Firstly, let me apologise for the lack of posts on the blog recently. Unfortunately, a bout of chronic illness has altered my priorities, although I'll try to keep posting, if anyone's reading.
With apologies to Jimi Hendrix, I'm focusing upon Earth and the place of the human species within the biosphere.
There are roughly seven billion of us around and this number is projected to grow wildly by the end of the century. Put simply, that's a lot. We live on a blue-green marble, with the emphasis upon the blue bit, i.e. water.
One of the stand out things about humans is being both primates and one of the Great Apes, we're remarkably good at dealing with and surviving in water. Unlike most primates and more like cetaceans (whales and dolphins) we exhibit the 'diving reaction'. That's to say, when we stick our faces in water, our blood pressure, breathing rate and pulse decrease rapidly and our heartbeat slows as our body shuts down oxygen supply to the muscles (running them on oxygen debt; like a sprinter) and feeds all of the available oxygen to our hearts and brains.
As I've said, this has more in common with whales and dolphins than it does with other apes. So much that one anthropologist actually theorised that at one stage of our evolution, we 'reverted' to an aquatic period. Lots of others in the discipline laughed at him, but add to that we're 'furless' and that our hair is streamlined, we have streamlined noses and webbing has been cosmetically removed from some humans from between their fingers and toes, it was difficult to fully refute his hypothesis. When you chuck in the absence of fossil evidence for a distinct period in our ancient history (the "fossil gap") and it makes one think.
Recent advances in anthropology have tended back towards this hypothesis and there may well have been a period in our history where we 'returned to the oceans' and that's why we are adapted to a marine environment.
"What's all of this got to do with the price of fish", you ask? Well, with seven billion of us and rising the amount of land available for us is running out; especially when you add the 'uninhabitable bits' due to increased desertification and the like. Not only do we need space to live, but also to grow food.
I would therefore posit a novel thought that in order for our ever expanding population to find a space, we should be living on and in the oceans. "What!" I hear you shout; "...but that's ridiculous!". Who would do that? Well, we may have to and there are at least two reasons why we should consider it. I elucidate in the next sections.
Despite having explored most of the planet around 100 years ago, we actually know very little about how and why our oceans work and what effect they have upon the dry bits. It's frightening when you think about it. That there's a whole environment and all of the species that live in it we know very little about and we're busy going around exploiting it and ruining it and we don't know what it does. Are we mad?
I'd guess we know more about the rest of our solar system than we do about our oceans. If as much research money was poured into understanding our oceans as we pour into space exploration, I'd guess we'd know much more. The problem is the oceans aren't sexy and space is. We do ourselves a great disservice as a species in this and surely it's a part of our environment we should understand and explore.
To solve our current and projected need for space to live we should try living on and in the oceans. Who knows what potential food stuffs may be down there and how we might be polluting it when we could feed starving populations? Ideas exist already to expand into the coastline:
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/alfie-hope-sea-rise-city-architecture-bristol-future-city
We'd do well to consider living on the sea bed too. The research potential is vast and leads me to my second reason for consideration:
To my obviously dull and unimaginative brain those fellow members of my species that have signed up to be the first humans to settle off-planet on Mars have signed their own death warrant.
They will die. First to go will be their food sources and they inexorably will follow in a slow, lingering death. Due to illness, I'm presently clinically malnourished and, trust me on this, it's not a good way to die.
The reason is simple: Evolution on Earth pays respect to the planet and it's biosphere. It's optimised to do so and to do differently is futile. Therefore, humans and their foodstuffs will find it almost impossible to survive in an exoplanetary environment. The 'experiment' is doomed to failure due to a variety of complex factors, chief of which will be:
These will combine in complex interactions and will first kill the food that these humans will depend upon. It's then only a matter of time before the colony follows suit.
Heck, for all that I know, the variation in day length will prove their undoing.
Would it not therefore, be eminently sensible if instead of rushing headlong to Mars, be better to try to live under our oceans first? As a sort of first step try to see if we can live with reduced oxygen, sunlight and free fresh water while still under the protection of Earth's gravity, day length and protective solar radiation shield. Let's learn to walk before we run.
In addition to this grand 'rehearsal' we may learn a lot more about our own planet and its interactions into the bargain. The discoveries that are possible may mean that under ocean research becomes 'sexy' and we don't actually need or want to leave our home. We may choose to remain here and learn in greater detail how our oceans and their life works and affects us; the land walkers. Who knows what we'll find?
If you consider the points raised above, it is my opinion that we're overdue to conduct greater research into living upon and within the oceans of our Earth. The existing research is both inadequate and systemically underfunded; largely because it's not 'sexy' enough. We do our species and that of the other inhabitants a great disservice in this and we need to redress that balance. The potential to gain knowledge of the interactions of the biosphere are of great importance to our continued survival and prosperity as a species.
We ignore this at our own peril and hubris.
This chaotic rant has been brought to you by a malnourished and steroid-addled mind (and the number four). If this post seems overly confusing, please let me know.
Thank you for reading.
Third Stone From The Sun
With apologies to Jimi Hendrix, I'm focusing upon Earth and the place of the human species within the biosphere.
There are roughly seven billion of us around and this number is projected to grow wildly by the end of the century. Put simply, that's a lot. We live on a blue-green marble, with the emphasis upon the blue bit, i.e. water.
One of the stand out things about humans is being both primates and one of the Great Apes, we're remarkably good at dealing with and surviving in water. Unlike most primates and more like cetaceans (whales and dolphins) we exhibit the 'diving reaction'. That's to say, when we stick our faces in water, our blood pressure, breathing rate and pulse decrease rapidly and our heartbeat slows as our body shuts down oxygen supply to the muscles (running them on oxygen debt; like a sprinter) and feeds all of the available oxygen to our hearts and brains.
As I've said, this has more in common with whales and dolphins than it does with other apes. So much that one anthropologist actually theorised that at one stage of our evolution, we 'reverted' to an aquatic period. Lots of others in the discipline laughed at him, but add to that we're 'furless' and that our hair is streamlined, we have streamlined noses and webbing has been cosmetically removed from some humans from between their fingers and toes, it was difficult to fully refute his hypothesis. When you chuck in the absence of fossil evidence for a distinct period in our ancient history (the "fossil gap") and it makes one think.
Recent advances in anthropology have tended back towards this hypothesis and there may well have been a period in our history where we 'returned to the oceans' and that's why we are adapted to a marine environment.
Overcrowded Land Mass?
"What's all of this got to do with the price of fish", you ask? Well, with seven billion of us and rising the amount of land available for us is running out; especially when you add the 'uninhabitable bits' due to increased desertification and the like. Not only do we need space to live, but also to grow food.
I would therefore posit a novel thought that in order for our ever expanding population to find a space, we should be living on and in the oceans. "What!" I hear you shout; "...but that's ridiculous!". Who would do that? Well, we may have to and there are at least two reasons why we should consider it. I elucidate in the next sections.
We know sweet Fanny Adams about Earth's oceans
Despite having explored most of the planet around 100 years ago, we actually know very little about how and why our oceans work and what effect they have upon the dry bits. It's frightening when you think about it. That there's a whole environment and all of the species that live in it we know very little about and we're busy going around exploiting it and ruining it and we don't know what it does. Are we mad?
I'd guess we know more about the rest of our solar system than we do about our oceans. If as much research money was poured into understanding our oceans as we pour into space exploration, I'd guess we'd know much more. The problem is the oceans aren't sexy and space is. We do ourselves a great disservice as a species in this and surely it's a part of our environment we should understand and explore.
To solve our current and projected need for space to live we should try living on and in the oceans. Who knows what potential food stuffs may be down there and how we might be polluting it when we could feed starving populations? Ideas exist already to expand into the coastline:
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/alfie-hope-sea-rise-city-architecture-bristol-future-city
We'd do well to consider living on the sea bed too. The research potential is vast and leads me to my second reason for consideration:
A Space Odyssey?
To my obviously dull and unimaginative brain those fellow members of my species that have signed up to be the first humans to settle off-planet on Mars have signed their own death warrant.
They will die. First to go will be their food sources and they inexorably will follow in a slow, lingering death. Due to illness, I'm presently clinically malnourished and, trust me on this, it's not a good way to die.
The reason is simple: Evolution on Earth pays respect to the planet and it's biosphere. It's optimised to do so and to do differently is futile. Therefore, humans and their foodstuffs will find it almost impossible to survive in an exoplanetary environment. The 'experiment' is doomed to failure due to a variety of complex factors, chief of which will be:
- Lack of sunlight.
- Lack of standard gravity.
- Lack of oxygen.
- Lack of free water.
- Lack of a protective magnetic belt in the atmosphere.
These will combine in complex interactions and will first kill the food that these humans will depend upon. It's then only a matter of time before the colony follows suit.
Heck, for all that I know, the variation in day length will prove their undoing.
Would it not therefore, be eminently sensible if instead of rushing headlong to Mars, be better to try to live under our oceans first? As a sort of first step try to see if we can live with reduced oxygen, sunlight and free fresh water while still under the protection of Earth's gravity, day length and protective solar radiation shield. Let's learn to walk before we run.
In addition to this grand 'rehearsal' we may learn a lot more about our own planet and its interactions into the bargain. The discoveries that are possible may mean that under ocean research becomes 'sexy' and we don't actually need or want to leave our home. We may choose to remain here and learn in greater detail how our oceans and their life works and affects us; the land walkers. Who knows what we'll find?
The Takeaway
If you consider the points raised above, it is my opinion that we're overdue to conduct greater research into living upon and within the oceans of our Earth. The existing research is both inadequate and systemically underfunded; largely because it's not 'sexy' enough. We do our species and that of the other inhabitants a great disservice in this and we need to redress that balance. The potential to gain knowledge of the interactions of the biosphere are of great importance to our continued survival and prosperity as a species.
We ignore this at our own peril and hubris.
This chaotic rant has been brought to you by a malnourished and steroid-addled mind (and the number four). If this post seems overly confusing, please let me know.
Thank you for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment
Yes, it is annoying to have to go through this process. I appreciate that. However, I really don't want the bulk of comments to be vacuous spam posted in the main by bots.
If you are a reasoning human, please persevere.