Mass Plankton Die-Off

[foggysail]

[QUOTE=karma;540259]
Most of us frequenting these furums are old enough to remember when the sky above was blue instead of orange and soot-brown with an oily sheen.
QUOTE]

OK, lets get a movement......geez, thats a good idea, a good movement sometimes fouls the air but clears the mine, one never knows where some people's heads are.

But back to "movement" yeah, lets get a movement to ban airports!!! That will clear the air AND HELP REDUCE CLOUDS which contribute to so called global warming.

Now why didn't Al Gore think of that??? Maybe he was having a movement problem!

Foggy

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hpeer
It's not like the oil or coal industry have any interest in the argument, ya think?

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

... Of course they do and they live here too. They deserve a voice just like anyone else...

I think not, as a Corporation is condidered a “legal person”, as opposed to a “natural person”(as you & I).

Legal persons may not have all the same rights as natural persons. For example, they don't have human rights, including the right to freedom of speech.

[sageofsalem]

"Eat, Drink and be Merry...









for tomorrow we die!"

[beowulfborealis]

Politics is the enemy of strategy. Humans have proven time and again, that they are simply unable to put their differences aside, and produce any kind of long term planning. I don't have a whole lot of hope for the future. I think we should be happy we live in the period of time we did which allowed so much freedom and resources, for so few people.

And with that, I think I'm gonna go on a "sailabout" and see the world.

[osirissail]

You need to remember that 1,000 / 2,000 / 4,000 years ago your same statement was being voiced with earnest by folks back then. And - we are still here.
- - It is likely we humans will be here for a few thousand years more baring any external event like an asteroid, super-nova, skinny green guys with death rays, etc. (Lots of good Hollywood movies on the subject).
- - Planet Earth has shrugged off many species before humans with several "mass extinctions." But none of them have been 100%. There is always survivors (more good Hollywood movies on this) and life on earth has flourished. Add the potential for humans to migrate off the earth (still more good movies) and I am confident the human specie will be around for a very long time one place or another.
- - But in any case, "And with that, I think I'm gonna go on a "sailabout" and see the world." is a damn good idea.

[karma]

Sooooooooooooooooooo you subscribe to the idea that oil is a renewable resource?

If not then when do you think it will run out?

I firmly believe it's not going to "run out" at all. - I'm 100% sure that we and 99% of all the species living on earth would all be dead long before the oil "ran out".

Look around you. How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the air, the sky, the lakes, rivers and oceans before they were full of exhaust and other petroleum based emissions? Is there anywhere in the world below 20,000 feet that you'd feel comfortable drinking un-treatred water? Do you remember the last time you were able to drink safely from the stream running through your town/city? - You're supposed to be able to, you know - it sustains you.
Does the stream even still exist, or has it been "moved" to make way for cars and the oil-based roads they move around on?

The issue is not whether we're going to "run out" or not, so much as that we cannot win as a planet/people if we don't.

I don't know about you, but as for myself, I'm not an extremely motivated individual when it comes to "finding a better way". Why would I be if I can get fuel for a buck a liter?

Oil was a stop-gap measure. Since we "invented" and began using oil as a base for almost everything in our day-to-day lives, there've been countless other inventions that would've led away from oil dependency, but "big oil" quashed 99% of them because they weren't profitable to "oil" (big oil = you, me, us and them).

How is it profitable to build a tool to access the things one loves in life when that very tool destroys the things one loves,wants, and most importantly, needs?

I love cars and the easy life oil provides, but damned if I'm willing to give up the world that sustains me for "5 minutes of comfort". - In the greater scheme of things, that's all oil is offering - at least in the way it's being used right now - 5 minutes of reprieve from the toil and struggle that life on earth is.

Furthermore, I'm all for using oil, as a very temporary measure/tool to find/develop other ways of relieving the everyday burdens of life. I'm also totally, 100% against it ruling our lives.

There is nothing wrong with "getting money from oil", as one of the above posters pointed out, and yet critsizing it, - that's the democratic way of doing things. Anything in your culture or society that makes you "shut up" because you're part of it or are deriving some form of sustenance from it, has got to be wrong (aka - bribe). You're American/Western. Your society is built on the principle/value of self-critiscism - aka, freedom of speech. How is the scientist supposed to live since 90% of "our" dollars are oil-based? You're confusing "scientist" with "holy-man".

The technology for us to live greater lives through oil has existed for many years - some of those ways and ideas have even borne fruit. The problem is that we as a nation have given up on "voluntarily" abiding by the law - the cornerstone of democratic culture. By "abiding by the law" I'm referring to the "natural law" that makes life possible - at least insofar as an environment capable of sustaining life is concerned.
We are "giving up" voluntarily each and every time we use something that we know is bad for us, and let's face it, since we were just wee-little, we all knew that anything that comes from oil is "bad" for us.

So use that oil, use as little as you possibly can, and use it effectively to find "better" ways of doing things.

I wonder too, if we use it so extravagantly, burn it up so quickly, because we all know it's a "bad" thing and want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. - That is the natural human response to a threat. - Get rid of it as quickly as you can.

[karma]

Sooooooooooooooooooo you subscribe to the idea that oil is a renewable resource?

If not then when do you think it will run out?

I firmly believe it's not going to "run out" at all. - I'm 100% sure that we and 99% of all the species living on earth would all be dead long before the oil "ran out".

Look around you. How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the air, the sky, the lakes, rivers and oceans before they were full of exhaust and other petroleum based emissions? Is there anywhere in the world below 20,000 feet that you'd feel comfortable drinking un-treatred water? Do you remember the last time you were able to drink safely from the stream running through your town/city? - You're supposed to be able to, you know - it sustains you.
Does the stream even still exist, or has it been "moved" to make way for cars and the oil-based roads they move around on?

The issue is not whether we're going to "run out" or not, so much as that we cannot win as a planet/people if we don't.

I don't know about you, but as for myself, I'm not an extremely motivated individual when it comes to "finding a better way". Why would I be if I can get fuel for a buck a liter?

Oil was a stop-gap measure. Since we "invented" and began using oil as a base for almost everything in our day-to-day lives, there've been countless other inventions that would've led away from oil dependency, but "big oil" quashed 99% of them because they weren't profitable to "oil".

How is it profitable to build a tool to access the things one loves in life when that very tool destroys the things one loves and wants?

I love cars and the easy life oil provides, but damned if I'm willing to give up the world that sustains me for "5 minutes of comfort". - In the greater scheme of things, that's all oil is offering - 5 minutes of reprieve from the toil and struggle that life on earth is.

Furthermore, I'm all for using oil, as a very temporary measure/tool to find/develop other ways of relieving the everyday burdens of life. I'm also totally, 100% against it ruling our lives.

There is nothing wrong with "getting money from oil", as one of the above posters pointed out, and yet critsizing it, - that's the democratic way of doing things. Anything in your culture or society that makes you "shut up" because you're part of it or are deriving some form of sustenance from it, has got to be wrong. You're American/Western. Your society is built on the principle/value of self-critiscism - aka, freedom of speech. How is the scientist supposed to live since 90% of "our" dollars are oil-based? You're confusing "scientist" with "holy-man".

The technology for us to live greater lives through oil has existed for many years. The problem is that we as a nation have given up on "voluntarily" abiding by the law - the cornerstone of democratic culture. By "abiding by the law" I'm referring to the "natural law" that makes life possible - at least insofar as an environment capable of sustaining life is concerned.

So use that oil, use as little as you possible can, and use it effectively to find "better" ways of doing things.

I wonder too, if we use it so extravagantly, burn it up so quickly, because we all know it's a "bad" thing and want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. - That is the natural human response to a threat. - Get rid of it as quickly as you can.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Let's get the human population into some sort of perspective here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tion_curve.svg

All in the blink of an eye in evolutionary timescale.....

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by conachair

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tion_curve.svg

All in the blink of an eye in evolutionary timescale.....

Indeed, but some biologists say that is exactly how evolution works

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GordMay]

IMHO: GOOD thread drift.

Thomas Malthus observed*, in the nineteenth century, that sooner or later, population gets checked by famine, disease, and widespread mortality; and that, throughout history, a segment of every human population seemed relegated to poverty. Malthus thought that the dangers of population growth would preclude endless progress towards a utopian society, writing: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man."

* “An Essay on the Principle of Population” published from 1798 to 1826

The key to understanding overpopulation is not merely population density, but the numbers of people in an area, relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity.

When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones), and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population.

In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated. By this standard, the entire planet, and virtually every nation, is already vastly overpopulated.

Certainly the rich (Western) nations are overpopulated, because we are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. We don't live solely on the land in our own nations. We are spending the planet’s capital, with no thought for the future.

But:

Excerpted from “Human population explosion”

“... The human population has grown nearly ten-fold over the past three centuries, and has increased by a factor of four in the last century. This monumental historical development has profoundly changed the relationship of our species to its natural support systems and has greatly intensified our environmental impact. Equally amazing are the signs that, in our generation, the human population explosion has begun to abate (Figure 1; note that, here and below, many of the values given are estimates and, after the year 2005, projections). Our numbers are expected to rise by another 50% before reaching a peak late in this century; a decline is likely to follow. What caused this population surge; what caused its reversal; where are we headed; and how might the proliferation of our species affect its future well-being? ...”

More ➥ Human population explosion

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Indeed, but some biologists say that is exactly how evolution works

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand, noted evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, emphasizes that punctuated equilibrium has been "oversold by some journalists." Dawkins contends that the theory "does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity". It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis."

[Eleven]

For us 'civilised' people the dollar will rule. Buying the food that others want but can't afford. There is a scenario where the less advantaged areas will become farmers for the advantaged. SLAVES.
But global warming theory is that the worlds food production may collapse if we don't help it to remain steady, even though it is already too late. = No Slaves = no food for the advantaged. Not even local food if some of the environmental disasterists prove to be right.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Certainly the rich (Western) nations are overpopulated, because we are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. We don't live solely on the land in our own nations. We are spending the planet’s capital, with no thought for the future.

If western nations are overpopulated compared to the rest of the nations in the world, it's not those western nation's fault that the people of other nations want to live in the western nations. The more people keep immigating to the western nations, the more resources are needed to sustain the western nations. If western nations want to look better on the population to resources scale, then they will have to send those immigrants back to where they came from.

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

If western nations want to look better on the population to resources scale, then they will have to send those immigrants back to where they came from.

Indeed. And they should not adopt from the third world either, because when they do, they convert a low resource user into a high resource user.

If you take this argument to its full conclusion then it is a huge justification for charitable aid and overseas development money to try and improve people's lives in those countries so that they stay there. Their resource need per capita will increase, but the West's population is falling and if we improve things in the thrid world then their population growth will decline as well.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

... If western nations want to look better on the population to resources scale, then they will have to send those immigrants back to where they came from.

As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have remarked, after reading a colleague’s/student’s paper: “This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.”

Reducing the population, without reducing the individual’s rate of consumption, does nothing to reduce that population's population to resource consumption ratio.