Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Macroecology of Sustainability

Posted by Dallas on 30 Jun 2012 at 00:34 GMT

The authors correctly point out that any discussion of "sustainability" without including the macroecology and basic physics and chemistry is really a scientifically meaningless discussion. You can't describe an N dimensional problem with N - X dimensions, without assuming that there is no change in any of the X dimensions, some of which may be unknown.

Now that human knowledge and technological abilities are exponentially growing, the only real limiting resource will be energy. Energy can be converted into any of the "real" commodities people are worrying about. For example, with existing technology we can go from energy (any form) to electricity + H2O + N2 <=> H2 + O2 + NH3 <=> single cell protein <=> fish food <=> live fish (including salmon) using recycled P from sewerage plants. With sufficient energy, you can also go from electricity + H2O <=> H2 + CO2 <=> Liquid hydrocarbons for portable fuel.

The problem of long term sustainability becomes one of energy, without CO2 production on a massive scale. Even if a lot of students and practitioners of "sustainability science" seem to have confused political and emotional "beliefs" with their "science", they will be eventually have to face the reality of nuclear power as the most viable option, with sufficient energy density for the expanding human population energy needs. It also means we are talking about fast reactors that will burn most of the waste material, U238, and Thorium.

No competing interests declared.