regeneration
From: Ian Beardsley (ianbeardsley_at_webtv.net)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: marco: "Fire Apes"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Reviews of Unto Others"
- Next in thread: Jim Menegay: "Re: regeneration"
- Reply: Jim Menegay: "Re: regeneration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:50:41 +0000 (UTC)
Clearly the task is before us of colonizing the solar system and even
the galaxy. And as far as the Mars goes, we will have to terraform it,
that is, alter it so that it is habitable. They are trying to figure out
now how to convert its atmosphere, which is mostly carbon dioxide into
one of oxygen, and so far a viable solution does not present itself, but
what I would like to know, is how much longer will the biological aspect
of earth take care of us? Surely the sun will begin heating up in a
billion years -- which is gives a lot of time to develop a warp drive --
but just how regenerative is the Earth's ecosystem? Surely it must be
highly regenerative, or it would not have been able to sustain life for
the some 2 to 3 billion years that it has. For example, most plants need
nitrogen to grow, and it takes nitrogen out of the atmosphere to do
fixation, but releases it again into the atmosphere after it dies. In
other words, the nitrogen serves only as a catalyst for a reaction. But
if I eat that plant, what happens to the nitrogen? Do I metabolize or
it, or burn it, such that it is never returned to the atomphere and that
represents a net loss of nitrogen in the Earth's ecosystem? When a plant
uses water to do photosynthesis, it breaks down the water molecule and
puts oxygen from it into the atmophere, but that represents a net loss
of water on the earth. Clearly most plants and trees are not eaten, but
are needed to make oxygen for us to breath, and therefore not eaten they
return the nitrogen they use to the atmophere after they die. But just
how much biomass is there, and can it last as long as the sun remains at
a life sustaining temperature (some 1 billion years)? I have read that
we face desertification problems, much as has happened in Africa, but I
don't think it is a problem of some things not being regenerative. For
instance, I know that when they log a forest in the Northwestern United
States, the replanted trees do not grow because they have compacted the
soil with tractors, not because the forest that was there depleted all
of the nutrients in the soil. So is what I am asking is: just what in an
ecosystem is regenerative and what is not and has anyone layed this out
and figured out an ecologically sustainable plan? That is what I would
like to know. Have they for instance calculated how many calories we
need before the sun warms up too hot (1 billion years from now) and how
many calories a well manged earth can provide, as a simple matter of
theromodynamics? It seems to me to be an important question. In other
words, what is the maximum potential of the Earth and how do we achieve
it?--Ian
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
- Next message: marco: "Fire Apes"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Reviews of Unto Others"
- Next in thread: Jim Menegay: "Re: regeneration"
- Reply: Jim Menegay: "Re: regeneration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
