by 0mar » Tue 16 Nov 2004, 01:41:23
Actually, through catabolite repression, bacteria are able to switch from fuels. Let's assume a mixture of glucose, lactose, and gelatin are used in a culture.
Initally, glucose is plentiful and the bacteria happily grow to carrying capacity. Because glucose is plentiful, there is almost no need for lactose or gelatin. Then, within a generation or two, almost all the glucose is taken up. Now lactose enters the cell and switches on the lactose metabolism pathway (there are more steps than this, but simplified for arguments sake). During this transition, there is a die-off for those bacteria that couldn't switch fast enough. Again, the lactose substitutes perfectly for glucose, there are relatively few changes needed. Now lactose levels drop as bacteria grow and grow. Finally, the same mechanism is used for gelatin. What do the bacteria do now? They die.
We aren't using most of our resources in a sustainable manner. Like the bacteria, we are simply consuming without regard to what is actually in place. Unlike bacteria however, time is on our side. Given enough time, we could overcome most, if not all of the problems posited by 21st century activities. However, short-term gain and long-term punishment is more popular among policy makers than a sustainable future. For example, worldwide, fishing yields are dropping, arable land is decreasing, forests are being deforested at an astonishing rate, standards of living are staying steady or dropping, the Carbon and Nitrogen cycles are out of whack, global climate change is becoming more and more reality, and non-renewable sources of energy are close to peaking. Does this look like an optismistic picture for the 6 billion people on earth. Total energy production of 19.1 TW caused most, if not all of these problems. What happens if we move energy production up to 60-80 TW. It is my contention that the earth's ecology will simply collaspe.
The world simply can not support this many people wanting to live an affluent lifestyle. Maybe if we all lived like somalis or if 2 billion people lived like Moroccons/Turks, we could be sustainable, but not at our current level. This is why Matt Savinar is correct in assuming there will be a die-off. Unless we drastically reduce our consumption levels, there will be no way the Earth can sustain 4-6 billion people currently. Maybe when we have some sik-ass technology, but not in present-day 2004.