A sustainable Hawaii?

[jerry]

Here is a rather scary article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

I don't want to start a big argument, (so Rob feel free to delete this if it gets out of hand) lets just pretend for a moment that global warming has reached a tipping point.

Now consider as a thought exercise a fairly rapid (over a decade or two) where Hawaii becomes more and more isolated. Air transport cut 90%, shipping cut 90%. You get the idea. As living gets more and more difficult I think the first result would be a mass migration from the islands and a vastly smaller population.

Without massive imports, how much population can Hawaii support?

I have been searching, with very little luck, research on these types of issues. I would imagine that somewhere students and professors have approached this problem. Can anyone (Carrie?) direct me toward research?

By the way, I thought the recent (government?) plans for a "sustainable" Hawaii were rather pathetic and timid.



Jerry
Art and Orchids B&B
http://www.artandorchids.com

[Guest]

I bite

quote:

---

Originally posted by jerry
....Now consider as a thought exercise a fairly rapid (over a decade or two) where Hawaii becomes more and more isolated. Air transport cut 90%, shipping cut 90%. You get the idea. As living gets more and more difficult I think the first result would be a mass migration from the islands and a vastly smaller population.

Without massive imports, how much population can Hawaii support?...

---

It's called the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

Those that could afford the higher costs would stay... those that couldn't would leave.

*cough*

Oh geez... that's already what's happening... however, the islands are just getting populated with more wealthy people while those without are getting pushed to the beaches.

Pretty soon, those on the beaches won't even have a place. [V]



-------
Today in History
Wasp-like parasites are introduced to Hawai'i in an effort to fight the mango fruit fly discovered in the islands the previous year, 1947.

[Hotzcatz]

What was the population of this island BEFORE the indigenous peoples were wiped out by diseases? Wasn't it somewhere around what it is now? However, prior to the 1770's folks in Hawaii lived an entirely different lifestyle, had different requirements and different life spans. So, perhaps part of the question is how many people can live on this island AND at what level of lifestyle is sustainable?

[Carey]

Based on research done at UH-H (Dr Juvik - 'Atlas of Hawaii' and others) Hawaii Island had a larger population before 'Western' contact than it currently does today. This was a very industrious agricultural society, and most early reports have very extensive land modifications to support the population.
Interesting note, even prior to contact, Hawaii had a couple of unusaul things. Yams were a common ag. product even though they are from South America. There were some metal objects already on this island prior to Cook's initial landing...
If you look at many of the Kapus on society, many were in place to maintain sustainablity of the land.... That may be the problem with going back.... how many of us would be willing to allow a death sentence for breaking a kapu on something like a lower class person eating a fish of the upper class? Seems harsh, but hierarchial food distribution allowed the wild areas to replenish & allowed everyone to survive.

[olin137]

It may depend on the specific items - fuel, cars, lumber, etc come by surface ship, which is relatively efficient on a cost per unit basis. Also, there is always the factor that the more you ship of an item the cheaper the unit rate is. What may happen is not that the population growth is reversed, or at least significantly slowed, as much as an even more pronounced discrepency in income to cost of living.

[JWFITZ]

Hi Jerry,

I'm wholly with you, and that's the future I see all but inevitable, as well, I find among even those who inform themselves on these issues, a huge disconnect between what the profess and how they behave. As well, our cultural bias towards reductionist thinking, while a very powerful tool, has a tendency to produce highly specialized "experts," but a very fractured holistic view of large systems, and the data is very hard to find. As well, it's very often simply buried in the desire to rush towards far more "fashionable" issues. I think we're in grave danger indeed.