Is the world being destroyed?

@hightor,

Chris Clugston's prophecies about the imminent downfall of civilization is a conspiracy theory.

In a conspiracy theory (whether it is 9/11 truth or faking moon landings) you start with an ideological premise that you will believe no matter what the evidence says. They you go and collect facts; bits and pieces of graphs data and quotes from scientists all of which support your original dogma.

This is what Clugston has done. He is not a scientist. There is no reputable scientific organization that is supporting his prophecy (not even the Finnish Geological Survey which you seem to be taking out of context).

The fact that you are singling out the Finnish Geological Survey is funny in itself. I am sure the Finnish Geological Survey is a perfectly fine Geological Survey, but the fact that in your search to find "facts" to support your theory you ended up in a small Scandinavian country is comical.

Yes. Chris Clugston is a conspiracy theory. You don't idolize him because he has any expertise (he doesn't). You idolize him because he preaches the ideological doctrine that you already have. He is a prophet, not a scientist.

1 Reply

I want to raise this question; What kind of world do we want to live in?

In this thread, people are complaining about many parts of modern life; plastics, corporations, industrialism. But they aren't talking about what they would want as an alternative.

I can't imagine life without plastic, and neither can you. Plastics have revolutionized how humans live across the globe. You can't develop cheap computers without plastic, or economic cars. Plastic also protects people from viruses, and stores water at a low cost that makes it accessible for the world's developing countries.

Our modern industrial sector does cause environmental problems. It also has given us everything from shorter work weeks to a covid vaccine.

So the question is this... we have a history of progress. Over the past few hundred years we have gone from a primarily agricultural species, to an industrial one. This has benefited us greatly, extending our life spans, eradicating diseases, and almost completely ending famine.

So given that in the real world there are trade offs, where would you have stopped progress? If you don't like the real world, what type of world would you want to live in.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In a conspiracy theory (whether it is 9/11 truth or faking moon landings) you start with an ideological premise that you will believe no matter what the evidence says. They you go and collect facts; bits and pieces of graphs data and quotes from scientists all of which support your original dogma.

Wrong again. FFS, that's not the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Wikipedia wrote:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy.

Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.

None of the articles and opinion pieces I've posted involve secret organizations working behind the scenes. None of the articles and opinion pieces I've posted resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The ones that make factual claims about the "amount of this" or the "cost of that" are falsifiable. The ones that identify trends and suggest what these trends mean over time, the ones that make specific predictions, and the ones that make value judgments are not subject to falsification in the same way that scientific claims are. If an article states that by some year some particular confluence of events will yield a specific result that is nothing more than an informed guess. That's why the scientific papers I've posted "fall quite a bit short from the world [as we know it] being destroyed". Speculation on the future based on the scientific knowledge we have today is a perfectly allowable human activity. I don't confuse it with science.

The fact is, whether humans can meet the challenges faced by the effects of industrial pollution and climate change as they increase pace over the next fifty to a hundred years is a topic of interest and concern to many people. Your apparent need to paint everything with a positive tinge is asinine.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I can't imagine life without plastic, and neither can you.

And that's precisely the problem.

I've wasted enough time with you for today.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I can't imagine life without plastic, and neither can you.

A rethink in the population and especially in industry can solve the problem in the long term.

But it takes more than just information to change one's behaviour.
Only when we ourselves are convinced of the meaningfulness of climate and environmental protection, we will support initiatives that help reduce plastic and especially plastic waste and rethink our own actions.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes! To both of those things Walter.

It will be great if industry comes up with more bio-friendly plastic. I am certain they are working on it. I would support that completely (and any corporation that develops a useful bio-friendly plastic should be rewarded for it).

Obviously we should be reducing plastic waste. I have mixed emotions about the loss of plastic bags in supermarkets here (my dog uses those bags).

The point is that plastics are a revolutionary technology that has advanced the standard of living of human beings from the wealthiest country to the poorest. Look Around.

You are probably sitting behind a set of plastic keys. They sell keyboards with wooden keys, they are about three times the price of a plastic keyboard. Around me right now I have a TV made with plastic (because it is light and cheap). I have various products packaged in plastic, and an (ironically named) plastic glass.

Plastic makes cars lighter, cheaper and safer. Without plastic cars would be further out of reach of many people. Water is transported in plastic... when there is a hurricane in Haiti or Puerto Rico or Texas the plastic come great use. And your covid shot was jabbed into your arm with a plastic syringe.

Yes, we can live more consciously and this is a good thing. Right now, plastic is essential for maintaining the standard of life now enjoyed by humans in both wealthy countries and developing countries. Without it, people will literally suffer.

I support initiatives to help reduce plastic waste. That isn't the issue. The issue is that plastic is part of human progress, and like most human progress it has costs.

The benefits are great, now we have to figure out how to address the problems, and that will take more progress.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The issue is that plastic is part of human progress, and like most human progress it has costs.

Yes, as is coal, fuel powered motors, and ... and ... and ...

Originally, the "wheel + axle" system was not used for carts or carriages but for potter's wheels - from around 3500 BC onward. Only centuries later, the importance for vehicles discovered.

We will certainly find a substitute for plastic or something entirely else.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I read an interesting article recently (I forget where) that suggested that the best path to minimize the amount of global warming involves increasing the use of coal in developing nations.

Since wealthy nations had the benefit of being able to develop with cheap energy from fossil fuels, the idea is that developing nations need the same, and that is unreasonable to suggest that they now can't pass through this phase. So the best way forward is to get developing nations through the fossil fuel phase quickly and then move on as a planet.

I don't know if I agree completely, but as a long term strategy with the goal of minimizing damage while allowing development is interesting.

1 Reply

A study finds that agriculture and pesticide use threaten relatives of world’s most important crops, considered crucial to food security.

Wild relatives of some of the world’s most important crops, including potatoes, avocados and vanilla, are threatened with extinction, according to this study.
Wild bean, squash, chilli pepper and husk tomato species were also featured in the study, published in the journal Plants, People, Planet, which found 35% of all species studied are threatened with extinction, largely due to agriculture and pesticide use.

Extinction risk of Mesoamerican crop wild relatives

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I was trying to read this with an open mind. They make a huge error in the opening argument.

Their claim that we have an "exponentially growing population" is simply false.

This is is a political paper, not a scientific one. But they should still be careful to get the facts correct... and this one is important.

This is a horribly written paper.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The points I would make are these...

1. Pesticides greatly increase crop yields and are a key part of feeding all of the people who live on the planet.

2. Pesticides have costs and negative effects to the environment (and in some cases to human health).

So the logical thing to do is to balance the benefits (i.e. the ability to feed the planet) with the costs. There are different types of pesticides, some are more damaging than others. There are also ways (including genetic engineering) to reduce the amount of pesticide required.

This is a matter of balance, coming up with a scientifically-informed policy that addresses both the needs of agricultural producers with the costs of producing enough food.

Do we agree on the basic issue at least?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I was trying to read this with an open mind. They make a huge error in the opening argument.

Their claim that we have an "exponentially growing population" is simply false.

The gave as source Godfray et al., 2010 and Vermeulen et al., 2012.

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Is that intended as a joke, Walter? It made me chuckle. Listing a source for something that is simply false doesn't mean anything. The word "exponential" has a clear definition, and population growth is not exponential (see note).

This is a problem with social science research. They fill their convoluted arguments with cites... it is still a convoluted, counter-factual argument.

Citations aren't proof of anything, nor are they intended to be (I am sure you learned that during your academic career). All they do is provide a path to other people's work that a critical reader can check. When you use a citation, you might be mischaracterizing the original work, or the original work may have been in error. Science is based on research (not citations).

(Note: I am intentionally leaving open the door for someone to google "population growth exponential" and exuberantly post that aha... see it is. I was considering closing this door, but it will be a learning experience since if you understand what we are talking about, human population growth is far from exponential).

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Let's do an experiment.

How many people here believe that human population is growing exponentially? Anyone?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

since 1000AD, human population (worldwide) has grown exponentially, why do you not accept that

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman,

Do you know what the word "exponential" means? It means that the rate of growth remains constant.

Do you accept this definition?

This is a simple mathematical fact. The growth of human population is not exponential. IT is not even close to exponential. There is really nothing to argue here. This is ridiculous. If you agree with the definition of the word "exponential" then we can simply go check the data. We are arguing ******* fifth grade mathematics here.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

it i a growth pattern where the exponent (to the base 10) defines the pattern as such. Look at a growth curve of human pop since 1000AD, you will see .
Please dont kep making basless assertions .

PA, how do each type of function(Exponential v geometric) plot on a semi-log scale graph

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

we really need to reformulate plastics and insert more (OH) conservative bonds so that plastics can btter degrade. Your hope for society basd upon a plastic substrate is gonna lead to extinction of water-borne life especially.
Xline plastics , like Vinyl chloride based plastics which can break down in a fashion that makes them almost as toxic as asbestos fibres. they dont hemically reduce in structure. They physically break down into micro Shards which can produce its own kind of lung disease almost like mesothelioma.

HDPE and LDPE are better able to sustain their "plastic" pliability but only if they are used in subsurface structures (like liners or subsurface water conveyances.
whereas PVC pipes will physically degrade into a plastic versions of Kaylo or Fiberglas.

we use PVC cased monitor wells in mine claims where we want them gone in 20 yeqrs or so. otherwise we use 416 stainless or higher

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I think maxdancona is confused because the rate of growth has slowed in recent decades. But there wouldn't be as many humans today if exponential growth wasn't a factor at one time. And again, it was the Industrial Revolution which allowed more offspring to live to the age of reproductive fertility; the population won't grow exponentially when many children don't survive – as was the case in pre-industrial times, or when many children aren't born at all – as is the choice of many couples in the developed world who limit family size.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Note that, once again, maxdancona completely ignores the actual point of the study, the importance of CWR in genetic engineering, and instead concentrates on one relatively unimportant remark which really has nothing to do with the rest of the piece.

This is how I'd have written the sentence which so offends maxdancona:

Quote:

Reducing the environmental impact of agriculture in the face of climate change and simultaneously feeding a human population, swollen from the exponential growth which occurred over the past few centuries, is one of the world's most pressing challenges.

0 Replies

Is the world being destroyed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know