poisoning the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity with nutrients, and boosting the greenhouse effect. Despite all that oomans are doing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to boost agricultural Photosynthesis, the damage they are inflicting on the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is probably far more extensive. What seems to be going on here is that the agricultural industry is triggering off an expansion in the livestock industry and both are expropriating an increasing proportion of the planet's land surface. Eventually all that will exist on Earth will be crops/pastureland alongside increasing areas of wasteland created either by the pharming industry or by the vast numbers of people being sustained unnaturally by rampant crop productivity. As agricultural productivity soars, it provides even more food for even bigger livestock populations to inflict even more damage on the remnants of the Earth's life sustaining processes. This exponential trajectory is eventually going to run up against the limitations of the Earth's land surface. When this point is reached, vast numbers of oomans (both rich and poor) will find themselves suspended in mid-air. They should not find it difficult to notice the drop back to Earth, and thus a more sustainable use of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, is something equivalent to that of the twin towers.
5.1.4: The Impact of Global Burning on Photosynthesis.
The anthropogenic destruction of Forests, and the release of greenhouse gases, is causing a small, but measurable, increase in global temperatures and suspicions are growing that this is destabilizing the climate and causing an increase in the frequency of climate disasters. The rise in global temperatures is likely to produce, on the one hand, an increase in the rate of Photosynthesis but, on the other hand, a reduction in the scale of Photosynthesis. Lovelock believes the scale of Photosynthesis is a more decisive influence than the rate of Photosynthesis, so the net result is likely to be a decline in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The rise in global temperatures is likely to cause a long term decrease in both terrestrial and marine Photosynthesis. Lovelock claims there is already evidence of a decline in Algal growth. If true this is of considerable significance since it is happening despite the vast increase in nutrients which oomans are dumping into the seas. The damage that oomans are causing to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity through the boost in agricultural productivity and the dumping of nutrients into the environment, will exacerbate global burning which, in turn, will cause further damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. If this mutually destructive feedback process continues then eventually the climate could leap into a warmer state, leading to a further diminution of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. It could take the climate thousands of years to return to the state it is in now. But, if oomans continue to behave as they have always have, then global burning will intensify until oomans' life support system on Earth collapses.
5.1.5: Conclusions.
The damage that oomans are inflicting on Forests and all other types of Photosynthesizers; the continuing expansion of agriculture; the explosion in livestock numbers; and the decline in the scale of Photosynthesis as a result of rising global temperatures; are four powerful factors reducing the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. Paradoxically, the damage being caused by these factors remains almost invisible to conventional politicians and even to many so-called greens. There is no scientific analysis of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity which could either prove or disprove the hypotheses being put forward in this work. It is almost impossible for any ooman to perceive a net change in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity - whether an increase or a decrease. What makes it even more difficult to determine whether the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is expanding or contracting are short term changes in the weather and seasonal changes. But, as time goes by, the destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, the Earth's life support system, should become increasingly obvious. Whether it will then be possible for oomans to change course is another matter.
The idea of oomans destroying the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is not merely difficult to perceive, it is even more difficult to accept. The idea of the cycle of growth and decay is so ingrained in oomans' understanding of nature that it is difficult to imagine that the destruction of, for example, a Forest will not eventually be followed by the regeneration of Photosynthesis elsewhere around the Earth. But what makes this issue even less credible than it already seems is that much of the destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is being brought about by increases in agricultural productivity. It is virtually impossible to persuade people that the destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is being caused by the increasing abundance of synthetic Photosynthesis - the spread of crops and pastureland. Just how difficult it is going to be to persuade people to understand that a green environment of crops and pastureland is highly destructive, can be appreciated by using brutland as an example. To the vast majority of brutish people, the countryside consists of lush greenery and fertile soils giving birth to abundant crops. The countryside also has the added bonus of providing beautiful views. Amongst brutish people there is an almost universal love of the countryside. To such people, brutland is the model for a green planet. They believe that if all countries around the world resembled brutland then there wouldn't be any environmental problems. Brutland is a green and pleasant land and must therefore be playing a major role in stabilizing the climate. Their image of an environmental disaster is a desert, or land covered in oil slicks. To them it is inconceivable that a country as lush and green as brutland, could be causing environmental problems or destabilizing the climate. It is the very greenness of the brutish countryside which makes it virtually impossible for them to perceive, let alone to accept, that brutland is an environmental disaster zone which, if emulated in every other country around the world, would have triggered off a climatic disaster decades ago. Brutland's Forest cover is down to 6-8% and the country absorbs a pathetic 1.2% of its Carbon emissions. It is absorbing a staggeringly insignificant quantity of the pollution it is dumping into the environment. Pasturelands in brutland might look lush and green, super smooth and sexy, with beautiful rolling curves and winding rivers, but they are a geophysiological disaster boosting climate instability. The monoculturally uniform pasturelands which make up the brutish countryside are little better than lawns. So far, a third of the Earth's land surface has been covered in what are basically over-grown lawns i.e. pastureland. It is virtually impossible for such Photosynthesizers to play the role formerly played by Forests i.e. maintaining climate stability. Until people in brutland, and in other countries around the world, see lush green pasturelands as a climatic disaster, they are going to create a major climatic disaster without the slightest understanding of their contribution to such a disaster.
