Who can state with any degree of certainty the minority or majority of our disruption.
wayne wrote:
Who can state with any degree of certainty the minority or majority of our disruption.
Great post!
My conviction that (some) humans are likely to weather the worst of the current models predicted by environmentalists derives from a belief that even the most pessimistic of such models falls short of the kinds of destruction of ecosystems that occured at the end of the Cambrian and Cretaceous. Also I'm thinking of the sorts of animals that have been able to survive such mass extinctions of the past and the environmental opportunities that were available to such animals post-event that led to new lifeforms via natural selection - a process I think we sidestep to some degree thanks to our tool use.
(As an aside I refer to tool use rather than technology because it doesn't seem to me to carry the same implication of developing ever more sophisticated tools, a computer is a tool, but so is a stick used for fishing for termites, but many don't think of sticks as technology - even if they are).
The complex interrelationships you cite certainly are an important issue, and I recognise that it would be hubris of me to suggest that no knock on effect could produce a situation such as depriving the atmosphere of gasses we need to survive, or filling it with those we find poisonous. However, as you also state, the likelihood of such things is unknown. Because the earth has weathered worse before, without becoming wholly inimicable to life, I am personally pretty certain there will remain niches we (some of us anyway, the lucky ones) can exploit, even running the worst case scenarios.
But yes - it's all hypothetical, and my own convictions on the matter are not 100% certain and were only raised as objection to the notion that we are soon to experience a post-human world (well, when I say we I don't mean us, obviously).
Dave Allen wrote:
wayne wrote:
Who can state with any degree of certainty the minority or majority of our disruption.
Great post!
My conviction that (some) humans are likely to weather the worst of the current models predicted by environmentalists derives from a belief that even the most pessimistic of such models falls short of the kinds of destruction of ecosystems that occured at the end of the Cambrian and Cretaceous. Also I'm thinking of the sorts of animals that have been able to survive such mass extinctions of the past and the environmental opportunities that were available to such animals post-event that led to new lifeforms via natural selection - a process I think we sidestep to some degree thanks to our tool use.
(As an aside I refer to tool use rather than technology because it doesn't seem to me to carry the same implication of developing ever more sophisticated tools, a computer is a tool, but so is a stick used for fishing for termites, but many don't think of sticks as technology - even if they are).
The complex interrelationships you cite certainly are an important issue, and I recognise that it would be hubris of me to suggest that no knock on effect could produce a situation such as depriving the atmosphere of gasses we need to survive, or filling it with those we find poisonous. However, as you also state, the likelihood of such things is unknown. Because the earth has weathered worse before, without becoming wholly inimicable to life, I am personally pretty certain there will remain niches we (some of us anyway, the lucky ones) can exploit, even running the worst case scenarios.
But yes - it's all hypothetical, and my own convictions on the matter are not 100% certain and were only raised as objection to the notion that we are soon to experience a post-human world (well, when I say we I don't mean us, obviously).
Hi Dave;
I think we're both of the same understanding on this.
Your conviction is quite sound baring the introduction of some larger force such as a meteor strike. The chances are much better that society will break down at a rate beyond that of the breakdown of natural interrelationships.
This in turn would allow for the stabilization to occur at a much higher level than other scenerios might allow, in which case humans would quite likely survive.
I agree that tool use is technology, could be that a great deal of technology is superfluous tool use. That creates it's own set of problems, as I stated earlier about having to fix the problems we created fixing the previous problems , requiring new tools, resources etc etc.
Interesting stuff I think, in spite of the seriousness, just wish I could stick around and see how it comes out.
wayne wrote:
Dave Allen wrote:
wayne wrote:
Who can state with any degree of certainty the minority or majority of our disruption.
Great post!
My conviction that (some) humans are likely to weather the worst of the current models predicted by environmentalists derives from a belief that even the most pessimistic of such models falls short of the kinds of destruction of ecosystems that occured at the end of the Cambrian and Cretaceous. Also I'm thinking of the sorts of animals that have been able to survive such mass extinctions of the past and the environmental opportunities that were available to such animals post-event that led to new lifeforms via natural selection - a process I think we sidestep to some degree thanks to our tool use.
(As an aside I refer to tool use rather than technology because it doesn't seem to me to carry the same implication of developing ever more sophisticated tools, a computer is a tool, but so is a stick used for fishing for termites, but many don't think of sticks as technology - even if they are).
The complex interrelationships you cite certainly are an important issue, and I recognise that it would be hubris of me to suggest that no knock on effect could produce a situation such as depriving the atmosphere of gasses we need to survive, or filling it with those we find poisonous. However, as you also state, the likelihood of such things is unknown. Because the earth has weathered worse before, without becoming wholly inimicable to life, I am personally pretty certain there will remain niches we (some of us anyway, the lucky ones) can exploit, even running the worst case scenarios.
But yes - it's all hypothetical, and my own convictions on the matter are not 100% certain and were only raised as objection to the notion that we are soon to experience a post-human world (well, when I say we I don't mean us, obviously).
Hi Dave;
I think we're both of the same understanding on this.
Your conviction is quite sound baring the introduction of some larger force such as a meteor strike. The chances are much better that society will break down at a rate beyond that of the breakdown of natural interrelationships.
This in turn would allow for the stabilization to occur at a much higher level than other scenerios might allow, in which case humans would quite likely survive.
I agree that tool use is technology, could be that a great deal of technology is superfluous tool use. That creates it's own set of problems, as I stated earlier about having to fix the problems we created fixing the previous problems , requiring new tools, resources etc etc.
Interesting stuff I think, in spite of the seriousness, just wish I could stick around and see how it comes out.
And can we drop the chicken little hysteria? The planet is not going away, and neither are people. And if any of this global climate change happens to be true, we'll have to deal with it, since fossil fuels are not going away either despite prodigious efforts by algore and crew. (It is really too bad that he has kept quiet lately, since every time he opens his mouth, the predictions of doomsday lose more credibility).
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
William wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
Why so personal? This planet is not a property of any particular person.
So you dont think it's a problem then?
TuringEquivalent wrote:
William wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
Why so personal? This planet is not a property of any particular person.
The answer to that is easy. For many people, religion is always personal, and for those people, environmentalism is their surrogate for religion. Even their language suggests that. We must be the saviors of the planet. And fervent believers are always thinking that those who do not share their faith are headed for the fires of hell (i.e. global warning) and seek to convert the unbelievers. The Environmentalists even have their priests who show them the way. One of their chief priests in someone they call, "algore".
kennethamy wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
William wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
Why so personal? This planet is not a property of any particular person.
The answer to that is easy. For many people, religion is always personal, and for those people, environmentalism is their surrogate for religion. Even their language suggests that. We must be the saviors of the planet. And fervent believers are always thinking that those who do not share their faith are headed for the fires of hell (i.e. global warning) and seek to convert the unbelievers. The Environmentalists even have their priests who show them the way. One of their chief priests in someone they call, "algore".
You are attacking the person, and not the issue. Perhaps, what you say is true, but the issue is about the environment.
...Could you address the exponential function in population growth, energy resources, farming, industry, etc etc, and relate it with our capitalist economical system based on this very same steady growth? That I guess, would be more to the issue.
It does not really matter if there are fanatics preaching the end of the World around...that is somewhat secondary. Fanatics can be found everywhere in every area, or field, unfortunately. What does matter is the correct assessment of the problems that stand in front of our eyes and that we deliberately chose to avoid when incapable of a quick fix straightforward solution.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=channel[/youtube]
TuringEquivalent wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
William wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
Why so personal? This planet is not a property of any particular person.
The answer to that is easy. For many people, religion is always personal, and for those people, environmentalism is their surrogate for religion. Even their language suggests that. We must be the saviors of the planet. And fervent believers are always thinking that those who do not share their faith are headed for the fires of hell (i.e. global warning) and seek to convert the unbelievers. The Environmentalists even have their priests who show them the way. One of their chief priests in someone they call, "algore".
You are attacking the person, and not the issue. Perhaps, what you say is true, but the issue is about the environment.
Yes. I am attacking how the issue is being dealt with, and how the issue is understood. And pointing out that people of that kind are unlikely to have a sane view of the issue, and how the issue is to be dealt with. And I am also defending myself, and all others who think as I do, that the issue of global warming or climate change, or whatever it is now called, has been vastly exaggerated, and has taken on a life of its own which can only be called, unhinged. And people (as the media report) are getting tired of it, and wonder what fuels it. It is the fanaticism that is so suspect, and how, as was pointed out, it has become personal. One should also note how much money is now involved.
kennethamy wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
William wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Caroline wrote:
I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.
That is wrong. It is not your planet.
TE, you couldn't be more wrong. I promise you it is more her's that it will ever be yours. Yes, you are right, no one owns it and it is our gift. The hell of it is so many don't understand her and all she can provide us. This topic has been hijack by those same men who have soiled her and toiled her and in their laughable assumed all mighty autonomy still don't realize that yet. What a pity!
William
Why so personal? This planet is not a property of any particular person.
The answer to that is easy. For many people, religion is always personal, and for those people, environmentalism is their surrogate for religion. Even their language suggests that. We must be the saviors of the planet. And fervent believers are always thinking that those who do not share their faith are headed for the fires of hell (i.e. global warning) and seek to convert the unbelievers. The Environmentalists even have their priests who show them the way. One of their chief priests in someone they call, "algore".
You are attacking the person, and not the issue. Perhaps, what you say is true, but the issue is about the environment.
Yes. I am attacking how the issue is being dealt with, and how the issue is understood. And pointing out that people of that kind are unlikely to have a sane view of the issue, and how the issue is to be dealt with. And I am also defending myself, and all others who think as I do, that the issue of global warming or climate change, or whatever it is now called, has been vastly exaggerated, and has taken on a life of its own which can only be called, unhinged. And people (as the media report) are getting tired of it, and wonder what fuels it. It is the fanaticism that is so suspect, and how, as was pointed out, it has become personal. One should also note how much money is now involved.
Ok, the issue is about global warming, and as such, a matter of scientific dispute. If so, then whether it is exaggerated, or not is not relevant. The consensus tell us that there is global warming, and we ought to always side with the majority of the experts.
But the issue is not just whether there is global warming, but how much, how serious it is, and how to respond to it, if at all. Those are largely policy issues, and not just scientific issues.
(And with the scandals concerning even how the data has been collected and fudged, even what the experts have been saying is suspect).
kennethamy wrote:
But the issue is not just whether there is global warming, but how much, how serious it is, and how to respond to it, if at all. Those are largely policy issues, and not just scientific issues.
Sure, but science is the best guide (as far as most people appreciate, or as far as I can tell) to forming a balanced appreciation of the risks involved. It's predictive power is greater than that of religion - whether or not the adherants are any more or less fanatical - and it's results far more tangible in rregards to understanding natural processes and forging new technologies.
In fact issues of political policy are much more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion or expedience than scientific processes and explanations (given that both the scientists and politicos are being professional about things - it is a politician's job to appeal to the masses after all, whereas a good scientist might feasably work on a matter that many people wish to ignore or deny).
Quote:(And with the scandals concerning even how the data has been collected and fudged, even what the experts have been saying is suspect).
Well, the latest such scandal was shown to be no scandal at all.
In fact the only thing scandalous about it was that for a while thieves were held up as heroic whistleblowers by the likes of Sky News or Glenn Beck until their expose was revealed as a rotten brocade.
Then all those who had previously lauded an act of theft decided to quietly drop the issue and discuss something else.
And that's pretty par for the course regarding such "scandals" really. Most bodies of evidence presented by environmental groups tend to contain many salient facts, the odd irrelevence and the occasional mistake. I can't think of a cry of corruption that has been upheld - or a time when the media reported on the salient facts (which can be very boring) in the same way as they do the occasional mistakes (which make for a bit of exciting drama if spun in a certain manner).
Of course the environmental groups sometimes resort to spinning drama themselves.
The main reason they resort to that is because if you try telling the layman about the degree of the spectrum of long wave radiation a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs and what that infers about burning sequestered carbon ... the layman will wander off to find someone who wishes to discuss football.
But to others spinning drama is a dirty pool whoever's doing it - true - but it gets attention.
