arXiv:2006.12202v1 [q-bio.PE] 22 Jun 2020 + * 1 ABSTRACT 4 neibefc.Ide eoetedvlpeto ua civ forest human of of development the before Indeed fact. undeniable r bet s,i re osra hog h oa ytmwe system solar the through spread to of order rate in use, to able are ua otiuint h rehueefc n temperatur and effect effec greenhouse greenhouse the to (mostly contribution assu cons contamination human are has air activity change and human climate water to on due these factors debate Many the policies. decades, global few last the In Introduction Bologna Mauro analysis a quantitative sustainability: population world and Deforestation h ototmsi estimate. optimistic most the eldfie hehl n ecnld htteprobability the that conclude we and threshold defined "Num well and a development" technological of Model "Statistical spr to humankind of scale Kardashev capability to the to surviv survive to to probability probability soli the gives statistically This deforestation, society. of a of development technological the cleane atmosphere best provid our and are systems forests and food Trees human materials. and natural support They tion. deforestation. indiscriminate of consequence the 3 2 sueasohsi oe o h ehooia developmen technological the for h model and stochastic forests a between interaction assume the model We view. def of global point a of case in obsolete i almost species, be many will of survival change the climate imagine to unlikely highly is ple nsmlrcontexts similar in applied ihadtriitcgnrlsdlgsi oe o humans for model logistic generalised deterministic a with aatohccollapse. catastrophic a rwhorsuysosta ehv eylwpoaiiy les probability, low very have we that current shows the study on our Based growth civilisation. depic our which of self-destruction walk, random time view continuous of a point by statistical driven sustai process the a of adopting analysis quantitative process a deforestation afford we paper this In [email protected] eatmnod Ingenier´ıa El de Departamento hs uhr otiue qal oti work this to equally contributed authors these odmts nvriyo odn UK London, of University Goldsmiths, nvriyo ury ulfr,UK. Guildford, Surrey, of UK University London, Institute, Turing Alan The re’srie oorpae ag rmcro trg,oxy storage, carbon from range planet our to services Trees’ trigfo hsams biu bevto,w investig we observation, obvious almost this from Starting ≈ 1 sarsl fdfrsain esta 0mlinsur ki square million 40 than less deforestation, of result a As . 4 × 10 26 7 , at u urn nrycnupinrt setmtdin estimated is rate consumption energy current Our Watt. 8 hc esrsacvlsto’ ee ftcnlgclad technological of level civilisation’s a measures which , 1 n ead Aquino Gerardo and 3 , 4 hl h atri ae ndt n oe fgoa nryco energy global of model and data on based is latter the while ectrica-Electr ´ nc,Uiesddd Tarapac de Universidad onica, ´ 2,3,4* ihu aigactsrpi olpe svr o.W con We low. very is collapse, catastrophic a facing without e eorecnupinrtsadbs siaeo technologi of estimate best and rates consumption resource aiiyo urn ol ouaingot nrlto ot to relation in growth population world current of nability ecnie ipie oe ae nasohsi growth stochastic a on based model simplified a consider We . sad u otekyrl hypa ntetretilecosys terrestrial the in play they role key the to due and, rs frs neato n eeaut h rbblt favoi of probability the evaluate we and interaction -forest cuigor,o at ihu hm nti es,tedeba the sense, this In them. without Earth on ours, ncluding iyt u icsinadw hwta,keigtecretr current the keeping that, show we and discussion our to dity a n xli h eore ftefl oa ytm Accor system. solar full the of resources the exploit and ead rclrsls ftefloigscin ucsfloutc successful a section, following the of results" erical lstos u lntwscvrdb 0mlinsur kilo square million 60 by covered was planet our ilisations, hne ssilamte fdsuso,tedeforestation the discussion, of matter a still is changes e ftehmncvlsto.Tefre oe a led bee already has model former The civilisation. human the of t than s mn ae nadtriitclgsi-iednmc,whi dynamics, logistic-like deterministic a on based umans rsaino h planet. the of orestation faodn aatohcclas svr o,ls hn10 than less low, very is collapse catastrophic a avoiding of drda osbersosbeo h bevdcags amo changes: observed the of responsible possible as idered )addfrsainaetemsl ie.Wieteetn o extent the While cited. mostly the are deforestation and t) t h rbe ftesria fhmnt rmastatistica a from humanity of survival the of problem the ate edt eal ohresteeeg aitdb h u ta at Sun the by radiated energy the harness to able be to need oe o onls pce,icuigu,truhbuildi through us, including species, countless for homes e stetcnlgcleouino ua id nconjunctio in kind, human of evolution technological the ts e lbliprac ihcneune nntoa and national on consequences with importance global med e rdcint olcnevto n ae yl regula- cycle water and conservation soil to production gen 10% oerscretyremain currently lometres nms piitcetmt,t uvv ihu facing without survive to estimate, optimistic most in acmn ae nteaon feeg they energy of amount the on based vancement ≈ 10 a ´ 13 Watt nsumption 9 ssoe ntesubsections the in showed As . 2 nti ae,w ou on focus we paper, this In . 5 , 6 sda rx for proxy a as used eparallel he etsuch nect igthe ding m has ome a rate cal metres e,it tem, ewe le eon te san is in % ding ate ng ng n n f l Model and Results Deforestation The deforestation of the planet is a fact2. Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million Km2 of forests around the world were cut down10 which amounts to 2 105 Km2 per year. At this rate all the forests would disappear approximatively in 100 200 years. Clearly it is unrealistic× to imagine that the human society would start to be affected by the deforestation only wh−en the last tree would be cut down. The progressive degradation of the environment due to deforestation would heavily affect human society and consequently the human collapse would start much earlier. Curiously enough, the current situation of our planet has a lot in common with the deforestation of Easter Island as described in 3. We therefore use the model introduced in that reference to roughly describe the humans-forest interaction. Admittedly, we are not aiming here for an exact exhaustive model. It is probably impossible to build such a model. What we propose and illustrate in the following sections, is a simplified model which nonetheless allows us to extrapolate the time scales of the processes involved: i.e. the deterministic process describing human population and resource (forest) consumption and the stochastic process defining the economic and technological growth of societies. Adopting the model in3 (see also11) we have for the humans-forest dynamics
d N(t) N(t) = rN(t) 1 , (1) dt − βR(t) d R(t) R(t) = r′R(t) 1 a0N(t)R(t). (2) dt − R − c where N represent the world population and R the Earth surface covered by forest. β is a positive constant related to the carrying capacity of the planet for human population, r is the growth rate for humans (estimated as r 0.01years 1)12, ∼ − a0 may be identified as the technological parameter measuring the rate at which humans can extract the resources from the environment, as a consequence of their reached technological level. r′ is the renewability parameter representing the capability 1 13 of the resources to regenerate, (estimated as r′ 0.001 years− ) , Rc the resources carrying capacity that in our case may be identified with the initial 60 million square kilometres∼ of forest. A closer look at this simplified model and at the analogy with Easter Island on which is based, shows nonetheless, strong similarities with our current situation. Like the old inhabitants of Easter Island we too, at least for few more decades, cannot leave the planet. The consumption of the natural resources, in particular the forests, is in competition with our technological level. Higher technological level leads to growing population and higher forest consumption (larger a0) but also to a more effective use of resources. With higher technological level we can in principle develop technical solutions to avoid/prevent the ecological collapse of our planet or, as last chance, to rebuild a civilisation in the extraterrestrial space ( see section on the Fermi paradox). The dynamics of our model for humans-forest interaction in Eqs. (1 , 2), is typically characterised by a growing human population until a maximum is reached after which a rapid disastrous collapse in population occurs before eventually reaching a low population steady state or total extinction. We will use this maximum as a reference for reaching a disastrous condition. We call this point in time the "no-return point" because if the deforestation rate is not changed before this time the human population will not be able to sustain itself and a disastrous collapse or even extinction will occur. As a 3 first approximation , since the capability of the resources to regenerate, r′ , is an order of magnitude smaller than the growing rate for humans, r, we may neglect the first term in the right hand-side of Eq. (2). Therefore, working in a regime of the exploitation of the resources governed essentially by the deforestation, from Eq. (2) we can derive the rate of tree extinction as
1 dR a0N. (3) R dt ≈−
9 14 10 The actual population of the Earth is N 7.5 10 inhabitants with a maximum carrying capacity estimated of Nc 10 ∼ × 1 7 2 ∼ 7 inhabitants. The forest carrying capacity may be taken as Rc 6 10 Km while the actual surface of forest is R . 4 10 2 ∼ × × Km . Assuming that β is constant, we may estimate this parameter evaluating the equality Nc(t)= βR(t) at the time when the forests were intact. Here Nc(t) is the instantaneous human carrying capacity given by Eq. (1). We obtain β Nc/Rc 170. ∼ ∼ In alternative we may evaluate β using actual data of the population growth15 and inserting it in Eq. (1). In this case we obtain a range 700 . β . 900 that gives a slightly favourable scenario for the human kind (see below and Fig. 4). We stress anyway that this second scenario depends on many factors not least the fact that the period examined in 15 is relatively short. On the contrary β 170 is based on the accepted value for the maximum human carrying capacity. With respect to the value ∼
2/11 10 of parameter a0, adopting the data relative to years 2000-2012 of Ref. , we have
6 1 ∆R 1 2.3 10 12 1 × a0N a0 10− years− (4) R ∆t ≈ 3 107 12 ≈− ⇒ ∼ × The time evolution of system (1)-(2) is plotted in Figs. 1 and 2. We note that in Fig. 1 the numerical value of the maximum of 10 14 the function N(t) is NM 10 estimated as the carrying capacity for the Earth population . Again we have to stress that it is unrealistic to think that the∼ decline of the population in a situation of strong environmentaldegradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline, that is also way we take the maximum in population and the time at which occurs as the point of reference for the occurrence of an irreversible catastrophic collapse, namely a ’no-return’ point.
N(t) R(t)
1 × 1 1 4 × 10¢
% × 1 ✾ 3 × 10¡
$ × 1 ✾
2 × 10
" × 1 ✾
1 × 107
2 × 1 ✾ 21 22 2! 2" 2# 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140 t
9 Figure 1. On the left: plot of the solution of Eq. (1) with the initial condition N0 = 6 10 at initial time t = 2000 A.C. On 7 × 12 the right: plot of the solution of Eq. (2) with the initial condition R0 = 4 10 . Here β = 700 and a0 = 10 × −
N(t) R(t)
7 $ × 1 ✾ 4 × 10
# × 1 ✾ 3 × 107
" × 1 ✾
! × 1 ✾ 2 × 107
2 × 1 ✾ 1 × 107
1 × 1 ✾