Pale Blue Dot and Carl Sagan

I remember seeing Carl Sagan often, it seems, on the Johnny Carson Show back in the seventies and eighties. He had an announcer's voice and a huge smile. Sagan's popular draw, however, was as a highly respected scientist who could interpret the vast complexities of the universe in amazingly simple terms. He wrote extensively and produced a TV show.


As the artist of this video clip states, Sagan's words are succinct and potent.  Adam Winnik explains his inspiration:

"I've been enrolled in illustration at Sheridan College for the the last 4 years and this is my final thesis project. I have always thought of Carl Sagan's writings as "scientific poetry" since they lack the cold touch that science is often cursed for having. I think Sagan's words resonate more than ever, and will continue with each generation until the human species "wakes up". The first time I heard this excerpt from his book "Pale Blue Dot" it literally changed my life, and I hope it does for you too. Enjoy."

 Written and Narrated: Carl Sagan

Music: Hans Zimmer "You're So Cool"

Art and Animation: Adam Winnik

Play a second time for the words only. Consider, again, finiteness.

Pale Blue Dot - Animation from Ehdubya on Vimeo.

What Exactly Is Seven Billion?

This is the year of the additional landmark digit for world population. I added a population number on the sidebar to remind me of this coming billion, only twelve years past the last one. And while the number of people on Earth isn't necessarily a daily footprint thought for us, its significance is what drives all resources available for life.


The rate of growth has, indeed, slowed somewhat in past decades. But the immense numbers are unevenly distributed geographically and in terms of wealth and resource use. This further stresses the sheer number of individuals to be supported by Mother Earth. (see other thoughts in blog)


National Geographic will be helping everyone understand the magnitude of this challenge. Their new quick-clip video is sobering and feels somewhat sensationalistic. But it's necessary. (Yes, it could be construed to be an advertisement for their mag, but I place them higher than that on the credibility ladder.) 

Thoughts On Population Carrying Capacity

Our current era seems to be filled with either too little or too much.  We have too much CO2. We have too little potable water. Our planet has a need for far more natural balances.  But imbalance seems to be the name of the game. 

The crux of this era’s complex puzzle may lie with people.  The number of people.  Too many.  Too many consumers.  Consumers of space, of food, of transportation, of heating and cooling, of water, of any product we need or think we need.  

Carrying capacity was generally used to assess the amount of land necessary to graze livestock.  Given X number of acres with X amount of grass, you can graze X number of animals in a sustained way.   Adding animals to this area would result in imbalance: grass would not get a chance to regerminate, trails and tracks would become rutted, erosion would carry away soil, stressed animals would compete and for ever more meager nourishment.  This is not a sustainable situation required for farming.  The farmer would need to either cut back on the herd or supplement feed and rotate animals from field to barn.  Costs in dollars and time would rise. 

All biological systems strive for a balanced carrying capacity: sustainability.  It’s not surprising, therefore, that humans must be included in this model. We’ve all seen the charts and heard the dire warnings about population numbers.   Scientist Thomas Malthus became concerned about the carrying capacity of humans on Earth way back in the 18th century. Demographers since then have been wary of the growing numbers of our species and its ability to be sustained.  

Malthus couldn't have conceived how the timeline for population "overshoot" might extend itself. He could not have envisioned the extent of developing industrialization.   The 19th and 20th century would encourage cultures to assume the carrying capacity of Earth could be expanded.  And it was expanded, artificially, with the help of oil.  Oil-run industry was able to promote a limitless sense of a modern lifestyle.  It promoted growth.  "Growth was good."  Those of Earth’s cultures who were able, jumped on the evolving growth bandwagon.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell,” maintained the blunt Edward Abbey.  In the 1960’s he was speaking as a defender of the natural environment that was being swallowed by development.  More people were taking more land or degrading natural landscapes at alarming rates. Precious resources, such as fresh water, were becoming even more scarce.

Environmentalist cries like Abbey’s were often taken with a grain of salt back then. Societies were accustomed to the feel of growth and the confidence that technology and fossil fuels would handle all comers.  Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other petro-chemicals were providing increased food production.  Interstate highways were built and cars with single passengers commuted from new suburbs.        

How did we get onto the treadmill of growth for growth’s sake?  What exactly is a sustainable population?  How do the numbers crunch?  Are we back to the concept of finiteness?

Thoughts without graphs...