Читать книгу Life Under Glass - Марк Нельсон - Страница 15

Biosphere 2 was designed as a new kind of ecological laboratory, one in which the fundamental processes of life as well as that of an entire system could be investigated. To accomplish that, the facility needed to be energetically and informationally open (like our global biosphere) and virtually airtight (materially-closed) so that everything could be tracked with great precision. The structure was hailed an engineering marvel because its engineers succeeded in accomplishing daunting goals. Crucially, this included an unprecedented leak rate of less than 1% a month despite more than 20 miles of seams on the space frame roofs that braced against an outside Arizona climate that varied from subfreezing in the winter to well over 100 degrees in the blazing summertime. If Biosphere 2 hadn’t been so tightly sealed, the decline in oxygen or the dramatic daily and seasonal fluxes in carbon dioxide couldn’t have been detected and accurately examined.

Biosphere 2 became an ecological icon, recognizable around the world. Its biomes were tropical (it did not include temperate or polar regions) and its wilderness systems were chosen accordingly to include the biological, chemical, and physical requirements that define each area. To achieve maximum diversity, both terrestrial and aquatic/marine mini-biomes were chosen along with differing ecosystems within each biome to enhance overall biodiversity. Project ecologists gathered about 3,800 species of plants and animals, plus uncountable microbes, fungi, and the other small-in-size but profoundly crucial microbiota in soils and waters that keep our global biosphere healthy and recycling. Because Biosphere 2 was vastly smaller than Earth, elements cycled faster. For example, there was a two to four day residence time of carbon dioxide in Biosphere 2’s atmosphere compared to many years on Earth. John Allen, the inventor of Biosphere 2 and its executive director, presciently called the facility a “cyclotron for the life sciences.” We were able to find things out rapidly, rather than over decades.

The technologies designed by our engineers also had to replace natural forces in order to supply much of what we take for granted since our planetary biosphere does it so reliably and for free; temperature control, rainfall, winds, tides, waves, and also supplement biogeochemical and nutrient cycles. There are no ‘wastes’ in a closed system. There is no dump or drain to dispose of unwanted substances; in fact, all “wastes” contain valuable resources. Thus, our engineering and ecological teams worked closely together to create new kinds of technical support systems that wouldn’t harm life. For example, we made advances with innovative ways of purifying air using soil and plant biofiltration. In the ocean, we used a vacuum pump to make waves instead of centrifugal pumps that can decimate marine microfauna and flora. Wetlands function as the Earth’s kidneys as they absorb and detoxify potential pollutants; so we worked with Dr. Billy Wolverton from NASA to design constructed wetlands to treat and recycle all of our human and domestic animal wastes produced inside Biosphere 2.

In a closed ecological system, our farm had to reach beyond organic standards to succeed in recycling all of its water and nutrients to grow enough food. Everything that came out of the soil had to be returned and we could not use any toxic products since they would build up in our soils and waters. The farm also had to be highly productive on a limited area of about half an acre. Though we did not succeed in growing all of our food during the first two years (we ate some seed stock during the second year inside), the 81% we did grow made Biosphere 2 one of the most productive farms in the world. Improvements made after our first closure mission, including using crops better adapted to the lowered light inside the facility, enabled the second crew to succeed in growing 100% of their food during their experiment in 1994.

The ocean system surpassed nearly all of our advisors’ predictions; we built and sustained the largest coral reef ever created, let alone one in an artificial tank located over a thousand miles from the closest ocean basin, at 3,800 feet above sea level with temperate (not tropical) seasonal sunlight. When the ocean was resurveyed after the two-year experiment, 75% of the individual hard and soft corals had survived and some were reproducing. Even though the Biosphere 2 ocean had to deal with rising carbon dioxide, acidification, and low light levels, it persisted. Our mini-ocean taught us many things, but perhaps the single most important lesson was that it could adapt to new environments.

Many of our friends told us when we were building Biosphere 2, that it was 50 years ahead of its time. If we were to build it now, its purposes would be self-evident. In many ways, they were right.

Today, who can doubt the importance of developing highly productive ecologically-based farming systems to feed the world’s growing population of around 8 billion while not polluting our rivers and oceans? Or applying methods to regenerate our farm and rangeland soils to hold more CO₂ rather than contribute to the climate crisis? Who can honestly dispute that deforestation and the demise of coral reefs and other ecosystems worldwide are fueling the frightening loss of species as well as diminishing our biosphere’s ability to be resilient and adaptive? Why do we put up with pollution and the risks of exposure to untested chemicals when technology can and must be reinvented to not harm us, our ecosystems and our biosphere? Biosphere 2 successfully addressed all of these issues because it was a miniature replica of Earth’s biosphere, as well as an ecologically engineered laboratory which made it possible to investigate how ecosystems function and interact.

Finally, and equally significant, the magnificent structure was inspiring. It was a celebration of architecture with stepped pyramid and barrel vault shapes, geodesic domes, a fjord-like ocean and expansive roofs to allow for the growth of trees during the project’s intended 100-year lifetime. It showcased a new model that, by contrast, reveals the short-sightedness and self-destruction of our current assault on the global biosphere. We laughed when media accounts said we’d created an Eco-Disneyland. Our world wasn’t make-believe; we were living and demonstrating that ecology and living ecologically is inspiring, gratifying, and meaningful. A good part of a generation grew up dreaming of becoming a biospherian with a vision of knowing that it is possible to live harmoniously with all other life. Despite the lack of the internet, when we exited the experiment in 1993, satellite TV coverage of our ‘re-entry’ to Earth’s biosphere reached close to a billion people around the world.