Scientists think Earth doomed: I disagree

We're 44 percent doomed and it's our own fault.

That's not me saying it. It's science!

According to a paper published in the journal Science last week and written about on the blog site Science 2.0 (it has to be real science! Otherwise, they couldn't write about it in Science and on Science 2.0!), the Earth has crossed four of nine "planetary boundaries" that keep it functioning well.

According to the paper, the four "boundaries" that are already beyond that point of no return (Incidentally, there was a 1977 album by Kansas called "Point of Know Return." It included "Dust in the Wind.") are climate change, the loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change and altered biogeochemical cycles like phosphorus and nitrogen runoff. Of the four, I kind of understand climate change.

The paper says that for approximately the past 12,000 years, our planet was stable. Starting about 100 years ago, human occupation began to wear on Earth like a relative who stays too long and starts helping himself to food from the refrigerator. Now four of the nine significant indicators are fouled up.

The report focused particularly on the biochemical cycles. While attempting to understand, I drifted off and starting thinking of other cycles – the triple is the hardest part of baseball's "hitting for the cycle," unicycles seem impossible to ride, the song "Circle of Life" should be "Cycle of Life."

Then it hit me: I suspect the scientists are focused on the wrong things, because everybody knows that if you lose something, you can always replace it. There are always other fish in the sea. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm sure there are other PETA-unfriendly sayings, too.

So what if we've screwed up things in the past 100 years? Think of all the great things we've added – things that make life better.

A century ago, many homes didn't have indoor plumbing. They lacked Internet access. Not only was there no "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," there was no TV! Major League Baseball was limited to 16 teams in the East.

More?

How about microwave popcorn? Starbucks? Cellphones? The zipper (I think it was invented earlier, but go with me here)? Nyquil?

I'll take what we have now for what we had in 1915, even with the loss of the stuff I don't understand.

Are you going to tell me that the invention of the automobile, the eradication of polio, the institution of the eight-hour workday and discovery of antibiotics don't offset the "loss of biosphere integrity"?

Balderdash.

I'm not buying that we're doomed – or even 44 percent doomed. The scientists say that conditions during the past 12,000 years, known as the Holocene epoch (like how the 1990s were known as the Tupac epoch), we lived in a world that was perfectly suited for us.

Then World War I kicked off, movie theaters opened and John Garamendi began running for office. That's when things started going downhill, according to the guys in white coats, who insist that we're nearly halfway to blowing it all.

"It might be possible for human civilization to live outside Holocene conditions, but it's never been tried before," co-author Steve Carpenter says.

I'll just say this. Steve Carpenter is a fine name for an athlete or an auto mechanic or someone who attended high school with you. But a scientist? Nah.

You can have science and all its "smarts." I remember this: Science brought us New Coke, Bruce Jenner's new face(s) and the steroids era in baseball. If science tells me we've blown 44 percent of our important "boundaries," I say this: We've still got a 56 percent chance. Oh, and I just looked it up and saw that the term "zipper" started being used in 1923.

Trust me, we'll be fine.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.