Save the Planet!

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

?..

Remember we were going to run out of food....problem now solved.

And now for the rest of the story......

The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics | World Resources Institute

I did a Google search on......

technology solution to resource depletion

It seems others have contrarian opinions.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The facts are well known. If everyone lived the way we do in North America, we'd need multiple Earths. .

Not really...at least this is not what looking at history teaches me. If everyone lived like North America, we would have more prosperity and the push to get there would lead to new technology developments to sustain us....all the while the Earth ticks away just fine. We won't get too heavy and spin out of our orbit because all the kids on the planet want to grow up like those in North America...but we could of course if they all wanted a copy of the Miley Cyrus CD....AHHHHHHH

[laika]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Exactly...and since owning a boat is obviuosly a wealthy luxury that 99.99% of the worlds population can never have we should do what, ban it as selfish?
Do we make cruising boats illegal due to the world's evil 1%-ers that lust after them with no regard for others living in Poverty in China who made their cheap stainless shackles and boat hardware at slave wages?

Who decides just what "desire for material riches" is too much"?
By western standards or 3rd world standards?
Who decides what is too costly to the enviroment or the worlds recources?
By Western stadnards of 3rd world standards?

It would seem to me that a better solution than bringing everyone down to the same miserable level, would be to give the people the tools and education to bring themselves and cultures up. More people have been raised out of Poverty and more environmental messes have been cleaned up through the forces of Capitalism than any other force or idea in the world. Yet....we are told today that Capitalism is the problem. Interesting that the solution always seems to be ceeding power to the Masterminds and elite to tell the average folks what is good for them?

Agreed with most of this, tho I'm not exactly sure who its in response to.

Personally, I operate from a different understanding of how the actions of others can impact my own rights and freedoms. For instance, I demand the right to clean air and water, and the ability to enjoy public spaces because I don't have enough money to buy land myself. I don't think others should have the right to pollute on an industrial scale when it infringes on the rights of others to live a healthy life if they so choose.

Personally, I consider myself a libertarian, prob same as you, just through a different lens. Liberal libertarian is prob the phrase.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That has been the cry of some for years....but new resources and technology always seem to come up and save the day, so I don't accept the premise of runing out of recourses...not a all.

This is the same thinking that has led to the denigration of global forests, fish stocks and mega fauna on all continents. Yes, our technology has kept up in many areas, but we are chasing smaller and smaller returns using larger and larger investments (to put it in financial terms). We are now fracking for gas and mining for oil. We are drilling deeper, and in more tenuous areas. We are eating our way down the ocean's food chain, and we are crapping in our global environment such that we've ushered in the next great global species extinction.

Basic physics says you cannot expand infinitely in a finite space. The Earth is a finite resource. We must learn to live within limits -- just like every species on this planet.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by hpeer

And now for the rest of the story......

The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics | World Resources Institute

Bla Bla bla...more predicitons of Doom....seen that back in the 70s. Rememebr we were already to be DEAD at this point unable to feed the world. We have plenty of food, the questions is why can some countries and people not feed themselves....ahem....Government Corruption and opression.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

We must learn to live within limits -- just like every species on this planet.

That's where I think you have it wrong....we simply create new limits Mike.
The things we can do today in Conservation and Energy production were unimaginable 50yrs ago...why do you assume the trend of improvement will not continue? Why thing what we have/know today is as far as we will progress?

Here I am working full time form a boat with a laptop and Wifi conneciton.
No need of Car, no need of freeways, no need to an office.
Ok...well I do need a shower so Off I go....but honestly...why won't we invent and improve our way out of the problems?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Not really...at least this is not what looking at history teaches me. If everyone lived like North America, we would have more prosperity and the push to get there would lead to new technology developments to sustain us....all the while the Earth ticks away just fine. We won't get too heavy and spin out of our orbit because all the kids on the planet want to grow up like those in North America...but we could of course if they all wanted a copy of the Miley Cyrus CD....AHHHHHHH

What nonsense , there are fixed resources , water , pollution loadings, oil , etc that cannot be circumvented.

Look around , for me in the last 30 years all the improvements in my environment have been regulatory driven , cleaner air In cities , smaller engines more fuel efficient and less polluting cars. , improvements in lakes and rivers by tight controls on effluent , even more efficient domestic goods , recycling of waste electronics , all driven by regulatory changes. Even simple things like mandatory domestic waste segregation into green, brown , bins etc has made serious inroads into landfill requirements

Look at the EU ban on Burmese teak, which has made inroads into preventing illegal logging and destruction of Burmese rain forests. , you think capitalism would somehow solve these problems and others , Please

Man or capitalism will simply consume and pollute unless controlled , just like we have laws to prevent anarchy , because humans cannot exercise self restraint , we need the same to regulate over consumption , the destruction of the planets resources and the creation of pollutants

Dave

[laika]

To me, selfishness isnt buying a big boat or lots of nice things. Rather, it's not seeing how the rights and freedoms of others might be hurt by a blind quest for one's own rights and freedoms.

[hpeer]

BTW, I know that much has been made recently of this years arctic ice rebound.

I have seen some claims of a 40% rebound! which seems good, until you realize that that is 40% up from 2012 historic lows and still leaves us below the recent 10 year average, and far below the 30 year average.

However, recent data suggest that this rebound was short lived new ice which has recently disappeared.

I'm making no predictions on the future of this yeas ice, only noting the current situation, which is not what most folks think. It is now matching the 2012 record low for this date.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That's where I think you have it wrong....we simply create new limits Mike.
The things we can do today in Conservation and Energy production were unimaginable 50yrs ago...why do you assume the trend of improvement will not continue? Why thing what we have/know today is as far as we will progress?

Here I am working full time form a boat with a laptop and Wifi conneciton.
No need of Car, no need of freeways, no need to an office.
Ok...well I do need a shower so Off I go....but honestly...why won't we invent and improve our way out of the problems?

It's a good point, but I can easily turn it around and ask the same question. More importantly, I can point to a plethora of data that indicates global ecosystems are fracturing all over the place. I'm sure you're well aware of the research, but I can provide plenty of good reading if you insist. On the simple measure of species extinction, we are in the midst of one of the planet's great mass-extinctions; this one caused by us.

I am not one to discount the incredible achievements of our species. Our big brains have produced technological wonders, and will continue to do so. But it is both foolish, and the hight of hubris, to believe we are outside of Nature. Until we get off this planet (something we are unlikely do do), we are living within a finite system. Growth cannot go on indefinitely within a finite system. Until we learn this fact (or perhaps re-learn it), we will continue to race towards an entirely preventable catastrophe.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by laika

To me, selfishness isnt buying a big boat or lots of nice things. Rather, it's not seeing how the rights and freedoms of others might be hurt by a blind quest for their own rights and freedoms.

I have lots of rich, conservative friends who are not selfish. Politics and catch phrases are just a bunch of bs which only divide.

People dont think like that

Look at the car industry especially in Europe, so as people got wealthier , they purchased bigger and bigger cars with larger engines , these cars consume more resources , need more energy to be created, and generated far more pollution , then the regulations were brought in and people were penalised through taxation of Co2 output , and or engine size, manufacturers were regulated to produce cleanerr , more recyclable cars , cleaner manufacturing process. None of this would happen without regulation.

People are fundamentally selfish taken as a group , Society as a whole therefore must step in an regulate " for the greater good" even of at times that process. Is inefficient or bureaucratic.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by hpeer

BTW, I know that much has been made recently of this years arctic ice rebound.

I have seen some claims of a 40% rebound! which seems good, until you realize that that is 40% up from 2012 historic lows and still leaves us below the recent 10 year average, and far below the 30 year average.

However, recent data suggest that this rebound was short lived new ice which has recently disappeared.

I'm making no predictions on the future of this yeas ice, only noting the current situation, which is not what most folks think. It is now matching the 2012 record low for this date.

You need to look at long term ice , not annual sea ice.

Dave

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You need to look at long term ice , not annual sea ice.

Dave

Dave, I'm missing your point. I thought I made it clear this was a single data point and I was making no predictions. What did. You think I meant?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bla Bla bla...more predicitons of Doom....seen that back in the 70s. Rememebr we were already to be DEAD at this point unable to feed the world. We have plenty of food, the questions is why can some countries and people not feed themselves....ahem....Government Corruption and opression.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Sounds like someone playing Russian Roulette. So far, so good!

If, by referring to "back in the70's" you mean the "Limits to Growth" computer simulation of resource depletion, where they ran various models, you should already know that they have been keeping track and their model is tracking the BAU run closely. That is NOT a good thing.

What you read in the 70's was that, if BAU continued, sometime around mid-century (2030ish?)various large scale indicators would start trending badly.

I don't expect to change your mind, but post this for others, with more open minds to consider.

But please consider this, when sailing, if you throw your plastic overboard, and dump your holding tank in harbor, some folks will be offended because we don't share your belief that "technology will fix all."

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reception[edit]

The Limits to Growth was ridiculed as early as the 1970s.[16][17]

In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality".[18] It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.[19] In 2010, Peet, Nørgård, and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a "pioneering report". They said that, "its approach remains useful and that its conclusions are still surprisingly valid... unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny."[20]

In a 2009 article published in American Scientist titled "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil," Hall and Day noted that "the values predicted by the limits-to-growth model and actual data for 2008 are very close."[21] These findings are consistent with a 2010 study titled "A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality" which concluded: "The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features… [of the Limits to Growth] ‘standard run’ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century."[22]

In 2011 Ugo Bardi analyzed The Limits to Growth, its methods and historical reception and concluded that "The warnings that we received in 1972 ... are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the ... scenario had generated."[23]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Any group of people that thinks their views/idea are not open for inspection/debate are dangerous. Be careful in wanting people to shut up and get out of the way. Today you are asked, tomorrow you are pushed.

You missed the point. Which is - when something needs to get done, the person saying it can't be done is less than useless.

I already know we're on the same side of this, cos you have boundless (albeit blind) optimism that the problems will, somehow get fixed... cos they always do..."history" as you say. I'm perhaps a bit more concerned than you about the how...