The Millenium Alliance for Humanity & the Biosphere (MAHB) of Stanford University is a collaboration of natural scientists and social scientists working together to implement behavioral, institutional and cultural changes necessary for humans to “ensure a sustainable and equitable future for everyone.”
The process is called foresight intelligence. It seems that this particular kind of intelligence is innate in humans but not well developed on a large scale. MAHB’s goal is to better tap into our foresight intelligence to reduce humanity’s ecological footprint and social inequities, moving toward true sustainability on a global scale, before it is too late.
The political class in much of the world has barely scratched the surface in pursuing this goal, leaving what MAHB calls the Civil Society to try and make a meaningful contribution.
According to MAHB: “The term ‘civil society’ includes scholars, non-governmental organizations, businesses, social activists, and individuals who share a vision for a sustainable world, respecting the rights and prosperity of all humanity. While the MAHB is pluralistic in its acceptance of differences and diversity a generally accepted core set of values has emerged globally and constitute the public good: that all humans should be able to live peacefully, securely and sustainably.”
Excerpts from ‘Sustainable Living – True Conservation’, and the role of human population levels in what ‘conservation’ really means
Lamenting the conflicting viewpoints associated with the management of wild elephant populations in South Africa, the author of “Sustainable Living – True Conservation’ summarizes the conflict primarily as being between animal rightists arguing in favor of protecting elephant populations within protected areas and wildlife managers arguing that they cannot do this to the detriment of the system as a whole for a variety of reasons. He concludes that “Both arguments are right, but both are totally missing the point. Rapidly declining biodiversity on a regional, national or international scale is not as a result of growing elephant populations, or any other animal population for that matter, but as a direct result of the exponential increase in the human population putting unprecedented strain on all the natural systems of our planet which directly influences the survival of all other species, including our own, but yet it goes unchecked and ignored as if it does not exist.” The author concludes his article with the following summary, which I think poses some of the ethical, moral, and functional dilemmas facing population control strategists.
I’ve been harping about overpopulation for some time now. Fortunately, there are major efforts around the world to reduce fertility levels to more sustainable values. But are they being implemented fast enough?
Of course, I don’t forget the additional (derivative?) concerns about inadvertent climate modification (including global warming) and its effects on ecosystems as well as people. We cannot neglect the role of what are called “nature’s services,” which depend upon maintaining biodiversity. [Do a Google search on “Nature’s services” for numerous links to information on that topic.]
Now, thanks to Joe Bish at Population Media Center, comes this pair of interesting articles on diversity loss:
Impacts of biodiversity loss rival those of climate change and pollution by Emmett Duffy on May 2, 2012 in SeaMonster – Ocean science, sports, and discovery