I've been writing an informal essay on the true cost of everything and as per the question asked at the end, I want to approximate the average human's impact on habitat destruction/human sustainability.

With this, I then aim to elaborate how much action would need to be taken by how many people in order to counter the effects.

Is this even measurable?

  • How do you define "our habitat"? The Earth, perhaps? – Highly Irregular May 23 '17 at 11:42
  • Good question! I guess constrained to Earth is a good place to start. – ljs.dev May 24 '17 at 0:21
  • 1
    Do you mean something like the ecological footprint I described in this answer? – THelper May 25 '17 at 6:41
  • Great answers/questions there. In this case, I'm looking for more than just the consumption of land area, which I understand that one to be. ie, one could have their designated area, but be leaching toxins into the water table, affecting all. Likewise, effecting positive impact to air quality benefits the whole. So after a net impact value, from which people can be measured to degrees under or over this. – ljs.dev May 26 '17 at 23:31
  • 1
    On page 91 of the 2010 Ecological Footprint Atlas (pdf) they explicitly state "some demands, such as [...] toxic release are excluded from the calculations." But, the Chemical Footprint Project could be a way to fill that gap. – LShaver May 28 '17 at 15:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.