Printable View
Recently in the Washington Post their have been articles about global warming. Last Monday in the Science section, page A10 the caption reads: At The Poles, Melting Occurring At Alarming Rate. Maybe some of you can access it. It's a whole page with pictures of places like Greenland and Anarctica.
Yet, people like President Bush, who denies the "Greenhouse" effect, continue to stubbornly edit any reports that support it. What are we going to do? Wait until a major disaster strikes before acting!
DM........It's not just President Bush who is thinking this.....
I was recently having dinner and was overhearing the men in the next booth talking....and it took everything i had not to jump in and smack them around..
All they could talk about was that Global Warming was a hoax.....that there was no evidence, and it was all just a pile of crap..........that the didn't believe one word of any of it!!!
they then went on to talk about how horrible the weather around the world was........go figure....
Most People think IMHO if i cant see it It isnt there ,i live in Holland and to be Honest im worried a lot about it we (Dutch) live below the sea Level so if it rises we will be some the first to Vanish :(
I will throw you a rubber ring and one of my duckies to keep you company hon!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pertez
Not that it's related, but there are people who don't believe we went to the moon.
There's no doubt the earth is warming. We argue too much over the cause... instead of whether we can do anything to help slow it.
But there is very little proof it's mankind's fault, (it's a lot of supposition, I personally think it's more about solar activity...) but that allows the conversation to waver from the issue of what we can do to be prepared.
One issue is... will it actually help the forests and jungles. Hotter won't mean drier, it'll mean wetter, all that extra icemelt will end up in the air as the less saline ocean surfaces evaporate more readily. More rain, more humidty. The big deserts, like the Sahara, might become savannahs again.
On the other hand, the change in ocean salinity can also cause major currents, such as the gulf stream, to "stall." When that happens... we experience ice-ages. Yes my friends, global warming could lead to the next iceage.
Actually, I don't mind put my hand up and telling you I'm one of those sceptics. I've read many articles about it that quite simply made me question whether, or not, it actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
I mean sure it's recorded as an historic event with pictures and such but a lot people, who are a whole lot smarter than me, have put some pretty convincing arguements forward that suggest is was just a giant hoax.
So, I think I prefer to keep an open mind on that one.
And, global warming I agree with Oz, I think I know gobal warming is a fact, but I don't feel certain that it's man-made greenhouse gases that are causing it. Therefor, I'm not certain how urgent, or helpful, is it s that people and goverments take action to reverse carbon emissions.
Again, I've read excellent arguments and again by people who know a whole lot more about it than I do, who say the slight global temperature change detected by scientists is part of a cyclical pattern and more to do with the sun's activities than anything happening on Earth.
Alex, the same arguments about global warming are being made by the same people that make the arguments about the moon. Those same people make arguments about government involvement in 9/11, as well as the Kennedy assassination. My point is there will always be skeptics to something that happened, and they didn't witness it with their own eyes.
Is global warming a problem, who knows. Our recorded history doesn't give us enough of an accurate background to say for sure. All we can do is put forth theories with the knowledge we have learned from geology studies. Are they accurate? Who knows, but it's all we have, and there isn't anything strong enough to dispute it. So it must be true right? Well history is full of studies that were done by science that were later shown to be less than accurate once the knowledge came to light. As far as I'm concerned, what harm is there is using less of something? All good things in moderation right? Us Americans have difficulty with that concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
There are scientists from both ways of thinking on global warming. That makes it so difficult for us lay people to decide.
ID has a great point! Why not try to do something!?! Why should we sit idly by waiting the powers that be decide whether or not we need to do anything, then what exactly it is we need to do. Surely, even Americans can think for ourselves!
In my classroom I used to give each student a small piece of paper (the size of a small post-it) and had them crumble it up. The could just wad it up, tear it in smaller pieces, or whatever. I would have the first student throw their paper in the middle of the floor and ask the class if that was such a mess. Everyone would, of course, say that one small piece was no big deal. But after the entire class threw in their pieces, the mess was a big deal. It took longer to pick up the mess from everyone, with everyone helping, that it did to throw it down. If that mess would have been disposed of properly the first time, it would have saved us all time and trouble.
That is an extremely simple way of illustrating the combined effect of each of us. We would apply this to lots of different situations, as it does make quite a statement for young children.
My point is, the same is true with adults. This sort of ties in with the thread on manners. We need to set examples for children. We should expect them to demonstrate the same consideration.
Bush denies everythingQuote:
Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6
A Lady to the Rescue Thank you * Hugs*Quote:
Originally Posted by ladygstar
That's not entirely true. He doesn't deny his own greatness, he doesn't deny his ability to be 'the decider' he hasn't denied that he is the president. There are a number of half truths and make believe stories he came up with that he hasn't denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Denying reality, yes. Totally agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
I meant denying reality, sorry iI was not more clear on that
I saw some report on global warming and the effects on economy for us Swedes. The really interesting part was that we as a country would actually GAIN from global warming in the next 100 years..
faster growing crops, trees and wine would be a bonus that would outweigh the cost of raising waterlevels and other things.
there is not doubt in my mind that man created this mess we live in right now though and we need to adress the problems now.
You better believe it Logic. If it actually warms, you all will reap great benefits. You think Vikings viked merely to vaction in warmer climes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
Nope, they went aviking because they had plenty of liesure time. Harvested early, and went exploring, gathering trinkets (loot) and even settled the western hemisphere. Think they called Greenland green as a joke?
If it hadn't been for the following mini-ice age(s) we might all be speaking Norse in this hemisphere. But the Viking settlements were too early and too far north to flourish when it turned cold.
The earth's climate is very cyclical. Witness Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It was so cold ice crystals literally hung in the air. Cossacks froze to death mounted on their likewise frozen horses waiting to ambush the French. It was very very cold.
We've only been keeping detailed weather measurements for a few hundred years. Everything else is anectdotal and we really don't know what to expect next, despite what anyone wishes to claim.
And what is the major concern? That the seas will rise? And what part of nature will suffer the most? Mankind of course... because that's where we build most of our biggest cities.
[/ramble]
Isabelle90 what a wonderful way to demonstrate the effects we humans have on this great planet of ours. So simple and yet so graphic. I look forward to reading more about your teaching methods. Perhaps I can share my teaching methods with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabelle90
Just a suggestion for this thread and anyone interested. The State of Fear by Michael Crichton is an excellent book on this topic. Yes, it is fictional, but Michael Crichton does his research before he writes, and The State of Fear is no exception. This book stirred up a lot of controversy.
Catsclaw, I've noticed you've been addressing me in a few threads....?Quote:
Originally Posted by catsclaw-01
Isabelle, how do you think the rest of the class would feel if the child who made the most mess refused to recognise that it was a mess and declined to help clear it up?
TYWD
TYWD, You must be talking about Great Britain...
They're responsible for Australia, Canada, India, the USA, and a host of other "misfit" ex-colonials after all.
j/j of course. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
TYWD, I was going to say that I would call the child an American LOL!! But then Oz chimed in before I saw.....I would not have "passed the buck." Ha! Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Ozme
Ouch!
I accept what you say in the sense you said it. And I would add that we've left a far bigger mess in Africa.
But if we regard those ex-colonies as Britannia's school-age children in my analogy, then, perhaps, it is the oldest of them that misbehaves the most, environmentally speaking.
TYWD
True. I'll only suggest that it is from the momentum of the WWII industrial build-up. "We" don't want to let go of it because of the wealth it creates now.
Prior to that, the European nations were by far the biggest polluters, but the same incident... WWII, took down all that old soot-creating industry... allowing for a wave of modernization. The London Fog was downright deadly for a while there.
Everyone takes a turn. "We" are just having some trouble coming to terms with not being able to play by ourselves, in this arena, anymore.
No one is "free" of all guilt. And the USA is about to be 'put to shame' and demoted to '3rd stringer bench warmer' Newly industrializing nations such as India and China will do whatever is necessary to become world class economies. Do you think they'll set that (and everything it means to their citizenry vis-a-vis standard of living) aside because of world opinion... or even a little smog in their cities?
Strangely enough - and it may be incredibly naive of me - I do believe those eastern countries are strongly motivated to avoid shame and humiliation. But I doubt that's enough to stop their drive for industrialisation, as you say. Unless they all start dying of cancer and other pollution-linked diseases.
The world's a dead planet spinning.
<--- Smart-arse.
Just to throw in my personal opinions, there is no controversy regarding global warming. Global warming is, indeed, a fact. The controversy is in the causes. The so called liberals (for lack of a better term) are quick to blame everything on mankind and the industrial nations. The conservatives (another lack) are just as quick to deny that. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle.
Let's start with the ozone layer. Heard much about that lately? I can't say that I have. Know why? When scientists found that hole in the ozone layer some immediately started screaming about chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone layer. Despite the fact that they had virtually no knowledge of the mechanics of the ozone layer and despite the fact that NO ONE has been able to come up with a valid method for introducing CFC's into an atmospheric level that high. The damned things are heavier than air! They drop to the ground. Then came the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That one eruption blew a hole in the ozone layer 5 times the size of the one over Antarctica! Mankind's fault?
What about greenhouse gases? True, industry and personal uses of oil and such are contributing. But how much, really? The so-called environmentalists will readily display data showing how many TONS of CO2 and methane are dumped into the atmosphere each year by mankind. What they don't generally show you is how small that total is compared to NATURALLY occurring gases. Again, a single volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 in a single DAY than man does in a year. And a large part of that CO2 is absorbed into the ocean where it is used by marine plant life to produce ... wait for it... OXYGEN!
The planet is warming, no question about it. But the scientists haven't been studying this kind of phenomena for very long, in a geologic sense. Data they have recovered from ice cores and ocean bottom cores shows that what we are seeing now is not that uncommon. So why must we blame ourselves?
I remember when Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans, all of the TV reporters where asking any scientists they could corner whether global warming could have caused Katrina to become so strong. EVERY weather expert they asked scoffed at the idea, saying that the increase in surface water temperature was not high enough to cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in wind speeds, not more than one or two MPH. Then someone got the brilliant idea to ask an "environmentalist" and guess what he answered? "ABSOLUTELY! There's no question that global warming made the hurricane MUCH stronger." From that point on the ONLY quote you heard on the mainstream news was that one!
The following year all the "environmental experts" were preaching doom and gloom about the monstrous hurricanes which were going to be heading our way. The weather experts hedged there bets and predicted an above average number of hurricanes. In reality, the total was significantly BELOW average. And remember, the number of hurricanes which are counted to get that average includes ONLY those which were discovered. Before satellite imaging many hurricanes which never came near land went totally unreported.
So, can we do anything about global warming? In all likelihood, damned little if anything. Sure, we can cut back on our consumption of fossil fuels. What shall we use instead? Any kind of energy manufacture is sure to upset someone. By far the cheapest and most efficient is nuclear. Just try getting THAT past the greens! Wind power can provide some energy, but it's unreliable, expensive and nowhere near capable of providing enough power for man's needs. The same goes for hydroelectric. And in the end, chances are it will do precious little good.
Mankind may be heading for it's own version of the KT boundary. Whether through his own doing or through nature's the end may be closer than we think. And to be honest, some days I believe it can't get here soon enough.
I'm left wondering how far from the right the middle is.
That sounds very well-informed, and I'm sure it is. I hesitate before commenting. In any case, I've heard that the world has got hotter than this several times before, and without any help from us.
However, the last I heard, a bunch of scientists who are, perhaps, just as well-informed, consider that mankind has done nothing but harm to planet Earth. Now if it's that's true, then it's just a question of timing; we shall either destroy the world quickly or we'll do it slowly. And if we do it by interfering with nature, it'll be quickly
Let's all sit back and see ...
TYWD
btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.
I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another. Nature has ways of balancing things out. If a group grows beyond the capacity of its food source the weaker members of the group die off. the group gets smaller until there is once again enough food for the group. Mankind is no different, except that: #1, we eat virtually everything, not just one particular food; and #2, we have devised ways to increase our food supply to match our population growth. At least so far. It's a zero sum game, though. Eventually there won't be enough to go around. Then the weaker individuals, families, tribes, populations, will die off, reducing the demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
This is the key thing to remember. We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying the parts of the earth where we live. We are making it less habitable for ourselves. Just as I noted above, eventually the population will decline, through famine, war, disease, those "natural" processes which have been with us for millennia. Understandably, no one wants to be part of that decline, but those who live through it will find a much different world than we live in now. Just as our world is much different from the world of the Neanderthals. Will it be better? Who knows? It WILL be different, though. That's guaranteed.Quote:
btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.
I'm reminded of a comment by George Carlin (I think): Perhaps mankind was Nature's way of getting Styrofoam. Now that she's got it she doesn't need us anymore.
I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.
It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.
It'll be a nightmare of logistics... and we might go down in proverbial flames.
But the world will survive. It's done this before. And myriad species go down with each cycle and new ones arise. The real reason we're upset is we can see it coming and it's going to change how mankind lives.
Well, my understanding of it, Oz, is that it's not so much ice melting and water encroaching and eventually submerging large areas of land, but the fact that it's fresh water and therefore will severely impact on everything that lives in salt water, that has scientist so concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
That too has happened before. We, man, seem to get in an uproar over the extinction of species... but that's a constant occurance. Yes it's a shame if we are the sole cause... but it is a fact of life (literally) on this planet.
Species come and species go. The freshwater will only impact the ocean surfaces and probably only near the poles. Most of it will evaporate into the atmosphere and become distributed around the globe as precipitation. So there will be some species "making" adjustments or dieing off... but others will emerge from new opportunities the changed environment will bring.
We just get very centric about it... as if the whole world revolves around our needs.
Thrall says: I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument [Man has done only harm to the planet]. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another.
I'm sorry to be so tiring, but I doubt your generalisation is true: I'm sure the people I referred to were aware of their place in Nature and the planet's evolution. That is the assumption one has to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyway.
And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).
I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.
But after disagreeing on where the blame lies or how much of it, Thrall and I do seem to have a similar outlook on where it'll all end if it carries on the way it is going. And as for blame? What does that matter - what's done is done. The thing is, must we carry on doing it? Is there another way for China to develop?
Ozme says: Species come and species go.
How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)
Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.
Now I know it's easy for us wishy washy western liberals to get all consciencious and say that we're burning too much fuel and we're eating way too much, and I recognise the inclination of the conservatives to believe in the law of "the survival of the fittest" (notwithstanding their hatred of Darwinism). But self-destruction ... how does that fit in? Are we truly going to throw ourselves over the cliff like so many lemmings (which really don't do that anyway)?
I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.
As we used to say in Britain, "I'm alright, Jack."
TYWD
Actually, I think the biggest impact is what the fresh water will do to the oceans currents. This was poorly explained in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quade. As I understand it, the flow of the major oceanic currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, depend upon the temperature and salinity of the water at the poles. As the ice melts the salinity drops. This could cause the Gulf Stream, among others, to stop flowing. This will cause much of northwestern Europe, in particular, to experience MUCH colder temperatures than they are used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Actually, it was I who said that. Please don't blame Thrall for my opinions. She's far to sweet a person to have that inflicted upon her.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Yes, it is probably true that mankind's effects on the ecosystem is much more far-reaching than any other species. This is primarily because of industrialization and because mankind is one of the most successful (in terms of survival) species ever to inhabit the planet. Aside from some insect species (and discounting microscopic life) NO other species has managed to inhabit virtually every climate and condition.Quote:
And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).
I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.
But there are other species which can be nearly as devastating as man. Army ants come to mind. They can devastate a tremendous (for their size) swath of territory, eating virtually everything in their path. Most grazing animals will practically denude the lands they graze on, moving to new feeding grounds when the old are used up. They rely on nature to regrow the feed behind them, but if something prevents that from happening they will die off in droves. As will those species which depend upon what the grazers leave behind. As will those predator species which prey on the grazers. It's the law of nature at its harshest, and it's been happening since the beginnings of life.
No, I think Oz has it right. While man has, indeed been directly or indirectly responsible for the destruction of many species, far more have been wiped out through natural occurrences than mankind could ever hope to destroy. A single asteroid strike 65 million years ago wiped out 95% of all species on the earth in a geological eyeblink. Should we bemoan the potential loss of all those beautiful animals? I think not. Chances are, without that particular event mankind would never have developed.Quote:
Ozme says: Species come and species go.
How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)
Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.
During each of several ice ages, brought about without any assist from humanity, hundreds and thousands of species were destroyed, and probably billions of life forms. And when the ice ages ended and more temperate climates came, thousands more species died off.
The problem we have today is that it becomes difficult to determine whether species are dying off because of natural forces or, if you divorce humanity from Nature, through man's actions.
Actually, when you think about it, in the event of a major environmental shift, I believe the less developed populations would be more able to survive than the developed ones. They are more used to living on the edge, making do with what they can get and not depending on others to get it for them. One of the lessons to be learned from disasters like Katrina and earthquakes is that people who have spent their whole lives depending upon society for everything they consume are lost when that society breaks down. Aside from scavenging for leftovers (as opposed to looting for luxuries which may not have any real use any more) many of those people where not able to provide even simple food for themselves. Those who know how to gather food and find shelter in nature are much better equipped to survive.Quote:
I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.
The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement.
1. Apologies to Thrall - sincerely meant. And to you, too, Thorne. An inexcusable lapse on my part.
2. You have a point about ants and grazing herds, and the consequent effect upon the food chain. At least, at first sight you do. As you say, grass grows again after the herds move on. So no harm done there. But if it doesn't, what would stop grass growing? Drought? Not an animal. Asteroids? Not animals. An Ice Age? Inanimate.
Predatory action? Possible - occasionally, and as you have pointed out, Nature will balance that out pretty quickly. Mankind? Ahhh ... there you go.
Ant colonies are outwith my firm knowledge and experience, apart from a nest beneath my patio. They are certainly undermining that. Eventually, I suppose they could undermine my whole house. However, I venture to suggest that whatever they get up to, it does not leave a permanent scar on the face of the planet, and even if it does, it pales into insignificance compared to what just one industrialised city ... no, even that comparison is pointless. I think ants are way behind mankind when it comes to planet destruction.
3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.
4. I cannot believe that we, who are talking of and preparing ourselves (however inadequately) for whatever comes, will be unable and unwilling to take advantage of the poverty and weakness of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with a final catastrophe. Do you really believe that millions and millions of bemused and half-starved, AIDS-ridden wretches with no resources, no life expectancy and no protection can outlive us who are far fewer in number, calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people who already control all the resources that matter? They can barely survive when we do throw a few crumbs their way? Surely, those closest to the edge will be the first to go over it.
It's a dreadful thought, but maybe that's why Western governments are so mean with international aid ... No - they wouldn't be that callous, would they?
But don't run away with the idea that Westerners can't live of the land - they can, or they will quickly learn. Homo sapiens is and always has been a scavenger par excellence and has thriven on being one.
The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement. Agreed. And we shall do so, even at the expense of others of our own kind, the planet, and everything in it.
TYWD
Yes. Something I mentioned myself earlier up above. My comments about salinity and how it will affect species was only to that point. The far larger issue is if the Gulf Stream and other warm water currents "stall" or change course. Then we will likely experience another northern hemisphere ice age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Right. I wasn't even referring to species impacted since the advent of mankind. Literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of species have "walked" the earth and disappeared long before man appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
In fact, we are the only species to ever actually go out if its way to save another species. Quite a few in fact. Some, in huge numbers if you consider certain botanical varieties.
We are also the only species to create new species, (or at least varients.) Domestication of certain animals and the hybridization of many food plants.
So while we have been all together too efficient as predators and consumers of biomass... does that make us villians? We are just as natural and just as entitled to be here as any other species. If, by our actions, we make ourselves unviable, then we too will pass as a species... and the specie(s) that descend from us will comment on and possibly lament our passing.
My point is that any group of animals will utilize their resources to as great an extent as possible. And it may not even be that group which will suffer, but those groups who follow behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Let's postulate a large herd of herbivores, say zebras, feeding in a rich, but relatively small grassland area. After a period of time they have devoured all the food in the area and move on to another site. Next comes a herd of, say, gazelles, moving on from their last feeding grounds and moving into this currently devastated area. There's not enough food for them here so they must keep moving. But how many will die because of the lack of food. And if they happen to keep following the herd of zebras they could really be in trouble. True, it's not exactly an extinction, but that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.
It's not a question of whether species are destroyed by other animals or by natural disasters. Sure, mankind is prolific in his destruction of animal and plant life. But it's my contention that the vast majority of those species were so specialized and so dependent upon a very narrow ecological niche that they would die off sooner or later anyway. And if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!Quote:
3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.
Panda's are a good example. They are so specialized that they can only survive on ONE kind of food. Over the centuries mankind has encroached upon their territory for his own needs. Now the panda's are on the verge of extinction. Setting aside their apparent cuteness, what loss to the world if they are gone? Of course, if we can come up with some good recipes, maybe we can use them as a food source. That would pretty much guarantee their survival as a species. Not too good for the individuals, but the species goes on!
Oh, certainly. They won't be a bit of trouble. Just look how well we did in Viet Nam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They don't stand a chance against us. The problem is that we "calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people" are not likely to get up off our asses until it's far too late.Quote:
4. I cannot believe that we, who are talking of and preparing ourselves (however inadequately) for whatever comes, will be unable and unwilling to take advantage of the poverty and weakness of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with a final catastrophe. Do you really believe that millions and millions of bemused and half-starved, AIDS-ridden wretches with no resources, no life expectancy and no protection can outlive us who are far fewer in number, calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people who already control all the resources that matter? They can barely survive when we do throw a few crumbs their way? Surely, those closest to the edge will be the first to go over it.
I didn't mean to imply that Westerners can't live off the land. Some can, undoubtedly. Most can't, at least not easily. Some will learn, no question. Most will not, at least not in time. Many will survive, for a time, by stealing what they can from those who have what they want. Soon, though, that supply will run out, too. Then those scavengers will die as well. Or they will die trying to steal, killed by others protecting what they have.Quote:
But don't run away with the idea that Westerners can't live of the land - they can, or they will quickly learn. Homo sapiens is and always has been a scavenger par excellence and has thriven on being one.
For my own part, I don't see any of these major changes happening within the next 20 years or so. Chances are I'll be long gone by the time they happen. If not, then chances are I'll be one of the first casualties, because I doubt that I could "scavenge" enough to survive. I don't know that I'd want to.
As for my kids, I've done what I could do to get them through childhood. My life has not been difficult, I know, but I like to think that their's was somewhat easier. They will get whatever is left over when I'm gone and I hope it helps them. But the future belongs to them, now. They must deal with it as best they can. Virtually every generation since the dawn of time has concluded that their children were out of control, a menace to civilization. I hope I've taught mine better than that. They're good kids. I think they'll do well.
As for the rest of the world, and all those endangered species that 90% of the world never heard of, the hell with 'em if they can't take a joke.
Ozme. : I didn't say you were wrong about the fact that whole rafts of animal life have become extinct for reasons with nothing to do with mankind. I said you were indifferent. It seems to me that what went on before the advent of man isn't really helpful to a discussion about man's contribution to global warming, even if I am blaming him for things you don't agree with. In the context of the discussion at the point it had reached (I had suggested mankind was doing only harm), you appeared to say, So what? Shit happens to justify mankind's indifference. If you were simply stating that more species have died out since life began on the planet than have died as a result of mankind's activities, I have already conceded the point, and do so again. Mankind was not to blame for that.
My point is, we know better, or should know better, than to allow it where we can stop it. Out of self-interest if not compassion
And you have pointed out some instances where we have done good to the world. That does weaken my case, but I don't think it's enough to defeat it. Most developments were for mankind's benefit, and any improvement to the planet was incidental.
Thorne: My point is ...
... that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.
Of course that happens. You are quite right. But since mankind has come along, in fact, since industrialisation, he has extinguished them far more efficiently.
... if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!
Panda's are a good example ...
Just because we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, so to speak, does not mean we have more right to be here than those lower down. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That includes cute pandas. Because we are aware of their plight, and if it is within our power to do so, we have a duty to save them by not destroying their natural habitat. Even if that means foregoing ... um ... foregoing bamboo shoots.
The way you speak makes me think of a plague of humanity spreading over the planet destroying or subsuming all in its path. Just think of it. Mankind, a pestilence of greater than biblical proportions! If your attitude is prevalent (as I fear it might be) then the future you described in an earlier post - of the planet surviving after mankind has gone - is a bleak one. The only life to linger on after mankind's passing might be bacteria.
... look how well we did in Viet Nam ...
The reason the Western forces aren't doing too well in Asia is (a) because we are fighting against well-armed groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (we armed them while they were freedom fighteres) and (b) because we know the rest of the world is watching, and we don't want to be seen "digging the knife in." (In Viet Nam, for example, USA could have won at any time it liked, but for its fear of the consequences, and eventually, it simply gave up fighting.) But when push comes to shove and when the end justifies the means, I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA, UK, and even Canada and Australia (not to mention Russia and China) to fight dirty to ensure they come out on top. Hiroshima will look like a trial run. And even if nations have disintegrated into cities or tribes, the ones in the west will be best equipped to survive. It doesn't matter how slow to get of their arses they are, they will prevail by fair means or foul.
Good luck to you and your kids, and to me and mine if and when it happens. No-one will be laughing then.
TYWD
Hardly indifferent. You really can't label me that way just because I don't happen to think we're the cause of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
I'm hardly indifferent because I do happen to believe there are things we should be doing to ameliorate whatever impact we have on the speed at which it is coming. I'm hardly indifferent because even before "global warming" was the issue, I've been an ardent supporter of environmentalism.
But... I am also not an 'extremist' on the environmental front. I don't have the kneejerk reaction, for example, of the locals who delayed a highway widening & interchange project for 13 years because of the meadowfoam flower. "It only grows along this one road." Bullshit. It grows there because the road exists. The fences keep the cattle from grazing along the roadside. For that reason it actually happens to be where the meadowfoam blooms in large numbers... but it blooms everywhere in small numbers over many square miles of the local cattle pastures. We'd do a lot better job of being environmentally conscious if the two extremes could meet in the middle.
I guess I'm of that opinion on a lot of topics.
I'd have to do some research to prove this... but I also happen to think that more species have died between the advent of man and the beginning of the industrial revolution than since the industrial revolution. Part of the problem I see is that there is this belief that we, today, are to blame for all this. Herbivores create more methane gas than man does, and I believe the total biomass of wild herbivores outweighs the total biomass of domesticated herbivores. Yes we contribute... but we also try to ameliorate the problem. Cape Buffalo don't. They just keep on farting. (Methane btw, is 10x more 'effective' than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.)Quote:
It seems to me that what went on before the advent of man isn't really helpful to a discussion about man's contribution to global warming, even if I am blaming him for things you don't agree with. In the context of the discussion at the point it had reached (I had suggested mankind was doing only harm), you appeared to say, So what? Shit happens to justify mankind's indifference. If you were simply stating that more species have died out since life began on the planet than have died as a result of mankind's activities, I have already conceded the point, and do so again. Mankind was not to blame for that.
I think we do... but there will always be people who see their 'self-interest' in different areas. Can't blame everyone... and certainly not me, for that. Regardless of how I view the issue.Quote:
My point is, we know better, or should know better, than to allow it where we can stop it. Out of self-interest if not compassion
So? Of course it is. That's the point of life. To perpetuate your species. We just happen to be blessed as tool users. Think of how bad it would be if we were unintelligent tool users. Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation... and wouldn't care.Quote:
And you have pointed out some instances where we have done good to the world. That does weaken my case, but I don't think it's enough to defeat it. Most developments were for mankind's benefit, and any improvement to the planet was incidental.
I disagree about the industrialization issue. Most of the damage mankind did was pre-industrial... possibly even pre-agricultural.Quote:
Thorne: My point is ...
... that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.
Of course that happens. You are quite right. But since mankind has come along, in fact, since industrialisation, he has extinguished them far more efficiently.
Actually, it probably does. You anthropormorphize the issue by assuming there is a right or wrong. Just because we're efficient and adaptable and most importantly, just because we can think about the impacts, doesn't mean it's our responsibility to curb ourselves from taking advantage of our abilities.Quote:
... if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!
Panda's are a good example ...
Just because we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, so to speak, does not mean we have more right to be here than those lower down.
Now that said, I think we should be considering the issue of lost resources. Cutting the rain forests, for example... who knows how many valuable resources are extinct and gone... that we could have used if the non-industrial farmers hadn't been clear-cutting for the last 60 or so centuries.
Okay. This will probably amuse you. I'm having an argument/debate with a fellow on another forum... about DDT v. malaria (and the death toll among humans since it was abolished.) It's actually a science v. religion debate and I don't know why it got side-tracked... but I'm the anti-DDT debater and he's the pro-DDT debater. Because I believe in preserving the environment... but not because I'm an altruist. Because it's my damned food chain. And we have to protect those cute malarial parasites and the mosquitos that carry them. LOL. Sorry. Blowing off steam from that other thread.Quote:
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That includes cute pandas. Because we are aware of their plight, and if it is within our power to do so, we have a duty to save them by not destroying their natural habitat. Even if that means foregoing ... um ... foregoing bamboo shoots.
The way you speak makes me think of a plague of humanity spreading over the planet destroying or subsuming all in its path. Just think of it. Mankind, a pestilence of greater than biblical proportions! If your attitude is prevalent (as I fear it might be) then the future you described in an earlier post - of the planet surviving after mankind has gone - is a bleak one. The only life to linger on after mankind's passing might be bacteria.
Different topic... worthy of a different thread... but not, imo, about global warming or environmentalism. Except... perhaps... to say,Quote:
... look how well we did in Viet Nam ...
The reason the Western forces aren't doing too well in Asia is (a) because we are fighting against well-armed groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (we armed them while they were freedom fighteres) and (b) because we know the rest of the world is watching, and we don't want to be seen "digging the knife in." (In Viet Nam, for example, USA could have won at any time it liked, but for its fear of the consequences, and eventually, it simply gave up fighting.) But when push comes to shove and when the end justifies the means, I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA, UK, and even Canada and Australia (not to mention Russia and China) to fight dirty to ensure they come out on top. Hiroshima will look like a trial run. And even if nations have disintegrated into cities or tribes, the ones in the west will be best equipped to survive. It doesn't matter how slow to get of their arses they are, they will prevail by fair means or foul.
Only mankind worries about whether a fight is fair or not. No other species cares.
Quote:
Good luck to you and your kids, and to me and mine if and when it happens. No-one will be laughing then.
TYWD
Oh, shit. I'm agreeing with Oz. It's the end of the world for sure!:)
Really, though, you make some good points, Oz. (Of course they're good: I agree with 'em.) The only difference is that I've never really been an environmentalist or a conservationist. I'm totally into conspicuous, wasteful consumption. And I don't care how many cute little animals have to die for it. As long as there's plenty of cows for my T-bones, pigs for my BBQ'd ribs and chickens for my KFC, I'm happy!
Your comment about DDT brought something to mind, as well. Many years ago I read an article about PCB's. Nasty stuff, without question. It seems that some inspectors discovered PCB's in some cat litter and immediately came down full bore on the manufacturer. Well, he naturally put the blame on his supplier, the company that got the clay from the swamps to use in the cat litter. A full blown investigation was started to find out who dumped toxic chemicals into the swamp and contaminated the clay. Nothing was found! Finally, after years of wrangling and name calling someone finally got the bright idea to actually study the problem and determined that, under the right conditions, PCB's can occur naturally in just that kind of swamp!
Just goes to prove that what we think we know today can be turned on its head tomorrow. Next time you find PCB's in your cat litter, blame it on Mother Nature.
Ozme, you know why I gave you that lable. But as you object to it, I withdraw it.
... on the Road to Damascus
OK - how can I take the next step gracefully? Well, I can admit right now - in fact I already have - that I dont know anything about global warming. I believed what I have been told by those I thought most credible.
So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.
There does seem to be agreement, however, that global warming is happening, and no-one knows where it will stop, or how dire the conseqences might be.
So I shall carry on doing my "bit", just in case it helps. I shall continue to sort my refuse for recycling, I will prefer green products. I will try to reduce my carbon footprint because it just seems a responsible thing to do.
And I shall carry on caring about endangered species, and resist the temptation to wipe them out to obtain some small advantage or trivial comfort. I do believe strongly that the only supportable reason for destroying life can be for self-preservation.
TYWD