.

             Complicating matters for scientists and policymakers alike is the fact that the size of the ecological footprint is not static, but is rather dependent on money income, prevailing values, other socio-cultural factors and the state of technology (Wackernagel & Rees 1998:53). An approximate assessment of the four major human requirements for existence indicates that the current appropriation of natural resources and services has already exceeded the global ecosystem"s long-term carrying capacity. According to Kennedy Graham"s book, The Planetary Interest: A New Concept for the Global Age (1999), it may already be too late to reverse these processes:.

             Agriculture already occupies 4.8 billion hectares (3.3 billion hectares of pasture and 1.5 billion hectares of cropland). Sustainable production of current roundwood harvest, including firewood, would require a productive forest area of 1.7 billion hectares. To sequester the excess CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion, a further 3.1 billion hectares of carbon-sink land would need to be set aside. This totals 9.6 billion hectares, some 30 percent above what is available today, and 10 percent above all potential land. Thus there is evidence that humanity"s ecological footprint already exceeds global carrying capacity. The 'global footprint" has been estimated today at 2.8 hectares per capita-one third above the average earthshare of 2.1 hectares. That is to say, the draw-down on the planet"s natural resources exceeds the sustainability level by one-third (emphasis added) (Kennedy 132). .

             The negative and positive impacts of technology on the global ecosystem are discussed further below. .

             Negative Impacts of Technology on the Global Ecosystem. It should be pointed out from the outset that biological organisms have been influencing the global ecosystem in one fashion or another since the world was created. According to David J.