One page
faisamhu
CEE400-Weeks1and2Anthropogenicearth2020.pptEarth Systems Engineering And Management Fall 2020
Weeks 1 and 2
The Anthropogenic Earth
So long as we do not, through thinking, experience what is, we can never belong to what will be.
The flight into tradition, out of a combination of humility and presumption, can bring about nothing in itself other than self deception and blindness in relation to the historical moment.
Source: M. Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, translation by W. Lovitt (New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1977), “The Turning,” p. 49; “The Age of the World Picture,” p. 136.
2
The Real Challenges of the Anthropocene: “Now I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds”
We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it.”
Stewart Brand, 1968, Whole Earth Catalogue
“The future is already here; it’s just unevenly distributed.”
William Gibson
“Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.”
Vishnu, Bhagavad Gita, Robert Oppenheimer at Trinity Test, 1945, White Sands, New Mexico
A Few Examples . . .
Radical life extension
Custom designed atmosphere (slider from 280 to 450 ppm CO2)
CBI integrated human/natural systems (e.g., wired to an F-35)
Birthing Neanderthals
Custom designed space humans
Technologically enabled telepathy
Cognition from techno-human networks rather than people
Trends Creating Your World
Welcome to the Anthropocene – roughly, “The Age of Humans”
Planet is a design space
The Human is a design space
Technological evolution is the primary evolutionary pressure
Trends Creating Your World
From a physical, human world to an AI, information based world: more complexity, with discontinuous changes in information variety, velocity, and volume.
Eric Schmidt, CEO Google: Every 2 days we create as much information as we did up to 2003
250 days of Google processing of Web information equivalent to all words ever spoken by humanity
Watson wins Jeopardy, 2011; AlphaGo wins Go series against world champion Lee Sedol, 2016; AlphaGo Zero beats AlphaGo, October 2017
The Age of Information Overload
Eric Schmidt, CEO Google: Every 2 days we create as much information as we did up to 2003 (“Over the last two years alone 90 percent of the data in the world was generated.” B. Marr, Forbes, “How Much Data Do We Create Every Day?”).
250 days of Google processing of Web information equivalent to all words ever spoken by humanity
YouTube users upload 500+ hours of fresh video per minute, 30,000 hours of new content per hour; Twitter users send 6,000 tweets a second, or 500 million tweets every day.
Google Stats
Search engine handles 6B requests daily
YouTube gets 49 years worth of video uploads daily
Gmail processes 100B emails daily
The Economist, “How to cope with middle age,” August 1-7, 2020, p. 7.
Facebook Stats
Facebook has 2.6 billion active users
Almost 90% of Facebook’s daily active users come from outside the US/Canada (is FB a US company? First Amendment issues?).
The largest population on Facebook is from India with over 270m users, followed by 190m in US and 120m in Brazil and Indonesia.
5 billion comments are left on Facebook pages monthly.
The Facebook like button has been pressed 1.13 trillion times (a rich AI data source, cf. weaponized narrative).
36% of top stories on Facebook are related to politics - and
There are 120 million fake users on Facebook – so, WepNar.
Omnicorp Agency, April 2020, “Facebook by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics, and Fun Facts,” https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/#:~:text=Facebook%20Demographics&text=Average%20Facebook%20user%20has%20155,%25%20of%20those%2030%2D49.
Information volume, variety, and velocity goes exponential about 1700
Impact of cognitive ecosystem
Verbal cultures
The written word: literacy and books
Broadcast culture: mass media
Internet culture: information tsunami
The Cognitive Ecosystem
Scales:
Tribal
Nation-state
Post Westphalian world
4. On beyond zebra . . .
Information Modes and Human History
THE COGNITIVE ECOSYSTEM
Data Economy
Cognitive Infrastructure
Institutional and Services Infrastructure
Cognitive infrastructure: AI/big data/analytics; communication networks (e.g., 5G); enabling technologies (e.g., sensors, chips, servers); memory infrastructure; physical IoT; computational capability (e.g., networked peer to peer computing systems; server farms); cloud computing;
Data economy and data infrastructure, e.g., data warehouses and data lakes; IoT data streams; data gathering technologies (e.g., facial recognition, autonomous vehicles);
Institutional and services infrastructure: venture capitalists; regulation and soft law; educational systems and MOOCs; policy issues (e.g., privacy, data management); commercial support (e.g., ability to lease cognitive infrastructure capabilities); social media; military/security operations; discoveries in behavioral economics, personal psychology, cultural studies, and related fields.
Effects of Information Overload and Cognitive Ecosystem
Pushes individuals away from System 2 thinking (slow, deliberate, energy intensive, and applied rationality) to System 1 thinking (fast, automatic, intuitive thinking).
Pushes individuals away from engagement with individual issues to reliance on tribal narratives (e.g., Fox News, NYT and WaPo “moral clarity”).
Pushes individuals away from history and perspective into immediacy and emotion.
Makes political and personal identity a design space, and a geopolitical battlespace.
Undermines fundamental assumption of Enlightenment civilizations: rational citizen/voter as basis of government legitimacy.
Trends Creating Your World
“Nosedive,” 21 October 2016, Black Mirror social credit scifi, horrifies Americans.
Spring 2018 in China (from Wired): “Social credit is preventing people from buying airline and train tickets, stopping social gatherings from happening, and blocking people from going on certain dating websites. Meanwhile, those viewed kindly are rewarded with discounted energy bills and similar perks.”
Technology in the Wild: Social Credit System
In Netflix scifi Black Mirror episode “Nosedive” 21 October 2016, everyone gets a social rating that establishes their rights and place in society.
One year later, China begins to roll out “Social Credit System,” a rating system for every individual that reflects everything they do, and controls whether they can get on trains or planes, what dating sites they are allowed on, whether they can get a loan, whether they can get into college, who their friends are, grants discounts on energy and water bills, and much else.
If you insist on being friends with a low ranker, you will be ranked lower on your own score.
Feed My AI!!
And praise the European General Data Protection Regulation!!!
Technology in the Wild: Social Credit System
SCS in China fits Confucian culture: duty of superior to nudge moral performance by citizens.
SCS in China structurally necessary: since no Western explicit “rule of law,” China needs trust system that can function across large, complex economy and society.
SCS if appropriately structured can feed information on grassroots to decision-makers, avoiding over-simplification of traditional authoritarian models.
SCS can enable much more rapid decision-making than checks and balances.
SCS builds reflexive governance system: the citizen, shaped by reflexive control, feeds the state AI, which in turn manages the citizen to advance the goals of the authoritarian state.
Scenario: SCS technologies thus function as the technological foundation for the increasing fitness of soft authoritarian versus pluralistic systems.
Trends Creating Your World
Information structures are growing at every systems level – e.g., the “cognitive city” is a complex of smart materials, smart buildings, smart infrastructure, smart integrated infrastructures. This sounds cool, but presents a huge security risk.
Natural, built, and human systems are all integrating. The world is infrastructure, and there is no “natural history,” only human history. Biology isn’t science, it’s engineering.
Ethical structures (macroethics) appropriate for complex adaptive systems have not yet been developed (Internet router versus social and environmental implications of Net; 14th century Portuguese caravel design versus ethical responsibility for European colonialism).
Trends Creating Your World
Technological evolution appears discontinuous in terms of cultural ability to adapt
Many people will be unable to differentiate between technology, and magic
Fundamentalism and tribalism of all kinds will increase
Where there used to be broad consensus on what was “true,” there will now be tribal truths. It is true if it fits your narrative.
Potential impacts include fading of democratic institutions and rise of AI-powered soft authoritarianism.
Trends Creating Your World
Implications of technology will destabilize most of what we think we know about the world.
Cambridge Analytica, S1 thinking versus more energy and time intensive S2, advances in CGI – all lead to potential collapse of democracy
Reversion to tribes means rise of neomedievalism, collapse of state based international order, and rise of multinodal governance/power structure.
Technology: The Earth as Design Space
Life on a Terraformed Planet
Not black body radiation, but lights and television
Technology made this world, and technology lets you see it as an alien would (can you see climate change?)
Note the brands: institutional structure is as important as physical structure
Be careful what you dream. We can make it happen.
Anthropocene Defined
The term “Anthropocene” comes from the Greek “human” (“Anthropo-“) and “new” (“-cene”).
I. It has been proposed as an appropriate name for the current geologic period because so many Earth systems, from the climate to biodiversity to fundamental systems such as the nitrogen, phosphorous, and hydrologic cycles, are now dominated by human impacts and actions.
II. It is also meant to publicize those changes and increase environmental awareness and concern.
The Anthropocene: Age of Planetary Design
You live on a terraformed planet: the Earth has been, and is being, engineered by a single species for its own purposes.
Geoengineering
Biodiversity
Radiation patterns
Technology and infrastructure systems (railroads, roads, energy systems, water and food, ICT)
And . . . the human, which is undergoing radical, and little recognized, redesign: life extension, techno-human networks
And you won’t look at all like you do now, will you?
FROM . . .EVOLUTION . . .
TO . . . TECHNOLOGY: HUMAN AS DESIGN SPACE
THE HUMAN AS TECHNOLOGY
The Anthropocene II: Human as Design Space
The Human is a design space
Google: We are as gods
Radical life extension (biological or download) (Memo to FDA: Aging is disease state)
Augcog, and techno-human cognition
Artificial telepathy technologies
Virtual reality/identity design and management
Human component design: e.g. infrared vision, modular brain system
The Anthropocene II: Human as Design Space
Integrated robot/wetware systems (e.g., prosthetics; ratbot; F-35 as appendage)
Birthing Neanderthals
Engineered “designer ethics” by use of pharma or transcranial magnetic stimulation
Memory design (elimination, tone down, replace)
Integrated factory food/pharma/human
The Anthropocene II: Human as Design Space
CRISPR/Cas9, or “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats” and “CRISPR-associated (Cas)” genetic engineering technology – derived from bacterial genes enabling them to respond to and eliminate invading genetic material (viruses).
Design for Application: space capable human wetware
Themes of the Course
We tend to think in terms of the “Cartesian human” – the physical individual. For some purposes – e.g., medical treatment – that is adequate; increasingly, however, it provides a misleading image of human evolution
Humans are, among other things, an autocatalytic technology system – a designer constantly redesigning the designer
And one of the most important technologies on a terraformed planet is the dominant lifeform
Themes of the Course
Both the planet and the human are design spaces
Everything we think we know about the human is contingent, because the underlying assumptions have been destabilized, especially by technology
We are facing complexity at higher levels than humans have ever dealt with psychologically, institutionally, or culturally
Themes of the Course
There are no firm guidelines, because technology also makes the guidelines themselves subject to design
Serious question: can human psychology and institutions be designed to be agile and adaptive enough to avoid train wrecks
e.g., accelerating change v. pressure towards fundamentalism
E.g., information volume/velocity, social fragmentation, end of democratic politics
Human Population Growth
| Age | Population level (in millions) | Global Technology State (Core) |
| 1,000,000 BP* | .125 | None |
| 10,000 BP | 4 | Beginning of Agricultural Revolution |
| 2,000 BP | 100 | Agricultural |
| 1,000 BP | 300 | Agricultural |
| 1500 AD | 450 | Enlightenment; Beginning of Modern Science and Technology |
| 1900 AD | 1,600 | Heavy Engineering (e.g., Railroad) |
| 1950 AD | 2,500 | Mass Production and Consumption (e.g., Automobile) |
| 2000 AD | 6,000 | Information/Biotechnology Society |
* Before Present
Population and Technology: Polynesian Case Study
. . . human population densities (measured in people per square mile of arable land) varied greatly over Polynesia. At the lower end were the hunter-gatherers of the Chathams (only 5 people per square mile) and of New Zealand's South Island, and the farmers of the rest of New Zealand (28 people per square mile). In contrast, many islands with intensive agriculture attained population densities exceeding 120 per square mile. Tonga, Samoa, and the Societies achieved 210-250 people per square mile and Hawaii 300. The upper extreme of 1,100 people per square mile was reached on the high island of Anuta, whose population converted essentially all the land to intensive food production, thereby crammed 160 people into the island's 100 acres, and joined the ranks of the densest self-sufficient populations in the world.
Source: Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), p. 61.
Urbanization (percent of total population)
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.), Table 9.2, p 283, and sources cited therein.
Note: definition of “urban” varies with jurisdiction.
The Anthropogenic Earth
Governance
Physical Systems
Evolving anthropogenic Earth
Behavior/discontinuities; coupling of complex systems
Information Systems
Cyberspace, internet and evolution of cultural constructs
Cyberbiodiversity and sensored world
Intersection of “virtual” and “real”
Culture
Integration of cultural , technological, biological, and physical earth system evolution
Ideology, mental models and cultural constructs (nature/human; “wilderness”; “Nature” as sacred)
Economic Institutions and Structures
Commoditization (biosphere; elemental cycles; hydrologic/climate cycles)
Market/globalization (as information structures)
Complexity
“natural” as “human” systems (reflexivity, contingency)
Multiscale in an n-dimensional phase space
Evolving
Anthropogenic
Earth
State
NGO
Firm
Community
Global Economic History: 1500 - 1992
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), Tables 1.1 and 1.2, pp. 6-7, and sources cited therein.
Energy Production and Consumption 1800 - 1990
1] in millions of metric tons
2] all forms, millions of metric tons of oil equivalent
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), Table 1.4 and 1.5, pp. 14-15, and sources cited therein.
Global Freshwater Use 1700 - 2000
1] In richer countries, water use stabilized after the 1970’s. In the U.S., total water use peaked around 1980 and had declined by a tenth as of 1995, despite simultaneous addition of some 40 million people.
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), Table 5.1, p. 121, and sources cited therein.
Use (in percent)
Decoupling U.S. Water Consumption from Economic Performance
Adapted from The Economist, “Priceless: a survey of Water”, July 19 2003, center section, Pg 4.
Population
Water consumption km3 per year
GDP trillion 2002 $
Global Land Cover ( in 106 km2; all figures approximate)
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.), Table 7.1, p 213, and sources cited therein.
42
Ozone
Production
PM &
Visibility
Effects
Stratospheric
Effect
GH
Effects
Terrestrial
Ecosystem
Forest &
Grasslands
Soil
Agroecosystem Effects
Crop
Animal
Soil
Aquatic Ecosystems
Coastal
Effects
Ocean
Effects
Surface Water
Effects
Groundwater
Effects
Indicates Denitrification (nitrate to nitrogen)Potential
Energy
Production
Food
Production
People
(Food; Fiber)
Atmosphere
NOX
N2O
N2O
NOX3
NOX
NH3
NH3
Norg
Human Activities
Adapted from Research GAIM: the Global Analysis, Integration and Modeling Task Force Newsletter, Volume 6, No. 1, Summer 2003
ONE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NITROGEN CYCLE
Global Livestock (million head)
“By the 1980’s, domesticates accounted for 15 percent of the planet’s animal biomass, versus 5 percent for people.” Equivalents: humans are about 0.1 percent of earth’s total biomass and domesticates about 0.3. Ant species are about 0.4 percent.
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.), Table 8.2, p 264, and sources cited therein, and p. 272.
Average Annual Soil and Rock Transport (1994 Data)
Source: Based on J. R. McNeill, 2000, Something New Under the Sun (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), Table 2.1, p. 30 and sources cited therein.
Production of Trace Metals 1850-1990
Production (millions metric tons)
Emissions (thousands metric tons)
Adapted from J.O Nriagu, “A History of Global Metal Production,” Science 272:223-224 (12 April 1996)
Region
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970
1990
USA
35
46
56
64
70
75
Japan
30
40
48
56
71
77
Western
Europe
35
45
55
63
72
78
Latin
America
5
7
17
41
57
71
USSR
12
14
18
39
57
66
Africa
5
5
7
15
23
34
China
5
5
6
11
17
33
South Asia
5
8
12
16
21
28
World
14
18
23
29
37
43
Region
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970
1990
USA
35
46
56
64
70
75
Japan
30
40
48
56
71
77
Western Europe
35
45
55
63
72
78
Latin America
5
7
17
41
57
71
USSR
12
14
18
39
57
66
Africa
5
5
7
15
23
34
China
5
5
6
11
17
33
South Asia
5
8
12
16
21
28
World
14
18
23
29
37
43
Date
World GDP
(indexed to
1500 = 100)
Per Capita
World GDP
(1990 dollars)
Per Capita
(indexed to
1500 – 100)
1500 100 565 100
1820 290 651 117
1900 823 1,263 224
1950 2,238 2,138 378
1992 11,664 5,145 942
Date |
World GDP (indexed to 1500 = 100) |
Per Capita World GDP (1990 dollars)
|
Per Capita (indexed to 1500 – 100) |
|
1500 |
100 |
565 |
100 |
|
1820 |
290 |
651 |
117 |
|
1900 |
823 |
1,263 |
224 |
|
1950 |
2,238 |
2,138 |
378 |
|
1992 |
11,664 |
5,145 |
942 |
Production
1]
1800
1900
1990
Biomass
1,000
1,900
1,800
Coal
10
1,000
5,000
Oil
0
20
3,000
Total Use
2]
400
1,900
30,000
Total Use,
Indexed to 1900
21
100
1,580
|
Production1] |
1800 |
1900 |
1990 |
|
Biomass |
1,000 |
1,900 |
1,800 |
|
Coal |
10 |
1,000 |
5,000 |
|
Oil |
0 |
20 |
3,000 |
|
Total Use2] |
400 |
1,900 |
30,000 |
|
Total Use, Indexed to 1900 |
21 |
100 |
1,580 |
Year
Withdrawals
(km
3
)
Withdrawals
(per capita)
Irrigation
Industry
Municipal
1700
110
0.17
90
2
8
1800
243
0.27
90
3
7
1900
580
0.36
90
6
3
1950
1,360
0.54
83
13
4
1970
2,590
0.70
72
22
5
1990
4,130
0.78
66
24
8
2000
(est.)
5,190
0.87
1]
64
25
9
140
Year
Withdrawals
(km3)
Withdrawals
(per capita)
Irrigation
Industry
Municipal
1700
110
0.17
90
2
8
1800
243
0.27
90
3
7
1900
580
0.36
90
6
3
1950
1,360
0.54
83
13
4
1970
2,590
0.70
72
22
5
1990
4,130
0.78
66
24
8
2000
(est.)
5,190
0.871]
64
25
9
140
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1885190519251945196519852005
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Chart3
| 1900 | 1900 | 1900 |
| 1910 | 1910 | 1910 |
| 1920 | 1920 | 1920 |
| 1925 | 1930 | 1930 |
| 1930 | 1940 | 1940 |
| 1938 | 1945 | 1950 |
| 1940 | 1950 | 1960 |
| 1945 | 1960 | 1970 |
| 1950 | 1970 | 1980 |
| 1953 | 1980 | 1990 |
| 1960 | 1987 | 2000 |
| 1970 | 1990 | 2002 |
| 1980 | 1995 | |
| 1990 | 2000 | |
| 2000 | 2002 | |
| 2002 |
Sheet1
| year | GDP | year | Water consumption | year | population | |||
| 1900 | 0.8 | 1900 | 0.8 | 1900 | 0.8 | |||
| 1910 | 0.85 | 1910 | 0.95 | 1910 | 0.95 | |||
| 1920 | 0.9 | 1920 | 1.25 | 1920 | 1.1 | |||
| 1925 | 1.05 | 1930 | 1.4 | 1930 | 1.2 | |||
| 1930 | 0.9 | 1940 | 2 | 1940 | 1.3 | |||
| 1938 | 1.01 | 1945 | 2.1 | 1950 | 1.55 | |||
| 1940 | 1.3 | 1950 | 2.98 | 1960 | 1.8 | |||
| 1945 | 2 | 1960 | 3.8 | 1970 | 2 | |||
| 1950 | 1.95 | 1970 | 5 | 1980 | 2.3 | |||
| 1953 | 1.9 | 1980 | 5.98 | 1990 | 2.55 | |||
| 1960 | 2.85 | 1987 | 5.35 | 2000 | 2.8 | |||
| 1970 | 4 | 1990 | 5.45 | 2002 | 3 | |||
| 1980 | 5.65 | 1995 | 5.6 | |||||
| 1990 | 7.55 | 2000 | 5.45 | |||||
| 2000 | 9 | 2002 | 4.8 | |||||
| 2002 | 10 |
Sheet1
Sheet2
Sheet3
Date
Forest and
Woodland
Grassland
Pasture
Cropland
8000
B.C.
65
63
0
0
…
…
…
…
…
1700
A.D.
62
63
5
2.7
…
…
…
…
…
1850
60
60
8
5.4
…
…
…
…
…
1890
58
55
13
7.5
1900
58
54
14
8.0
1910
57
52
15
8.6
1920
57
51
16
9.1
1930
56
49
19
10.0
1940
55
47
21
10.8
1950
54
45
23
11.7
1960
53
41
27
12.8
1970
51
38
30
13.9
1980
51
35
33
15.0
1990
48
36
34
15.2
Date
Forest and Woodland
Grassland
Pasture
Cropland
8000 B.C.
65
63
0
0
…
…
…
…
…
1700 A.D.
62
63
5
2.7
…
…
…
…
…
1850
60
60
8
5.4
…
…
…
…
…
1890
58
55
13
7.5
1900
58
54
14
8.0
1910
57
52
15
8.6
1920
57
51
16
9.1
1930
56
49
19
10.0
1940
55
47
21
10.8
1950
54
45
23
11.7
1960
53
41
27
12.8
1970
51
38
30
13.9
1980
51
35
33
15.0
1990
48
36
34
15.2
Terrestrial Fixed Nitrogen
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1900192019401960198020002020
Year
Teragrams of Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Legumes/rice
Nitrogen oxide emissions
Total anthropogenic fixed N
Natural Range
Natural Range
Sheet1
| years | fertilizer | Legumes/rice | Nitrogen oxide emissions | Total anthropogenic fixed N | Natural Range |
| 1900 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 22 | 100 |
| 1910 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 25 | 100 |
| 1920 | 3 | 22 | 3 | 28 | 100 |
| 1930 | 4 | 23 | 4 | 31 | 100 |
| 1940 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 35 | 100 |
| 1950 | 7 | 27 | 7 | 41 | 100 |
| 1960 | 12.5 | 28.5 | 10 | 51 | 100 |
| 1970 | 30 | 40 | 20 | 90 | 100 |
| 1980 | 65 | 44 | 23 | 132 | 100 |
| 1990 | 80 | 50 | 25 | 155 | 100 |
| 2000 | 100 | 55 | 30 | 185 | 100 |
Chart1
| 1900 | 1900 | 1900 | 1900 | 1900 |
| 1910 | 1910 | 1910 | 1910 | 1910 |
| 1920 | 1920 | 1920 | 1920 | 1920 |
| 1930 | 1930 | 1930 | 1930 | 1930 |
| 1940 | 1940 | 1940 | 1940 | 1940 |
| 1950 | 1950 | 1950 | 1950 | 1950 |
| 1960 | 1960 | 1960 | 1960 | 1960 |
| 1970 | 1970 | 1970 | 1970 | 1970 |
| 1980 | 1980 | 1980 | 1980 | 1980 |
| 1990 | 1990 | 1990 | 1990 | 1990 |
| 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 |
Sheet2
Sheet3
Year
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Pigs
Horses
Poultry
1890
319
356
52
90
51
706
1910
391
418
83
115
73
828
1930
513
567
153
187
88
1,203
1950
644
631
187
300
69
1,372
1970
1,016
1,001
325
634
81
2,734
1990
1,294
1,216
587
856
61
10,770
Increase
1890 – 1990
(in percent)
406
342
1,129
951
119
1,525
Year
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Pigs
Horses
Poultry
1890
319
356
52
90
51
706
1910
391
418
83
115
73
828
1930
513
567
153
187
88
1,203
1950
644
631
187
300
69
1,372
1970
1,016
1,001
325
634
81
2,734
1990
1,294
1,216
587
856
61
10,770
Increase 1890 – 1990
(in percent)
406
342
1,129
951
119
1,525
Activity
Soil, Rock and Silt Moved
(billion tons)
Non-human:
Wind erosion
1.0
Glaciers
4.3
Mountain-building
14
Oceanic
volcanos
30
Water: sediment transfer to
water bodies
14
Water: silt movement within
watersheds
39
Human
40-45
Activity
Soil, Rock and Silt Moved
(billion tons)
Non-human:
Wind erosion
1.0
Glaciers
4.3
Mountain-building
14
Oceanic volcanos
30
Water: sediment transfer to water bodies
14
Water: silt movement within watersheds
39
Human
40-45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
02468
Cu produced
Pb produced
Zn produced
Cu emissions
Pb emissions
Zn emissions
1901-
1910
1911-
1920
1921-
1930
1931-
1940
1941-
1950
1951-
1960
1961-
1970
1970-
1980
1980-
1990
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Chart1
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
Sheet1
| production | ||||||||
| CU | Pb | |||||||
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 6 | |||
| 2 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 8 | |||
| 3 | 14 | 3 | 14 | 3 | 10 | |||
| 4 | 15 | 4 | 13 | 4 | 12 | |||
| 5 | 25 | 5 | 12 | 5 | 15 | |||
| 6 | 31 | 6 | 23 | 6 | 25 | |||
| 7 | 60 | 7 | 35 | 7 | 42 | |||
| 8 | 82 | 8 | 37 | 8 | 57 | |||
| 9 | 80 | 9 | 32 | 9 | 67 | |||
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 8 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 3 | 12 | 3 | 22 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 4 | 14 | 4 | 35 | 4 | 3.5 | |||
| 5 | 19 | 5 | 34 | 5 | 4 | |||
| 6 | 31 | 6 | 54 | 6 | 5 | |||
| 7 | 49 | 7 | 77 | 7 | 10 | |||
| 8 | 67 | 8 | 88 | 8 | 13 | |||
| 9 | 56 | 9 | 82 | 9 | 10 |
