OT: Crazy weather in Newcastle!

[Flyby PC 23]

Closed down???? Oh dear. Must be the in UK right enough.....

 

 

 

 

OT and BTW, since 2004, in the UK we've had Bocastle flash flooding, Carlisle flash flooding, Selkirk flash flooding, Hawick flash flooding, now Newcastle flash flooding, and to extents where it's never happened before. Now it might be coincidence, but it's some coincidence if it is, and maybe there is a change in the air.

 

I repect you fellas' opinions, but I'd rather be wrong and worry about climate now, than be complacent and miss out fixing something when there was still time to fix it.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Bullethead 12]

I repect you fellas' opinions, but I'd rather be wrong and worry about climate now, than be complacent and miss out fixing something when there was still time to fix it.

 

I absolutely believe the climate is changing. It always has, from long before people existed, and always will, long after people are gone. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that the climate has never been what we think of as "stable", even in the short term. So what I totally disagree with is that people have anything to do with it, or have anything approaching the power to do anything about it. So if you want to worry about the climate, I'd recommend moving to a latitude that suits your preferences or buying gear to help you live where you currently are. But don't tell me I have to ruin perfectly good whiskey by mixing it with gasoline and other such nonsense, thank you very much

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I absolutely believe the climate is changing. It always has, from long before people existed, and always will, long after people are gone. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that the climate has never been what we think of as "stable", even in the short term. So what I totally disagree with is that people have anything to do with it, or have anything approaching the power to do anything about it. So if you want to worry about the climate, I'd recommend moving to a latitude that suits your preferences or buying gear to help you live where you currently are. But don't tell me I have to ruin perfectly good whiskey by mixing it with gasoline and other such nonsense, thank you very much

 

If there is such a thing as 110%....thats how much I agree with you BH

 

(proof that is! )

Edited July 3, 2012 by UK_Widowmaker

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

In fact BH...I would happily join you (in this world, or the next) and enjoy a JD with you Sir!

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The more I read this...the more it makes sense to me!..... there are some things you/we/mankind...can do sweet FA about!...which, contrary to making me worried...I actually find very soothing!...yup, something that mankind can't f*** up!...it's totally out of our hands.... (enjoy the ride people!) :)

[Dej 17]

Ohoh! Mankind may be long, long overdue for no end of catastrophic events... super-colossal volcanic eruptions (e.g. 1816 The Year of no Summer), the much-publicised asteroid hit; the equally cinematic magnetic core shift, never mind what 2012 was 'supposed' to be. Non-preventable or even mitigated climate change could be the least of our worries.

 

Interesting times DEFINITELY lie ahead!

 

Nevertheless that mushroom raincloud looking like a tactical atom bomb strike is impressive.

 

All the more reason for P4 to be released SOON™. We may not have long playing it.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Dej

[Bullethead 12]

Ohoh! Mankind may be long, long overdue for no end of catastrophic events... super-colossal volcanic eruptions (e.g. 1816 The Year of no Summer), the much-publicised asteroid hit; the equally cinematic magnetic core shift, never mind what 2012 was 'supposed' to be. Non-preventable or even mitigated climate change could be the least of our worries.

 

Whatever it takes to bring civilization crashing down, I support it. May the day come soon .

 

BTW, I give lessons in making stone tools

[Flyby PC 23]

Some people are quite relaxed about going outside and catching skin cancer because we've depleted the ozone layer. I'm not one of them.

 

Some people shrug the shoulders because we've driven fish stocks beyond the point of collapse. I'm not one of them.

 

Some people don't care if we run out of tigers because they've no habitat left to live in. I'm not one of them.

 

Some people don't care if we run out of polar bears because the ice caps are gone. I'm not one of them.

 

Some people don't care that millions of tons of CO2 which was once locked in living rain forest timber which is still being felled, is now present in the atmoshere and changing how it works. We put it there, not big volcanoes, not farting cows, not meteors or dying dinosaurs. Human greed put it there. Us. I'm not one of those people. I do care. I want the plunder to stop.

 

 

 

Point is gentleman, I'm extraordinarily glad I'm not one of them. If I choose to live my life with respect for my planet, however futile and insignificant my contribution may or may not be, it's a thoroughly rewarding and positive disposition to maintain, because it's a thoroughly worthwhile objective to aim for, and being wrong doesn't have a downside.

 

Do you really want society crashing down BH? I mean really? You haven't thought about it my friend.

[Bullethead 12]

Point is gentleman, I'm extraordinarily glad I'm not one of them. If I choose to live my life with respect for my planet, however futile and insignificant my contribution may or may not be, it's a thoroughly rewarding and positive disposition to maintain, because it's a thoroughly worthwhile objective to aim for, and being wrong doesn't have a downside.

 

You being wrong has a huge downside. You just can't see it because you're so convinced you're right.

 

It's very hard to discuss climate change anymore because it's become so political, even religious to some folks. But you have to understand that the ONLY reason climate change is a topic these days is because of politics. The politicians injected it into public consciousness and continue to hype it up with bad science and propaganda to scare people into giving up more of their freedoms and allowing the government to take over more and more of the economy. Anybody who raises concerns about the scientific basis for all the doomsday scenarios is shouted down or even burned as a heretic.

 

Prior to this happening, the climate was changing just constantly and often as it continues to do. But folks just accepted that as the natural way of things and dealt with it, enjoying the good years and enduring the bad years. There were frequent heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, and deluges all the time, and nobody really thought in terms of a constant state of climate. And up until a couple generations ago, most people in the world were farmers, so were very interested in what the weather was doing, and paid close attention to all these periodic changes.

 

But these days, most people live in cities doing non-agricultural jobs, so they only notice weather as it affects their morning commute. Having thus tuned the weather out of their minds, they have naturally developed the false assumption that it's been the same as yesterday since the beginning of time. And this means that if some government shill of a climatologist says the climate is changing, they have nothing to compare it to. And they don't realize he's just stating the obvious that's been going on all along without their notice. But because they don't realize this, they believe everything he says. So they get scared and let the government run roughshod over them.

 

THAT is the downside of you being wrong. And that to me is a much, much greater threat to my way of life than even the worst-case doomsday climate BS.

 

Take ethanol for example. Great to drink, terrible as motor fuel. Not only does it rot out all the seals and gaskets in the engine, but it does exactly the opposite of its stated purpose. It contains less energy per unit volume than gasoline, so you have to burn more of it to go the same distance. And producing ethanol uses more fossil fuels and produces more of their emissions than the amount saved by mixing it with gasoline. And all of this costs money, to grow the corn, to make the ethanol, and to mix it with gasoline, which just drives up the price needlessly. IOW, we're now paying more for less gasoline and it's not doing us any good at all. So ethanol totally counterproductive ecologically and economically. But this hasn't stopped the government from mandating its use, and spending vast sums of my tax money on subsidies for people to grow more maize than the normal demand merits. The lure of these subsidies is such that vast amounts of farmland, which once produced crops people actually needed, are now growing useless maize. And this has resulted in higher prices and shortages of these other crops we actually need. Not to mention that the price of EVERYTHING you buy has increased because fuel used to get it to you is more expensive.

 

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what happens when you believe what the government says and give it free rein to take control over things it has no business touching.

 

Do you really want society crashing down BH? I mean really? You haven't thought about it my friend.

 

I have thought about it a lot, and I have to say that I would much prefer running around naked poking supper with a spear and scalping the neighbors than living in a world going much further along the misguided path the left is taking us down. I have lived in holes in the ground on 0.75 small, poor meals a day for months at a time so I know I can handle it. I also know I'll be sore and stiff, sick, and hungry most of the time, but at least I'd be free and in charge of my own destiny. And I'd know that all the people who currently make my life miserable were dead. I'd consider that a fair trade, so would be quite content.

 

 

 

 

 

[Flyby PC 23]

But I'm not scared BH. It's like having a car you drive every day, rain or shine, and you keep going even if the oil leaks and there's smoke in the exhaust, it doesn't matter, just keep going, and never give it a breather. That's how we treat our planet. We plunder it every hour of every day and just expect it to keep on giving.

 

The planet is the only one we've got, so what's wrong with giving it a service every now and then? Make sure everything is running properly and tweak it here and there to keep it running sweetly and isn't going to break down when we really need it. Why don't we give it a polish and get the chrome shining? It doesn't hurt, but lets everybody know we kinda like the old thing. My contribution will be no more meaningful than a single ant in a single generation of a single ant hill, but it gives me a tremendous sense of well being to at least try to look after the place. If we do mess up this planet, we are all in extremely deep sh___e.

[Dej 17]

The interesting aspect to these two opinions is that, were BH's primitive survivalism to be made a reality for everyone by the fall of civilization, then Flyby's planetary custodianship would also become a reality in due course.

 

Such a reduced back-to-nature state may be delivered by an energy-shortage anarchy (government created or otherwise) or by a natural catastrophe of sufficient magnitude (incidentally 1816 speculatively spawned a number of modern innovations).

 

I'm not bothered either way, should it come to pass... but I AM interested in how many times it may have happened already.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/18695439

 

the truth is rather more mundane

[Flyby PC 23]

The interesting aspect to these two opinions is that, were BH's primitive survivalism to be made a reality for everyone by the fall of civilization, then Flyby's planetary custodianship would also become a reality in due course.

 

Such a reduced back-to-nature state may be delivered by an energy-shortage anarchy (government created or otherwise) or by a natural catastrophe of sufficient magnitude (incidentally 1816 speculatively spawned a number of modern innovations).

 

I'm not bothered either way, should it come to pass... but I AM interested in how many times it may have happened already.

 

 

Not quite so Dej. It's a comfortable assumption to make that the world will get better if we just leave it alone, but that's not guaranteed. Or oceans are rampant with squid because humans have targetted the apex predators when killing sharks, and the change has still to ripple through the whole eco system until it reaches a stable equilibrium, but that state of equilibrium may or may not feature sharks. We may have assured their terminal decline already.

 

 

It's not the detail of what we do that's important, but becoming self aware, and equally aware of the bigger picture. We are preoccupied (some of us) with stopping things from getting worse, so how far have we yet to go before we devote our energies to making things better? How can we increase fish stocks beyond former levels, plant more forests stuffed to bursting with wild animals, clean up pollution. Quite literally, make the world a better place. Instead of animals being on the endangered list, imagine the news being the population of snow leopards is the highest it's ever been in living memory, or an area the size of France is no longer required for human exploitation and has been set aside for natural habitat.

 

It's all a question of priorities. For the higher state of awareness we humans have compared to wild animals, our attitude towards looking after the planet is infantile and dangerously reckless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Errr, and I'm sure there was a rumour that James McCudden and Mick Mannock were regularly arguing about this with their ground crews immediately before take off in WW1. Morning Mods.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Dej 17]

...

Errr, and I'm sure there was a rumour that James McCudden and Mick Mannock were regularly arguing about this with their ground crews immediately before take off in WW1. Morning Mods.

Well, 'tis true that the thread has drifted OT from the OT of the OP, but discussion is being had in a gentlemanly fashion and unless my fellow mods feel otherwise I've no inclination to shut it down.

 

However, to kick a little relevance into it this essay includes some statistics about the impact of WW1 in Western France on the landscape and by inference the environment LINK

Edited July 5, 2012 by Dej

[Hasse Wind 46]

They should release WOFF so that we'd have something else to talk about.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

 

 

to cheer you all up :)

[HumanDrone 4]

Yes! Here, here! Still I, want the dev's to get it right, so, two more weeks won't hurt, I guess...

 

As to the current drift, in one respect, we all have a dog in this hunt - We've got one planet, no real means to get off of it one way or another, and no place to go if we could. While I agree with Flyby PC that it is indeed our job to take care of the planet, on the other hand, I'm more than a little concerned about the corruption of our scientists and the use of them to increase government scope and control. We're so top-heavy now in the US that it's knutz, just crazy. If I had the level of debt that our Federal gov't has, compared to my income, I'd be absolutely beside myself with dread; I'd be financially crippled. A guy I like to read says, "When a politician spends money, look at what he's buying..." and it's usually control. We have the Federal gov't giving grants to little 500-person towns like mine to hire a police officer, or build a park, or renovate the main street to attract business; and the whole bureaucracy on top of that to administer these programs - where, if we want to hire an officer, or build a park, we could just discuss it at the town hall, decide to to it or not, and raise the taxes (or not, or float a bond, etc) to pay for it. The further away the source of the money is, the easier it is to spend it, and the more inviting corruption becomes. And it's an impediment to real change, because while most of America is highly dissatisfied with Congress, the same people get re-elected because - THEY BRING HOME THE PORK! Hello, that's the problem!

 

Trouble is, even if it's true, I don't know how you tell the Brazilian rancher that he can't buy land and clear it, because we need the rain forest. Or the souls in Timbuktoo or wherever that they can't build a coal-fired power station because of CO₂ issues. And I have zap-all zero faith in governmental institutions, especially un-elected and un-accountable ones, to do anything about it without killing people on a massive scale with some misguided "allocation of resources" program, a la the Soviets, and we can see how well THAT worked... If there is anything I'd be suspicious of, it's that somehow the multinational companies are suppressing energy efficiency technologies in order to keep their sales volumes up. But that's as far toward wearing tin-foil hat as I'll go.

 

I work in the power industry, and I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Back then, the die-hard environmentalists were screaming that we were headed for a global ice age! And the green freaks were demonstrating left and right, shutting down construction of nuclear power plants. Other environmentalists were stopping construction of hydro power every place that they could - and hydro is arguably the easiest and most cost effective way to both make power and control erosion. They were right about some issues - helping the salmon migration, for instance, but so much of that movement was simply anti-progress for the sake of anti-progress. So what do we have in the US now? An over-abundance of fossil-fired power, and wind farms all over God's creation, and now they are complaining about the environmental effects of wind farms! Our nuclear program is 'way behind the curve.

 

So while I agree with Flyby PC, I am very suspicious of the global warming agenda - just follow the money and you'll start to smell the stinking fish.

 

And I am glad, too that this discussion is being had in a gentlemanly way. No sense getting strident anyway- - we'll not fix anything from THIS board!

 

Finally, thank God, we've had some rain! Three thunderstorms in two days!

 

Best,

 

Tom

 

ETA: Cross-posted with Widowmaker....

Edited July 5, 2012 by HumanDrone

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

 

It is all quite complicated, isn't it Tom, in particular when money gets involved.

 

I concur with Dej. This has been a very well behaved discussion on a topic that has been known to cause heated debate. WM, I believe we as people want to do good, but I also believe that we as a species are inherently prone to violence and self-preservation at the cost of all else. I agree with BH that this old Earth has been going through dramatic changes since the beginning, and will continue to do so regardless of what we do. However, like Flyby, I further think that we do have some power over our surroundings and should practice good stewardship of our home planet. I do not believe we can change the ultimate fate of this big blue marble, but we can do our part to try and keep it up in what little ways we can. Of course when Mother Nature decides our time has come, she’s going to shake us off this rock like so many fleas on a dog. So I say enjoy it all while you can and do your best to make things better in your own little corner of existence. I shall miss this place dearly when it’s gone.

 

And HW, spot on. They should release WOFF so we have new fodder for discussion.

 

Here’s to Mother Earth, the Universe, and everything we don’t know … and to WOFF being released in two weeks!

 

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

 

[Bullethead 12]

Not quite so Dej. It's a comfortable assumption to make that the world will get better if we just leave it alone, but that's not guaranteed. Or oceans are rampant with squid because humans have targetted the apex predators when killing sharks, and the change has still to ripple through the whole eco system until it reaches a stable equilibrium, but that state of equilibrium may or may not feature sharks. We may have assured their terminal decline already.

 

I see this as net gain for humanity. Squid are tasty, nutritious, grow fast, and breed like roaches. They're like a marine version of swine in these features and will feed many hungry people. You can't say the same for sharks.

 

I think the fundamental difference between your POV and mine is that you have a clear and sharp distinction between "man-made" and "natural". You therefore believe that Nature and "the environment" includes everything on the planet EXCEPT people and their works. As a direct and inescapable corollary of this attitude, you see everything people do as necessarily disruptive of the environment and the natural order. And as a direct result of that, you think that people are more powerful than Mother Nature. Otherwise, you'd never be able to place Man in the god-like position of "steward of the planet", nor ascribe to Man the god-like power to affect global climate either for good or bad.

 

I, OTOH, have no distinction whatsoever between "man-made" and "natural". In fact, I don't even use the former term at all. People are merely animals like any other. I see us as products of the exact same evolutionary and environmental forces that created every other living thing on this planet. Everything we do is a direct result of how Mother Nature shaped us, so everything we do is 100% natural and perfectly in line with the parameters this planet operates under.

 

Do we change the environment to suit us, without regard for other creatures? Certainly. That's precisely how we've survived to this point. But we're definitely not alone in this. Take, for example, the beaver. Beaver dams are ecological disasters, at least to the things that preferred the original stream environment or depended on the water further downstream. But the beaver doesn't care, he just builds his dam because it makes his own life easier. So what was once a beautiful forest river turns into a stagnant pond amdist scrub brush where trees used to grow, then a festering swamp, and finally dry land, and everything that used to live there is either dead or moved elsewhere. Of course, other things moved in that liked these different environments, but the original stuff is gone.

 

There's no difference in motive between people and beavers when it comes to building dams. There is, however, a big difference in effect. Beavers see dams as temporary homes. Once they've deforested the surrounding area and the pond starts to silt up, they'll move to a new river and repeat the process, spreading their malicious environmental impact. People, however, see dams as long-term solutions to various problems, so do all in their power to keep them from silting up or going dry. Thus, we can get by with fewer dams, and can build them without deforesting the surrounding area. But environmentalists give the much more destructive beaver a pass because he's cute and fuzzy, while doing all in their power to prevent people from "screwing up the environment". And this is all because they just can't see that people and their actions are just as much part of the environment as beavers and its actions.

 

Then there's also the question of what is "screwing up the environment" in the 1st place? The environmental lobby seems to think that this is making any deviation from the status quo of today. IOW, if there isn't a dam there today, then there shouldn't be one there tomorrow, either (unless, of course, it's built by a "natural" beaver). But wait a minute... If people think there's need of a dam there, then the environment is already "screwed up" or at least not optimum, at least from peoples' POV. And while surely building a damn there will displace at least some of the current residents of the area, others who like the new habitat will move in. Thus, in terms of net environmental impact, it's pretty much a wash for so-called "natural" critters AND it helps people to build the dam, so how could this possibly be considered "screwing up the environment"?

 

It can be only by arrogating humanity to the level of gods, despite all evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it can only be done at the expense of losing complete sight of what nature is all about. Nature is constant turnover. Nature creates and destroys species all the time. IIRC, over 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, and at least 99% of those went extinct all by themselves, without any help from us. Thus, attempting to keep the environment as it is right now is against the natural order of things. Any success in this direction would be totally "artificial" and "man-made", not "natural".

 

And this brings us back to sharks and squid. OK, so sharks don't like things right now, but squid love it. In the big scheme of things, what's the difference? The ocean is still full of critters. But now more of them are edible and have the capacity to feed more people than the old set. How is this possibly a bad thing?

 

See, there's a necessary corollary to my side of the "man-made vs. natural" divide. Because I see people as just another type of animal, bound by Nature instead of separate from and superior to it, I see us as still in direct competition for food, space, and other resources with every other organism on this planet, just as they're in competition with us and each other. The "Law of the Jungle" still applies to us as a whole, even if not to most individual people these days. Therefore, every organism that eats the same stuff as we do is a blood enemy and every organism that occupies space we could use ourselves is an obstacle. IOW, where you see biodiversity, I see competition. Where you see wilderness, I see untapped recourses. Thus, from my POV, the best way to take care of the environment is to arrange it to support the most people possible with the highest standard of living. I'd reduce the entire biosphere to only the animals we eat, the plants we both eat, and the microbes and insects that allow these plants and animals to exist. I'd turn every square inch of reasonably level ground above and below sea level into farmland, housing, or industry.

 

I see this view as both perfectly logical and 100% natural. And this people-only environment we'd create would be 100% natural, because it would be built by 100% natural animals, following their 100% natural instincts, and using their 100% natural abilities. It's what Mother Nature Herself designed and built us to do.

[Dej 17]

BH's draws to a logical conclusion from a well-considered extrapolation, IMO. It's an extreme viewpoint, if he'll forgive me saying so, whereas the majority I suspect are positioned somewhere between him and his eco-warrior opposite number,who surely exists.

 

That is to say, we're most of us somewhere around where Flyby is coming from.

 

I do feel though, that the green agenda as 'pursued', huh!, by The West has a certain 'holier-than-thou' quality to it, as BH alludes. It's all very well for those nations that have been through their industrial revolution and its consequent environmental damage to pontificate to developing nations, but we've already reaped the benefits they are striving for and we didn't give a toss for the environment while we were doing the reaping. In fact we haven't even 'tidied our own back yards' yet. But do we reach into our pockets so they don't have to make the mistakes we did? Not if it means competition we don't.

 

It does come down to competition in the end. A sunset is a thing of beauty, an untouched wilderness equally so, but only because we've exploited Nature and become top-dog enough to give us the luxury of time to abstract about it. Nevertheless, I'd kill the last two polar bears on Earth if they would otherwise kill me or mine. Nature is red in tooth and claw... and so are we.

 

I don't believe being top dog has anywhere near given us the species maturity to be responsible for the planet. We can't tame Nature... our most advanced technology only allows us the capability of destroying it, which is what I meant about going back to the flint knife... the human race is a child twirling a grenade around its finger by the pin.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I'm really glad our new Mods have been adult enough to keep this thread alive..and the posters have been adult enough to give their differing viewpoints, without descending into insults and hot-headedness...as it's quite a fascinating thread.

 

well done all

 

Dej is of course quite correct...BH's view of the world doesn't sit comfortably with most people, and I read with horror your following comment....

 

"Where you see wilderness, I see untapped recourses. Thus, from my POV, the best way to take care of the environment is to arrange it to support the most people possible with the highest standard of living. I'd reduce the entire biosphere to only the animals we eat, the plants we both eat, and the microbes and insects that allow these plants and animals to exist. I'd turn every square inch of reasonably level ground above and below sea level into farmland, housing, or industry"

 

That's the only comment you've made, that I feel totally at odds with.

 

A world full of animals merely to eat, and an explosion of Industry and additional Human Beings, fills me with abstract horror and disgust..... You really would have created a 'Lord of the Rings' type version of a living hell!

 

I can always find myself wondering why the Human Race, places itself on such a high pedastal...ok, we invented the Internal Combustion Engine....big deal!

 

I'm not a religious person, but I firmly believe, that all life that exists is a wonder...and that, mankind is merely a part of that...not the whole.

 

 

"Housing and Industry!?...... GOD NO!

Edited July 5, 2012 by UK_Widowmaker

[Flyby PC 23]

It's all about sustainability, and making sure our kids have the same opportunities we do. I agree with BH, we're all part of a balanced eco system, but disagree when we meddle with it at our peril. We're smart enough to beat the odds and step outside the rules, but just because we can doesn't mean we should. Any natural predator which drives it's prey to the brink of extinction is committing suicide, but there's a natural equilibrium in place which works out all the details and stop that happening, but along comes humanity and we think we can do it better, but we're not bigger than nature, there's still a price to pay.

 

We take out apex predators like sharks, the squid population explodes without predation, but numbers drive the squid to eat every living thing that moves (they're already attacking dolphins), causing general fish stocks to collapse, so there's nothing left to browse the plankton, which then forms in such great clouds it shuts off the corals from sunlight so the reefs die, and before long our oceans are completely sterile. All we need to do to avoid that happening is to restrict our impact on shark fishing to a sustainable level, and the devastation of our oceans is averted. Once we understand it takes such a disproportionately small amount of self restraint to stop this disasterous chain reaction happening, it becomes absolute madness when we don't exercise that restraint.

 

It doesn't take a mad corporation or corrupt scientist to make me see that. It just takes one fisherman saying the fish are gone. That's the time to really start paying attention, and that time is now.

[Bullethead 12]

A world full of animals merely to eat, and an explosion of Industry and additional Human Beings, fills me with abstract horror and disgust..... You really would have created a 'Lord of the Rings' type version of a living hell!

 

What's bad about having a decent place to live, a full belly, and a well-paid job? I daresay that a minimum of 1/3 of the world's population would sell their children's souls for a full belly just once a week and about 2/3 would sell their own souls for that and a roof that doesn't leak.

 

Is it any wonder, then, that we have plagues, famines, wars, crime, and terrorism? I doubt there's a single dirt-poor person in the world today who doesn't know exactly how bad he's got it compared to folks like us. The amount of human suffering out there is unfathomable, and to my own admittedly jaundiced eye, I'd much rather people not suffer than save however many endangered species. Maybe I really care about my fellow man, maybe I only care because when dirt-poor people get mad enough, they come blow up stuff I care about. Call it what you will. But either way, in my book peoples' needs outweigh the needs of all other creatures combined.

 

Thus, reserving any space whatsoever as "natural habit" for other species is the height of cruelty. Seriously, besides letting members of the citified, well-fed few have a change of scenery on their vacation time, what other benefits do nature preserves provide at all? Zero. Everybody who isn't citified, whether well-fed or not, sees such things every day. And meanwhile, how many thousands of human beings starve to death for want of the food that could have been grown there, or die of diseases that could have been cured by drug factories built there?

 

And really, in the Americas at least, what is presently considered "virgin wilderness" is actually just weeds growing up in land previously developed and fundamentally changed by the Indians, before European diseases wiped them out. So the whole concept is absurd anyway. Apart from Antarctica, there's no "virgin wilderness" on this planet, nor has there been for at least 10-20,000 years other than some Polynesian islands.

 

It's all about sustainability, and making sure our kids have the same opportunities we do. I agree with BH, we're all part of a balanced eco system, but disagree when we meddle with it at our peril. We're smart enough to beat the odds and step outside the rules, but just because we can doesn't mean we should. Any natural predator which drives it's prey to the brink of extinction is committing suicide, but there's a natural equilibrium in place which works out all the details and stop that happening, but along comes humanity and we think we can do it better, but we're not bigger than nature, there's still a price to pay

 

Again, we fundamentally disagree. How do we break the rules? We were made to the same constraints as everything else, and many other creatures do the same things we do. About the only things we do that other animals don't is joint objects together (compound tools), use fire, and have a huge amount of symbolic and abstract vocabulary, with which we invent new and unnecessary troubles for ourselves. But these skills are what Nature gave us, not some outside agency outside like UFO aliens.

 

Modern humans (as opposed to our ancestors) got to where we are today because we can wring the absolute most out of the environment to suit our needs. It's what we DO. We can no more change this than we can violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We avoided hunting our prey to extinction by domesticating it and ranching it on continually more efficient scales, to the point that hardly anybody in the developed world ever sees anything of it except in the grocery store or restaurant. We avoided famine by domesticating plants and growing enough to feed us, with some to spare in case the harvest failed.

 

Equilibrium does not exist on this planet of constant moodswings. The closest approximation, and it is only an approximation, is in the most developed of human-altered environments. In fact, the entire purpose of humans altering their environment is to provide some stability and slight assurance of having food tomorrow. Which is exactly the same reason the beaver builds his dam. But even the world's most advanced agriculture is still prey to unpredictable, uncontrollable Nature. All that human art and skill have done, even in the 21st Century, is to provide a buffer to absorb without notice (at least to the citified fed by the world's most advanced farmers) the milder episodes of the constant fluctuations. Everywhere else in the world, bad years still spell doom for uncounted multitudes, be they less-fortunate humans or other lifeforms.

 

And this is just considering the normal, year-to-year variation around a relatively long-term average (which apparently lasts no more than a generation), the sort of thing a rain dance or a prayer to whatever deity might cure when the best of selective breeding and irrigation technology wasn't quite up to the challenge. And the sort of thing so-called climatologists are going on about. I'm not even counting the many wildcards of various natural disasters, let alone major climate aberations (of which there are many), or even changes from generally warm to Ice Age conditions.

 

We take out apex predators like sharks, the squid population explodes without predation, but numbers drive the squid to eat every living thing that moves (they're already attacking dolphins), causing general fish stocks to collapse, so there's nothing left to browse the plankton, which then forms in such great clouds it shuts off the corals from sunlight so the reefs die, and before long our oceans are completely sterile. All we need to do to avoid that happening is to restrict our impact on shark fishing to a sustainable level, and the devastation of our oceans is averted. Once we understand it takes such a disproportionately small amount of self restraint to stop this disasterous chain reaction happening, it becomes absolute madness when we don't exercise that restraint.

 

Ungrazed plankton isn't such a bad thing. By far the bulk of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton (the world IS 75% ocean, after all), and as a result they also absorb most of the world's CO2. And when they die, they sink to the bottom to eventually be subducted, taking that carbon with them into the magma. The Amazon jungle, conversely, is a net drag on the O2/CO2 budget. The sooner it's chopped down (for the 2nd time--the pre-Columbian Indians had already done it), the better.

 

I do agree with others, however, that the root cause of most problems in the world today is that there are too many people for the amount of resources we let them have. But what are we going to do about that? I find it darkly amusing that the very people most up in arms about the environment are also adamant in their opposition to any mandated method of birth control (reproduction being an inalienable human right), and in addition seek to preserve traditional cultures no matter that these condemn their followers to abject poverty and the constant threat of disease and starvation, not to mention are geared to produce the maximum number of children.

 

It's the scale of values I marvel at here. Apparently no amount of human suffering outweighs in their minds the value of some obscure species that noone, besides themselves, have ever heard and noone, not even themselves, would feel the loss of if it disappeared forever.

 

Just to be clear, I myself don't advocate forced birth control any more than I advocate other forms of government intrusion into peoples' lives. So at the bottom line, the choice boils down to 2 things. Either:

 

1. We make a formal declaration that because the citified leftist rich find the lives of spotted owls, polar bears, whales, or whatever more important than the immeasurable misery and death of everybody else, we'll continue to wall off perfectly good farmland and housing space from our fellow man and be smugly content with the consequences. I mean, seriously, the citified leftist rich are no more likely to view polar bears in their natural habitat than they are the 3rd World poor, and the polar bears present a better picture to their imaginations. Or;

 

2. We recognize that nothing non-human is worth even 1 poor child starving to death and set about improving conditions for humans, and be damned to the competing species. Drain the swamps, water the deserts, clear the forests, dam the rivers, whatever it takes, and bring everybody's agriculture and industry up to modern standards. And if anything besides our current domesticates survives this, we'll selectively breed it for food, too. And meanwhile, make whatever cultural changes are related to these things to convince people they don't need so many kids as before, because most of them will now survive infancy. Of course, even this will eventually reach its Malthusian limit, but that will be far enough down the road (hopefully) that we'll have thought up some other solution (hopefully).

 

Much as I would like to, I don't see any real middle ground between these extremes. We're trying to live in the middle now and it's definitely not working because it's all just half-measures. For instance, OT1H, the 1st World is trying to keep the 3rd World down, whether this is phrased as avoiding competition or preserving traditional cultures. But OTOH, the 1st World goes in and vaccinates 3rd World children so far fewer of them die, without improving their economies at all. The only result is more people trying to survive on the same resources as before, so a net increase in poverty and human suffering.

[Flyby PC 23]

We're not going to persuade each other here...

 

 

We started to domesticate wild animals because there arose a need to do it. We were only successful because the resource of wild cattle was there for us to adapt. It would have been rather short sighted and thoughtless to use that resource unsustainably and drive wild cattle to extinction and deny our selves such a reliable source of protein. (We still tried, and managed to wipe out Auroches).

 

We just don't know which resources we might need in the future, and nor do we know the consequences of our actions. It's just sensible to be cautious and if we make a mistake at the very least we have the chance to correct it.

 

 

There's something fundamentally missing in your argument BH. I understand your fatalism, that no matter what happens, you can be sitting the middle of it all and seek to make the best of adversity and find a way to survive and put the whole business down to 'natural' fatalism. I get that. But look at our track record. The fact we can run down and destroy a self replensihing and sustainable holistic ecosystem which has sustained a stable equilibrium for millions of years doesn't really sit very well as an example of how we are able to make the best of things. We can make mistakes and get things badly wrong, and there's no guarantee we'll be always get away with it. Resources are not inexhaustible. When it comes to sustainable planetary management, collectively, we humans have an awful lot to learn.

 

As custodians of our own prison planet, if we don't look after it we are failing ourselves just as much as the other living creatures we share it with.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Flyby PC

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well thought out and thorough arguments presented for both sides of this issue Gents, but it may be time you agree to disagree on this and forge on. I feel we may be starting to dance on the edge here and it would be a shame to have this thread end up taking a bad turn.

 

I'll put my Moderator Cap away now, I don't care for the way it fits anyway ... a bit constricting.

 

.

Edited July 6, 2012 by RAF_Louvert
too much coffee