Our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. But how has it changed in your lifetime?
29 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141016-your-life-on-earth[/url]
[QUOTE]Explore BBC Earth's unique interactive, personalised just to you.
Find out how, since the date of your birth, your life has progressed; including how many times your heart has beaten, and how far you have travelled through space.
Investigate how the world around you has changed since you've been alive; from the amount the sea has risen, and the tectonic plates have moved, to the number of earthquakes and volcanoes that have erupted.
Grasp the impact we've had on the planet in your lifetime; from how much fuel and food we've used to the species we've discovered and endangered.
And see how the BBC was there with you, capturing some of the most amazing wonders of the natural world.
Explore, enjoy, and share with your friends either the whole page, or your favourite insights.
This is your story, the story of your life on earth.[/QUOTE]
BBC Earth's Your life on earth is based on the following [URL="http://www.bbc.com/earth/bespoke/your-life/docs/sources.pdf"]sources[/URL].
Finally, I've been waiting for an interactive tool like this. There have been others like it, but this one seems a lot more developed and thorough. I love sobering statistics and long numbers.
[editline]October 18th, 2014[/editline]
Plus, it appears we'll never have the need for a 'How old are you' thread ever again.
Wow the population has really increased since 93
> 1,664,919,308
Holy fuck that forest cover: 4.2 billion to 157.5 million hectars
That's amazing.
[QUOTE=Karmah;46269432]Wow the population has really increased since 93
> 1,664,919,308
Holy fuck that forest cover: 4.2 billion to 157.5 million hectars[/QUOTE]
No, that's how much it's lost, if we had went from 4.2 billion 157.5 million we'd be irreparably fucked already.
[QUOTE=Karmah;46269432]Wow the population has really increased since 93
> 1,664,919,308
Holy fuck that forest cover: 4.2 billion to 157.5 million hectars[/QUOTE]
no thats 157.5 million hectars LOST, not what is left
[QUOTE=bravehat;46269544]No, that's how much it's lost, if we had went from 4.2 billion 157.5 million we'd be irreparably fucked already.[/QUOTE]
I think he was confused because the units of measurement are broadly varied, and placed right next to one another in some areas. You go from 'lost this year' to 'gained daily' to 'lost every second' to 'changed last time you sneezed' by looking from left to right of any given section.
It's still pretty amazing though.
Am I the only one having an issue where the date of birth you put in will always be one behind on the display? My birthday is Novemeber 23rd -- but that shows up as the 22nd on the feed. Yet if I re-enter it as the 24th, it shows up correctly on the feed. So which one is it estimating? I know it's only a day of difference, and it doesn't promise most of these estimates to be exact anyway, but I was just wondering.
Oh man I really did not want to see that fuel gauge.
I don't want petrol to run out in my life time :C
:(
[img]http://i.imgur.com/31lOu7W.png[/img]
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;46269552]no thats 157.5 million hectars LOST, not what is left[/QUOTE]
whoops
The scale of those triangles than is way off
[IMG]http://puu.sh/chqOZ/05cfe4c5a5.jpg[/IMG]
:'(
I think the Oil/Gas supply running out isn't really accurate - from what I've read that figure is just from current known sources of oil and gas, not including shale/new very deep sources, etc. It's not that we have a date where we have no more oil, there is just a date where oil becomes much more difficult to supply.
So according to this, I will be [I]69 years old[/I] when all of our oil runs out?
Holy shit, it's crazy that we are using it up that fast. I thought I'd be dead before the oil ran out.
Well then, I guess I get to watch Earth get fucked in my lifetime.
[img]http://puu.sh/chu4c/73d9231736.jpg[/img]
That's one adorable freak of nature
This is both really cool and also fucking horrifying. It makes it staggeringly clear how environmental peril is rapidly catching up to our race.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;46270526]I think the Oil/Gas supply running out isn't really accurate - from what I've read that figure is just from current known sources of oil and gas, not including shale/new very deep sources, etc. It's not that we have a date where we have no more oil, there is just a date where oil becomes much more difficult to supply.[/QUOTE]
The population will also grow to 9,7bln, incomes will grow for all, and billions will be lifted out of poverty and will spend more, demand public transport, or buy cars.
Also, manufacture industry will grow bigger, consuming more fossils.
over the following decades in our lifetimes.
[editline]18th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;46270791]This is both really cool and also fucking horrifying. It makes it staggeringly clear how environmental peril is rapidly catching up to our race.[/QUOTE]
We've made earth our bitch, basically.
Mining for diamonds, uranium, tar oil in the arctic circle in Canada or pumping oil from the sahara& siberia is a piece of cake nowadays. It's not necessarly a bad thing though because those developments lead to further advancements and so on, it's a chain reaction.
[editline]18th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46270755][img]http://puu.sh/chu4c/73d9231736.jpg[/img]
That's one adorable freak of nature[/QUOTE]
See all of them, like this octopus:
[t]http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1402/logs/apr28/media/dumbo-590.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46270745]So according to this, I will be [I]69 years old[/I] when all of our oil runs out?
Holy shit, it's crazy that we are using it up that fast. I thought I'd be dead before the oil ran out.
Well then, I guess I get to watch Earth get fucked in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]
The Earth will be just fine, it's us that are going to be fucked.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46270845]The population will also grow to 9,7bln, incomes will grow for all, and billions will be lifted out of poverty and will spend more, demand public transport, or buy cars.
Also, manufacture industry will grow bigger, consuming more fossils.
over the following decades in our lifetimes.
[editline]18th October 2014[/editline]
We've made earth our bitch, basically.
Mining for diamonds, uranium, tar oil in the arctic circle in Canada or pumping oil from the sahara& siberia is a piece of cake nowadays. It's not necessarly a bad thing though because those developments lead to further advancements and so on, it's a chain reaction.
[/QUOTE]
Not really.
First of all, increasing population is a [I]bad[/I] thing. The fact is that populations are only growing at a fast rate in countries rife with poverty; the countries that cannot support it. Humans have already breached their natural capacity many years ago (hence the environmental destruction and probable collapse) and our artificial means of expanding this capacity are becoming strained. There isn't enough food, healthcare, fresh water, or money to go around in this planet for 7 billion people, let alone 9 billion.
That, and poverty does not go away. For one country to be rich (and have cheap goods) other countries must be poor (to produce goods cheaply). If all countries were like Europe or America, the world economy would collapse on its head because the comparative advantages of countries would be all fucked up. The idea of complete equality across the world sounds nice, but it is a pipe dream. It hasn't happened yet and never will happen simply because its unfeasible. For one society to have more, another society must have less, because most resources are scarce.
And environmentally, we are fucked. Our rate of advancement is not even close to the rate at which we destroy things. In the past 40 years, the amount of ecosystem destruction has far outstripped any technology or progress that would inhibit or counteract it. We are already suffering some effects of climate change, and it's guaranteed to get worse because virtually nothing is being done about it.
Even if the estimates about the oil and coal running out are exaggerated or just plain wrong, that doesn't mean there won't be shortages, and it especially doesn't mean our ecosystem won't be falling apart.
Human growth is reaching an unsustainable limit. The only options are to limit that growth and expansion to slow the side-effects on the environment through regulation and what not and suffer the economic and social penalties of that, allow it to run wild and, for the time, have prosperity, but be ready for the inevitable collapse that it will bring, or the most over-optimistic one is colonizing a new planet or finding technologies to combat climate change, neither of which is likely since there isn't that much money in either industry.
[QUOTE=Ziks;46270992]The Earth will be just fine, it's us that are going to be fucked.[/QUOTE]
I'm tired of this.
Even in one of the most densely populated of places like the UK, [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096"]98% of it is natural.[/URL]
[t]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61222000/jpg/_61222609_uk_habits_464.jpg[/t]
The amazon forest is the size of Europe or the US.
Siberia?Congo?Sahara?Australia?Canada?Gobi?Himalaya plateau?And I didn't even mention the oceans.
We're not everywhere, and whatever we may do, Earth will remain habitable. Our ancestors lived through worse times than an urbanized society of 9bln+ with 1$ burgers and 1$ all you can eat indian&chinese dishes.
You can't seriously think that a 5 degrees celsius increase in avg temperatures and the melting of Greenland ice will wipe off humanity?
[editline]18th October 2014[/editline]
Even if you were intuitive in your ranting there, what do you propose? Going back to the horse and carriage? The only way to go is foreward.
[QUOTE]
First of all, increasing population is a [I]bad[/I] thing. The fact is that populations are only growing at a fast rate in countries rife with poverty; the countries that cannot support it.[/QUOTE]
Big population is why we're living in this age, and not in the stone age. If we were in in the tens of millions, scattered around in small settlements, we'd still be whacking wooden bats at wild animals for food.
Most of those poor countries that you speak of will have gdp's of ~20k$ per capita by 2050, by IMF's numbers.Again, it's not in the numbers, otherwise villages would be dirt rich and cities like NY would be dirt poor, but it's on the contrary.
[QUOTE]
Humans have already breached their natural capacity many years ago (hence the environmental destruction and probable collapse)[/QUOTE]
I'd really like a peer-reviewed source on that, but that won't happen because its a piece of generalised bs.
[QUOTE]That, and poverty does not go away.[/QUOTE]
It does actually, but not overnight, but in incremental steps.
[QUOTE]If all countries were like Europe or America, the world economy would collapse on its head because the comparative advantages of countries would be all fucked up.[/QUOTE]
No it wouldn't. Places in N. America and Europe have been isolationist in the past, and they managed just fine, even being rich and all.
[QUOTE]For one society to have more, another society must have less, because most resources are scarce.[/QUOTE]
No, economically speaking, every transaction made with free consent is beneficial for both sides.
Filthy rich countries/ companies/ individuals trade in between them all the time, and that doesn't make either of them poorer.
[QUOTE=cdr248;46269780]Oh man I really did not want to see that fuel gauge.
I don't want petrol to run out in my life time :C[/QUOTE]
I do. It'll force a necessary change sooner for the betterment of humanity. Hell, the money to develop a lot of amazing new stuff is there but the greedy people that own it have a tight grip on it and don't want to let go. Exxon makes what, 420 Billion dollars a year? Netting 50 Billion?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46271338]I'm tired of this.
Even in one of the most densely populated of places like the UK, [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096"]98% of it is natural.[/URL]
[t]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61222000/jpg/_61222609_uk_habits_464.jpg[/t]
The amazon forest is the size of Europe or the US.
Siberia?Congo?Sahara?Australia?Canada?Gobi?Himalaya plateau?And I didn't even mention the oceans.
We're not everywhere, and whatever we may do, Earth will remain habitable. Our ancestors lived through worse times than an urbanized society of 9bln+ with 1$ burgers and 1$ all you can eat indian&chinese dishes.
You can't seriously think that a 5 degrees celsius increase in avg temperatures and the melting of Greenland ice will wipe off humanity?
[editline]18th October 2014[/editline]
Even if you were intuitive in your ranting there, what do you propose? Going back to the horse and carriage? The only way to go is foreward.
Big population is why we're living in this age, and not in the stone age. If we were in in the tens of millions, scattered around in small settlements, we'd still be whacking wooden bats at wild animals for food.
Most of those poor countries that you speak of will have gdp's of ~20k$ per capita by 2050, by IMF's numbers.Again, it's not in the numbers, otherwise villages would be dirt rich and cities like NY would be dirt poor, but it's on the contrary.
I'd really like a peer-reviewed source on that, but that won't happen because its a piece of generalised bs.
It does actually, but not overnight, but in incremental steps.
No it wouldn't. Places in N. America and Europe have been isolationist in the past, and they managed just fine, even being rich and all.
No, economically speaking, every transaction made with free consent is beneficial for both sides.
Filthy rich countries/ companies/ individuals trade in between them all the time, and that doesn't make either of them poorer.[/QUOTE]
I am not saying that people are [I]poorer[/I] than they are 100 years ago. Our poorest individuals are still much better off than before, because increasing technology and efficiency are helping them. I am saying that there will always be poor individuals, even if tomorrow's poor are today's middle class. And we aren't living here because "increased population". That is the vaguest, dumbest, most generalized thing I have heard in this thread by far. We live in this age because people are more connected. Technological progress doesn't happen just because there are more people, it happens because people have the money and connections to fund it, and people are in touch enough to allow the spread of ideas. By your logic, China should be the most advanced civilization ever because of its population size, but it hasn't been advanced (comparatively speaking) for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, Europe, despite having a fraction of the population, would excel above it. India is another fine example why your "theory" is bullshit. Population =/= technological advancement. A connected society does. When China was advanced, it had nothing to do with its size. It's because it was a highly centralized world connected in trade and information, allowing ideas to spread freely and unimpeded and allowing people to have the wealth to fund such technological development (some of which came from the Emperor's coffers).
Your very naive if you believe humanity isn't negatively impacting this planet. And where did I say we would be wiped out? I am just saying things are going to get much worse.
It is ignorant people like you that are allowing this shit to happen, basically plugging your ears and saying "nah nah nah" and denying that climate change is going to be catastrophic. You see it only at face value; the ice caps melting and stuff. But that isn't close to the most destructive effect it will have. Tell me, if you are so smart, what exactly happens [I]when[/I] the ice caps melt? Or what happens to harvests when fickle crops don't get the correct conditions? Even a 1 degree Celsius change in temperature in the past has caused massive food shortages and famine, and they did not need to feed the amount of people we do today (of course, modern farms are far more efficient, but the point still stands).
You want a peer-reviewed study on climate change? Let us see what [URL="http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/"]NASA[/URL] has to say about it:
[QUOTE=NASA]"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:
North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.
Global Climate Change: Future Trends
Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extent - Virtually Certain
Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation - Very Likely to Occur
Increase in tropical cyclone intensity - Likely to Occur
Precipitation increases in high latitudes - Very Likely to Occur
Precipitation decreases in subtropical land regions - Very Likely to Occur
Decreased water resources in many semi-arid areas, including western U.S. and Mediterranean basin - High Confidence
Definitions of likelihood ranges used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%, very likely >90%, likely >66%.[/QUOTE]
And what does that mean? Droughts that make some regions uninhabitable. Famine. Hurricanes and floods making coastal cities impossible to live in (or requiring at least an absurdly expensive defense system to better protect them), causing power outages, and helping disease spread when things like sewage systems collapse. Mass migrations from now uninhabitable (or at least uncomfortable) climates to regions with food and decent temperature, causing a huge refugee crisis.
So tell me again why " a 5 degrees celsius increase in avg temperatures and the melting of Greenland ice will wipe off humanity?"?
[editline]19th October 2014[/editline]
And the economic system you love? With climate change costing us billions, if not trillions, in damages, that will be gone.
And no, I am not saying we need to go back to "horse and buggy". I am saying we need to slow our consumption and give technology time to catch up.
Oh sweet my 70th Mercury birthday is tomorrow.
well technically speaking there is nothing we could do to destroy the physical planet, and life is tenacious enough where it will survive no matter how much fucking we do, but the planet as we know it can easily be completely wrecked.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46275298]well technically speaking there is nothing we could do to destroy the physical planet, and life is tenacious enough where it will survive no matter how much fucking we do, but the planet as we know it can easily be completely wrecked.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't we detonate nukes under the tectonic plates in [I]just[/I] just the right spots or something?
Or maybe nuke the far side of the moon to cause it to crash into the earth somehow, through science or magic?
I'll be 73 when the oil runs out. Cool
[QUOTE=Ardosos;46280939]Couldn't we detonate nukes under the tectonic plates in [I]just[/I] just the right spots or something?
Or maybe nuke the far side of the moon to cause it to crash into the earth somehow, through science or magic?[/QUOTE]
unless we could somehow move the moon and crash it into ourselves there's nothing we could do to physically harm our planet. we could detonate every single nuclear weapon in existence at once and the earth wouldn't feel it.
everything else would sure as shit feel it though
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;46282712]unless we could somehow move the moon and crash it into ourselves there's nothing we could do to physically harm our planet. we could detonate every single nuclear weapon in existence at once and the earth wouldn't feel it.
everything else would sure as shit feel it though[/QUOTE]
The earth in terms of size and whatnot, sure, but land-based ecology would surely be ravaged from a nuclear holocaust, no?
When I think of the term "earth" I don't think of it just in terms of "a big rock", but the thin circle of ecology and atmosphere on/surrounding it.
Also, meh, you never know, maybe in the future we'll stumble upon a way to destroy entire planets.
Let's hope not.
[QUOTE=lifehole;46282761]The earth in terms of size and whatnot, sure, but land-based ecology would surely be ravaged from a nuclear holocaust, no?
[/QUOTE]
No. The areas around where the nukes would explode will be highly irradiated for 2 decades or so, most animals would probably avoid the area for some time, and plants would not grow that nicely... but after that, everything goes back to normal.
See Chernobyl, Hiroshima&Nagasaki.
Also, if you were to detonate all nukes on earth in different spots, it would probably only cover something like 0,0001% of the area of earth or so.
We'd be more fucked up if some crazy volcanoes erupted like Yellowstone, those in East Africa or the Pacific...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
