The Wile E Coyote moment by SIGNYM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bang on, Sig. Right on the fucking money. That's why I've moved off the fence to believing now that we have passed tipping point, in numerous ways. People aren't AWARE of many of the ways we're approaching or have passed tipping point, and by the time it impacts them personally, it will be too late.

I like your Wile E Coyote analogy; that's precisely how I see it. For me, the fact that I've posted about it numerous times and people pay no attention illustrates it perfectly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:27 AM

My understanding is that the frog and the bats were due to fungus and parasites, which there might be a link with rising temperatures, but I'm not sure that's the only explanation (spreading contagion from migration and exposure remains a possibility). The other points are well taken though.

I hesitate on "tipping point" though. Temperature? Ecosystem collapse? Complete sterilization of the earth?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:31 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So depressing. I'm glad I'm old.

"Always have an exit plan."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:08 AM

Mass extinction? Been there, done that. The planet will survive. New species will evolve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS-
Oh yeah, the planet will survive, even if we manage to kill off 90% of the species. But I'm actually interested in US surviving, and I don't think we will... even as a species, and certainly not as civilization. (Too many dead civilizations I can point to to say that it "can't happen").

BYTE-
Oh, I didn't even mention the 20-other points of failure, like Chernobyl and Fukushima spewing their radioactive guts into the ecopshere forevermore. Yes, ecosystem collapse. Our economy and society will collapse first tho.

Now, if I were interested in survival, I would do something different than the survivalists. Because you CAN'T survive as an individual or even as a family in the long run, you need a bigger community. So, what I would do is get a group of like-minded people together... 100, or so. Chip in and buy an isolated piece of land with reliable water, and over a few years build up buildings, tools, supplies, materials. When all hell breaks loose, the peeps gather there, each bringing more supplies ... piglets, chicks, goats, seeds, books, and the like, and... most importantly... skills. Woodworking. Smithing. Food growing and preservation. Clothmaking and leather tanning. Emergency medicine and simples.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:37 PM

Huh. I agree with your plan, though I think something else will drive the necessity of implementing it. Pollution in general, maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I dunno about our "civilization" since I am far from convinced we're actually, yanno.. civilized.
But I wouldn't shed too bitter a tear over our current society crumbling, I just hope it does so in a minimally destructive fashion (I can hope, right ?) and transmogrifies into something better, healthier, both psycho-social-emotionally, but also with a greater conscience and awareness of our own impact on others and the world at large.

I don't think we're doomed, mind you, just... in a place where would could wind UP doomed, if we're selfish and stupid about it, which we all too often are - but I also do not discount certain hopeful signs as well.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Now, if I were interested in survival, I would do something different than the survivalists. Because you CAN'T survive as an individual or even as a family in the long run, you need a bigger community. So, what I would do is get a group of like-minded people together... 100, or so. Chip in and buy an isolated piece of land with reliable water, and over a few years build up buildings, tools, supplies, materials. When all hell breaks loose, the peeps gather there, each bringing more supplies ... piglets, chicks, goats, seeds, books, and the like, and... most importantly... skills. Woodworking. Smithing. Food growing and preservation. Clothmaking and leather tanning. Emergency medicine and simples.

This is why I laugh at wingnut so-called survivalists.

I'd rather have twenty unskilled, empty handed PEOPLE than twenty more guns, for EXACTLY those reasons, I just don't bother discussing the matter cause educating and improving the survival rate of folks who I feel would be better dead isn't of any interest to me.
I did an experiment a long ways back over summer vacation in the woods behind the house, about how far a single person could advance (no cheating!) starting with nothing more than one sharp rock, provided they had knowledge - it's pretty impressive, especially when you build tools to build better tools, it was a very mind-broadening experience for me, and I can build some DAMN good weapons pretty quickly I found out.
Of course, that first generation is going to have an educational edge which'll peter out pretty quick, but I've kept with the topic as a matter of hobby interest, and remember we have folks all but training in detroit what with urban reclaimation gardening, and in the face of attempts to crush them down by the local DNR folks who happen to be in Monsantos friggin pocket, and STILL they manage - plus I got a reliable fresh water source and the ability to purify substantial amounts of it on the fly, hell I even have a last ditch contingency plan which'd work better than you'd think cause I know how to scratch build electricity producing windmills out of car parts, and folks like having electricity.
As I said, I'd do pretty okay, it's other people I mostly worry about.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 1:43 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

something along the lines of this would be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Project

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:36 PM

Quote:
I don't think we're doomed, mind you, just... in a place where would could wind UP doomed, if we're selfish and stupid about it, which we all too often are - but I also do not discount certain hopeful signs as well.

I also think this. In either case though, new communities organized differently will be useful, either as a safety net, or as a last bastion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nice ideas, those, but the bigger picture makes them impossible, in my opinion. If I were to go over, once again, the areas where we are at or past tipping point, you'd see that an "isolated group" wouldn't have any more chance than the entire species in the end.

As an overall,

Quote:
The term tipping point refers to a situation in which the forces that create stability are overcome by the forces that create instability, and the ship, vehicle, or system tips over into disequilibrium. Continued degradation of natural systems (e.g., biotic impoverishment, depletion of natural capital, fragmentation of natural systems, pollution, and the increasing probability of major global climate change) indicates that Earth’s ecological life support system (i.e., natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides) may reach a tipping point in the first half of the 21st century. Once an ecological system tips into disequilibrium, it will, over ecological time, probably reach a new, but quite different, dynamic equilibrium. During the transition period and even when a new but different dynamic stability has been reached, the quest for sustainable use of the planet will be seriously impaired.

Do you see how this is different from finding an area which will sustain life and trying to survive there with a small group of people?

Just to begin with, about 20 percent of vertebrate species are under threat of extinction, coral reefs have declined by 38 percent since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions could double over the next 50 years, and 90 percent of water and fish samples from aquatic environments are contaminated by pesticides. What happens in one place affects another, so finding a safe place becomes more and more difficult, if not impossible.

There are numerous studies by scientists occurring currently, and have been for quite some time, trying to assess this situation. This last June a group of 22 internationally known scientists came out with a paper over in Berserkeley which details some of it, and determined that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and climate change, among other things, may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point:

Quote:
The authors note that studies of small-scale ecosystems show that once 50-90 percent of an area has been altered, the entire ecosystem tips irreversibly into a state far different from the original, in terms of the mix of plant and animal species and their interactions. This situation typically is accompanied by species extinctions and a loss of biodiversity.

Currently, to support a population of 7 billion people, about 43 percent of Earth’s land surface has been converted to agricultural or urban use, with roads cutting through much of the remainder. The population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2045; at that rate, current trends suggest that half Earth’s land surface will be disturbed by 2025. http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/scientists-uncover-evidence-
of-impending-tipping-point-for-earth/

I wish I could find the best information that I got from one specific source which listed the specific tipping points we're approaching or have already passed. Most of what I find are articles and sites talking about what we have to do to avoid the problem, but they don't break the tipping points down--that would better show you how it's all interconnected, making isolating in one place to survive a lost proposition. I'll keep looking for it.

The point is, what you could grow in one place may well change; what's viable now might not be 20 years from now. A viable water source may not CONTINUE to be a viable water source; the impacts of air quality will change; food sources from native species will undergo changes; climate and the ensuing water table will alter; acidification of the oceans--all these play into it to the point where it may not be possible even to know what to look for and how the ecosystem will change.

In other words, plans such as those proposed may not be possible; what may be chosen as a viable location may well cease to be viable, and there are so MANY other factors to take into consideration. Which among us is truly convinced we could determine a safe place to "ride it out", even if the ecosystem were to become viable for mankind's survival again at some future date?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:41 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Mass extinction? Been there, done that. The planet will survive. New species will evolve.

You were wondering why the Gov would plan for mass casualties....

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 9:54 AM

Hmm. I suppose it's not really different if a liaison of corporations and government are secretly plotting human mass murder or if it happens accidentally to humans and many other species.

I guess I just shy away from the term "tipping point" because I feel I need to be coolheaded and analytical about the potential dangers, and as a believer in science and humanity, despite my rampant cynicism, I'm compelled to hope that this problem can be resolved. "Tipping point" makes something seem so inevitable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 9:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I found it. Took a while, but I got it in a way that I can post it. There have been numerous studies done about the environmental or ecological "tipping points"; scientists argue about which one's right, what figures are best, etc., etc. Virtually all agree that there are specific areas where passing tipping point is deadly; some count seven tipping points, others nine, some as many as twelve. What I'm quoting here is from one specific study done in 2010.

To put it very simply for those who don't want to read it all:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS -- CONSEQUENCES IF SURPASSED

Biodiversity loss -- Land and ocean ecosystems fail (already surpassed)
Nitrogen Cycle -- Freshwater and ocean dead zones expand (already surpassed)
Climate Change -- Polar ice and glaciers melt; regional climates shift (already surpsassed)
Phosphorous Cycle -- Ocean food chains are disrupted
Land Use -- Ecosystems fail; carbon dioxide escapes
Ocean Acidification -- Microorganisms and corals die; carbon sink lessens
Freshwater use -- Aquatic ecosystems fail; water supplies disappear
Stratospheric ozone depletion -- Radiation harms humans, animals and plants

Long version:

Quote:
Biodiversity Loss.
Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.
Climate change.
Land use.
Ocean acidification.
Freshwater use.
Stratospheric ozone.
Chemical Pollution.
Aerosol loading in the atmosphere.

A team of 30 scientists across the globe have determined that the nine environmental processes named above must remain within specific limits, otherwise the "safe operating space" within which humankind can exist on Earth will be threatened. The group has set numeric limits for seven of the nine so far (chemical pollution and aerosol loading are still being pinned down). And the researchers have determined that the world has already crossed the boundary in three cases: biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and climate change.

Biodiversity Loss: Up to 30% of mammals, birds and amphibians will be threatened with extinction in this century;
Biodiversity loss has happened faster in the past 50 years than at any other time in human history.

Climate Change: We can debate this all day, but many scientists believe we've already passed tipping point where that's concerned: We're losing ice sheets; sea levels are rising; weather patterns are changing.

Nitrogen Levels: Excess nitrogen and phosphorous pollute our rivers, lakes, oceans and atmosphere;
widespread fertilizer use is changing the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles even more than the carbon cycle.

By the way, although climate change is what gets the attention, species loss and nitrogen pollution exceed safe limits by greater degrees.

As to the other environmental processes:

FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION: Across the globe, we withdraw a staggering 2,600 cubic kilometers of water annually from rivers, lakes and aquifers, for irrigation (70 percent), industry (20 percent) and domestic use (10 percent). As a result, many large rivers have diminished flows, and some are drying up altogether. Iconic examples include the Colorado River, which no longer reaches the ocean, and the Aral Sea in Central Asia, now largely desert. Future demand could be enormous.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: Short version--Carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic, causing the loss of corals, shellfish and plankton.

Long version--The ongoing acidification of the seas is the lesser-known cousin of climate change. As atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, so does the amount of CO2 that dissolves in water as carbonic acid, which makes the surface ocean more acidic. The oceans are naturally basic, with a pH of about 8.2, but data show that pH has already slipped to nearly 8.0 and continues to drop. The metric our group used to quantify damage from such change is the falling level of aragonite (a form of calcium carbonate) that is created in the surface layer. Many creatures— from corals to a multitude of phytoplankton that underlie the ocean’s food chain—depend on aragonite to build their skeletons or shells. Increasing acidity could severely weaken ocean ecosystems and food webs ;

LAND USE:

Graph of land use as a quantification of a potential planetary state shift Anthony Barnosky, et al./Nature

NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS POLLUTION: Extensive spreading of industrial fertilizers has upset the chemistry of the planet. Fertilizer use has more than doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus through the environment, at a rate of 133 million tons of nitrogen and 10 million tons of phosphorus per year. Both flows are causing widespread water pollution, degrading numerous lakes and rivers and disrupting coastal oceans by creating large, hypoxic “dead zones.” Needed are new agricultural practices that increase food production yet also sustain the environment.

Other environmental processes are also headed toward dangerous levels. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boundaries-for-a-heal
thy-planet

The entire article is available from Scientific American...I've copied text which isn't in the cited version from my on-line copy of the April 2010 issue.

Given this was back in 2010, I wonder where we stand NOW? I'm afraid, Byte, that given all this--which in one version or another has been stated numerous times over the past decade--to me it IS inevitable. Everyone's mileage, of course, may vary.

Whew...that took a couple of hours to distill and put in a readable form. I hope it's worth it to those of you who give a damn, anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:29 AM

MRSAX

Cry Baby Cry. Make Your Mama Sigh.

The problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Seriously. As a species, we need to remove about 4 billion from the planet and institute zero pop growth. I don't know how you do that -- or even determine which 4 billion get axed (who wants to be in that group). But lower population would result in lower demands on the environment. This is just my simplistic view of things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by MRSAX:
The problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Seriously. As a species, we need to remove about 4 billion from the planet and institute zero pop growth. I don't know how you do that -- or even determine which 4 billion get axed (who wants to be in that group). But lower population would result in lower demands on the environment. This is just my simplistic view of things.

Hypothetically speaking, you can do that in a generation or two without taking any extreme eugenics measures, simply by not reproducing more people than die off.

It won't happen, of course, but it's theoretically possible.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:34 AM

Well, yes, I'm familiar with all those. But I still hesitate on "tipping point" because it's all in how you define it. Like, for example, if an entire species goes extinct, that's a tipping point because you can never get those species back. But if you measure something like biodiversity and not individual species, biodiversity can be slashed all the way down to 5% of what it was, or CO2 can be two to six times higher and temperatures twenty degrees warmer, and eventually those can bounce back. Obviously you don't WANT that to happen, it would qualify as catastrophic in terms of loss of life if it happened abruptly, but at the same time, there's not really a whole lot that I would consider out and out apocalyptic that would take out everything on Earth.

Humanity will probably survive, whether or not humanity thinks it deserves it. Other animals probably won't fare as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRSAX:
The problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Seriously. As a species, we need to remove about 4 billion from the planet and institute zero pop growth. I don't know how you do that -- or even determine which 4 billion get axed (who wants to be in that group). But lower population would result in lower demands on the environment. This is just my simplistic view of things.

I disagree emphatically. All our models indicate that the populations are stagnating around the world, population growth is slowing by itself as countries develop on their own and as a result women simply have less children (no special measures necessary). In 2050, the population should be fairly steady at 10 billion. And if we are smart about managing our resources, we can maintain that number indefinitely - though it would require people to eat far less red meat, which has the largest carbon footprint of all foods and requires the most land. Other technologies would also be needed, but I think they're well within our grasp.

I also would thoroughly encourage space travel and colonization.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/oct/20-the-gray-tsunami

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:13 PM

MRSAX

Cry Baby Cry. Make Your Mama Sigh.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I disagree emphatically. All our models indicate that the populations are stagnating around the world, population growth is slowing by itself as countries develop on their own and as a result women simply have less children (no special measures necessary). In 2050, the population should be fairly steady at 10 billion. And if we are smart about managing our resources, we can maintain that number indefinitely - though it would require people to eat far less red meat, which has the largest carbon footprint of all foods and requires the most land. Other technologies would also be needed, but I think they're well within our grasp.

I also would thoroughly encourage space travel and colonization.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/oct/20-the-gray-tsunami

My point was the demands on the planet at current population levels are too great. At 10 billion, ouch! Technology from ACME won't help and we'll just fall into the canyon, or be squashed when we get on top of the catapult to unstick the boulder (that was an awesome sequence in the toon).

If 5/10 billion people enjoy a fish (or 2 per week), you're pulling 500 billion fish/year from the ocean. That just seems staggering to me. We've already gone thru several species of white fish (when's the last time you saw orange roughy in the store?). And I don't trust us to ever take a balanced approach towards managing the environment. I can barely do it myself. History teaches us different. At 10 billion, soylent green starts to seem plausible.

This is depressing. Who started this thread? It may be time to blow my brains out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 12:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Sig -

I'd just like to thank you, once again, for completely misquoting me and taking my words 100% out of context. What you're attempting to show , by posting only fractions of my comments, and two completely, unrelated ones at that, defies all explanation.

But hey, nicely done.

(sarcasm on that last line, for those not able to process )

As for the thread... I've all but stopped eating beef. For what it's worth, I rarely eat any burgers or steaks, and frequent Chick-fil-A.

Heck, same goes for pork products too, as I eat turkey bacon instead of the real thing.

So, I'm doing MY part.

Quote:

So depressing. I'm glad I'm old.

That makes 2 of us, and it explains so much, too.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:10 PM

Quote:
If 5/10 billion people enjoy a fish (or 2 per week), you're pulling 500 billion fish/year from the ocean. That just seems staggering to me.

That's why we need to 1) change how we get fish such as with fresh and salt-water fish farms/hatcheries (but not in-ocean due to the risk to wild populations), and 2) limit catches on "wild" populations of fish.

And we also will probably end up eating less meat in general, vegetables take much less land and obviously have a smaller footprint.

Quote:
History teaches us different.

History has us creating giant salted deserts ten thousand years ago that only now are starting to recover. I think agriculture has advanced since then.

Quote:
At 10 billion, soylent green starts to seem plausible.

Unlikely. An evaluation of existing farmlands suggests that with good management we could support ten billion - lots of arable land in Africa and other undeveloped areas is poorly managed and not very productive. However, at the same time I don't understand why some people have such a problem with cannibalism. It's not like you don't eat a bunch of skin cells from inside your cheek every day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:13 PM

OONJERAH

Do you know how many people I know personally who ever even consider this stuff?
Over population, on-going environmental disasters, nuclear contamination.

ZERO, 0, None!

When I mention this to others, response is a blank stare, then they return to
the comfort zone of mundane conversation.
We, the American people, have been marvelously coddled in ignorance. We like
our illusions!

Indeed ... here on this forum where it's been discussed at length, I see some
who should know better still in denial.

Life on this planet will be destroyed. We are the ones destroying it.
The truth is unacceptable. Denial is the only answer.

So We're Stupid, and We'll Die

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:18 PM

Quote:
Indeed ... here on this forum where it's been discussed at length, I see some
who should know better still in denial.

Life on this planet will be destroyed. We are the ones destroying it.
The truth is unacceptable. Denial is the only answer.

I'd much rather come up with solutions then wave my hands around and yell that everything is doomed.

Solutions that don't involve KILLING people, please.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:26 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

How about letting nature take its course? Disease, floods, drought, lack of clean water, famine, ecosystem collapse ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:28 PM

Also unacceptable. Come on, there's plenty of stuff we can do before it gets to that point. I'd like to at least try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 1:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

We've tried - language, the bowl, seafood, fire, tools, clothes, agriculture, metalworking, and technology to secure our existence. But for everything we've tried, our numbers have eventually nullified our efforts. What do you suggest that isn't simply more of the same, getting us to the same place?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Come on, there's plenty of stuff we can do before it gets to that point.

But we ARE at that point. And you not recognizing it is one of the reason why we will never "do stuff".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:54 PM

What are you talking about? I already live green. :?

Who here isn't?

We'll do stuff because of technology making it viable. Any tipping point becomes moot, even reversible, in the face of science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
We've tried - language, the bowl, seafood, fire, tools, clothes, agriculture, metalworking, and technology to secure our existence. But for everything we've tried, our numbers have eventually nullified our efforts. What do you suggest that isn't simply more of the same, getting us to the same place?

I'm... Still not positive which scenario I'm supposed to be addressing. But suffice to say, I think technology can solve them all.

Certainly killing people off hasn't changed anything. The black plague was a set back, but the population drop then was easily surpassed. Basically letting nature take it's course is what we've BEEN doing, and unfortunately, we're kicking nature's ass. Unlike nature, however, we can change our approach.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Solutions that don't involve KILLING people, please.

I find it highly disturbing that the only person who is advocating not killing people or not letting people die from natural disasters or not wanting to see people die (population decrease) is the board's self-acknowledged sociopath.

What does that make the rest of the board?

Byte, you go girl.

The only reason people have a hard time with finding resources is not because there are too few resources on the planet and too many people. That is what the 1% want you to believe; it would be convenient for them if there were less people fighting for what they own, wouldn't it? The reason there are too few resources is because the 1% owns too much of the planet, and 99% have to share too little of the planet. That is not a physical reality, it is a political reality.

---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:00 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I find it highly disturbing that the only person who is advocating not killing people or not letting people die from natural disasters or not wanting to see people die (population decrease) is the board's self-acknowledged sociopath."

Wow, you really do have selective reading, don't you. Only one person advocated getting rid of people. Kwicko mentioned ZPG for a couple of generations. Some people agreed - yep, too many people - without advocating any method of reducing numbers, or simply opining numbers will never go down enough. I asked about letting nature take its course b/c I wanted Byte to delimit her notions.

You do this quite often - ascribing positions to people who never took them, ascribing to yourself (and perhaps one other ally you're actively grooming) the 'better' and more 'heroic' position.

"The reason there are too few resources is because the 1% owns too much of the planet, and 99% have to share too little of the planet."

The idea that scarcity isn't an issue but distribution is, is about 40 years out of date. To feed the people of the planet adequately we'd all have to become vegetarians and strip-mine the ocean. Now, I have my (up to date) sources for my claims, what do you have for yours?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:10 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

The reason why I don't think technology is the answer is b/c it hasn't been in all the years of human history. For every improvement in technology has come an eventual increase in human numbers which has made the improvement moot.

It's like watching a new species enter into a virgin land. At first there's more than enough for all, then the numbers increase beyond resources, and starvation follows. If we simply improve technology, what's to say our numbers won't increase to the point of scarcity - again?

That's why I was wondering if you have something to suggest besides more of the same.

Same old schoolboy game got you into this mess
Hey son, you better get back to town
Face the sad old truth, the dirty lowdown

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig -

I'd just like to thank you, once again, for completely misquoting me and taking my words 100% out of context. What you're attempting to show , by posting only fractions of my comments, and two completely, unrelated ones at that, defies all explanation.

Rappy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have quoted you exactly nowhere in this thread!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What are you talking about? I already live green. :?
Who here isn't?
We'll do stuff because of technology making it viable. Any tipping point becomes moot, even reversible, in the face of science.

Oh, I don't mean "doing stuff" like recycling and tossing the odd sinkful of water into the garden, I mean doing meaningful stuff... meaningful enough to reverse the ice loss in the Arctic, clean up all of the radionuclides we spread all over, and eliminating the ocean dead zones, and halt species extinction. Do you see any of that going on?

Yeah, me neither.

The bottleneck to solving our problems isn't technological, and science isn't going to save us. The only people who can save us is us.

Also, as my hubby likes to point out, our technology is extremely poor at handling very large amounts of energy. All of our major technological breakthroughs are in miniaturizing... reducing energy required. What we have set in motion in terms of climate shift is far beyond our capacity to even slow down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:16 PM

Quote:
Do you see any of that going on?

It'll happen. The biggest growth in research nowadays is for alternative energy. Someone will hit on something that'll catch like wildfire, and then we'll be in a much better position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meanwhile, we are 50 years behind being able to reverse global warming, and we haven't even BEGUN to plan for moving entire ecosystems to more suitable climates.

The idea that we will someday solve our energy/ carbon cycle/ nitrogen cycle/ water cycle problems through science is a little like the idea that we will someday colonize space. First of all, the energy cost is impractical. Secondly, we are so tuned to certain concentrations of minor constituents we could prolly not create a habitable environment that we could actually survive in for more than a few generations, and we have yet to figure out how to keep weightlessness from causing serious metabolic problems. And... finally... we've already shitted up this planet, we trashed our orbital space and every mission we've sent to somewhere we've managed to leave trash behind there, too. What makes you think we'll do better "elsewhere"?

"Science" isn't going to save us, hon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:05 PM

HKCAVALIER

Thing is, people have been telling me that we're in the Wile E. Coyote moment since I was in junior high, 35 years ago. "By the year 2000 we'll run out of land mass for humans to inhabit." "At current rates of consumption, we'll run out of fossil fuels by 1995." Not saying there aren't a lot of deeply troubling trends, but there seem to always be deeply troubling trends and somehow, we survive, and survive well in many ways. The truth is, humans don't improve anything until we have to. Necessity is the mother of invention and I'm with Ms. Mite on this one. The human race, like it or not, is a fucking success story. We will adapt.

I look at the near inevitability of nuclear holocaust that everyone was waiting for, all those years. As it turns out, not one nation has used nuclear arms to attack another nation but that one time. Once, and the entire race got the message, apparently. We've had sooooo many bad actors on the stage, so many "rogue states" with nuclear capability and...nada.

Or look at Hitler. He nearly conquered Europe. But then it alllllll blew up in his face. It would appear that evil is a self-destroying engine. Just give it time and it is crushed under the weight of its own maladaptive nature.

This is why I'm an Anarchist. Because as much as governments think they're in control, as much as tyrants believe they have the power of life and death over the rest of us, the race as a whole operates by our human nature. And that nature I can live with. It's done alright by me. There are hard limits to the tyranny people will tolerate. Hit that limit and you get disappeared. Not by any one plan, or heroic national armed forces, but by history itself. There are limits to what human beings will do. We'll get up to a lot of mischief, a lot of horror and atrocity for sure, but there is a limit. Somehow we always pull back from the edge. Seriously, shouldn't 1984 have happened several times by now?

Y'know, Wile E. Coyote is kinda the perfect metaphor for the human race. As many times he runs out of ground to stand on, as often as he falls, he always finds his feet and comes back ready for more. Also, he never quite learns his lesson, but oh well, nobody's perfect.

I'm sorry. I know you guys are serious about all this and you're absolutely right about what's going on right now. I know you've done your research. And I gotta say, the whole nitrogen cycle is damn spooky. I know you want to light a fire under everybody and get us all buying into your desperation, but I don't feel it. I have no doubt that there is trouble coming, BIG trouble, more trouble than perhaps we've ever faced, but we'll work it out.

That was the one flaw in Firefly to my mind. The whole "Earth got used up" thing. Ain't gonna happen. Not possible. Pure self-hating arrogance of the human race to think it could. Yeah, we're so bad, we're just so very bad. Somebody spank us.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 8:38 PM

Re overpopulation and food,

http://www.economist.com/node/18200618

Quote:
The 9 billion-people question
The world’s population will grow from almost 7 billion now to over 9 billion in 2050. John Parker asks if there will be enough food to go round...

...There are plenty of reasons to worry about food: uncertain politics, volatile prices, hunger amid plenty. Yet when all is said and done, the world is at the start of a new agricultural revolution that could, for the first time ever, feed all mankind adequately. The genomes of most major crops have been sequenced and the benefits of that are starting to appear. Countries from Brazil to Vietnam have shown that, given the right technology, sensible policies and a bit of luck, they can transform themselves from basket cases to bread baskets. That, surely, is cause for optimism.

Doom and gloom is easy, but optimism is key for survival. Commitment to solve the problem without asking for less life on earth, including human life, will lead to solutions. Where there's a will, there's a way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:39 PM

OONJERAH

Everyone remembers this, I bet.

"On Friday 09.02.2007 Sir Richard Branson launched the Virgin Earth Challenge,
creating an opportunity for people to make history by helping to preserve history
for many generations to come.
http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

The Virgin Earth Challenge is not currently accepting new applications.

The Virgin Earth Challenge is US $25 million for whoever can demonstrate to the
judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the net removal
of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to
the stability of the Earth's climate system."

Oonj assumes that a few people stepped forward with good ideas and were promply
whisked away to a great think tank with more than adequate pay.

Kwicko's thread, I believe the children are our future... is about Winners of the
Annual Science Faire, a bunch of high school kids with great smarts & great inventions.
Some are good ideas for the environment.

Solutions to the environmental problems we've created may be coming along even now.
Some of them have even made it into mainstream awareness & are being practiced,
apparently, everywhere but here. We don't need to work on our own land; we'll "Let
George do it," as the olde saying went.

I am paranoid. I believe in conspiracies. Been thinking this way for a long time.
There are a lot of very rich people in the world who are also quite intelligent, and
they don't want their descendants to die on a lifeless rock.

I have believed for a long time that they are already building self-sustaining habitats.
Their scientists may have said that no matter what they do now, they can't save the
whole ball ... & if they could, it'd require unacceptable sacrifices: no more flying
around in jets, for instance.

But it's none of my business, bein' a commoner peasant & all. 'Cause when it finally
does become unliveable out here, there won't be very many people in them habitats.
Not 9 billion anyways.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 11:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig -

I'd just like to thank you, once again, for completely misquoting me and taking my words 100% out of context. What you're attempting to show , by posting only fractions of my comments, and two completely, unrelated ones at that, defies all explanation.
Rappy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have quoted you exactly nowhere in this thread!

Well, no where accurately, I agree w/ that.

But lemmie refresh your memory...

You speak of 'the young, the old, the sick' as if they're an endangered species- ....AND... Freedom fails is if it's oppressed and crushed, by pure democracy-Rappy

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:29 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig -

I'd just like to thank you, once again, for completely misquoting me and taking my words 100% out of context. What you're attempting to show , by posting only fractions of my comments, and two completely, unrelated ones at that, defies all explanation.
Rappy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have quoted you exactly nowhere in this thread!

Well, no where accurately, I agree w/ that.

But lemmie refresh your memory...

You speak of 'the young, the old, the sick' as if they're an endangered species- ....AND... Freedom fails is if it's oppressed and crushed, by pure democracy-Rappy

Both of those are exact quotes of things you posted. What's your problem with people quoting you?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It would appear that evil is a self-destroying engine. Just give it time and it is crushed under the weight of its own maladaptive nature.

This is why I'm an Anarchist. Because as much as governments think they're in control, as much as tyrants believe they have the power of life and death over the rest of us, the race as a whole operates by our human nature. And that nature I can live with. It's done alright by me. There are hard limits to the tyranny people will tolerate. Hit that limit and you get disappeared. Not by any one plan, or heroic national armed forces, but by history itself. There are limits to what human beings will do. We'll get up to a lot of mischief, a lot of horror and atrocity for sure, but there is a limit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE

Agreed. Been a big proponent of ZPG since my late teens, having had his daughter as a friend. Made sense. Still does. Would take global cooperation to affect overpopulation, and we're not a global community in that way, as I see it.

There is, by the way, a third choice between sticking one's head in the sand and/or believing technology will solve all, and wave my hands around and yell that everything is doomed". There's doing what we can, even if, like I, one believes we've passed tipping point and the earth will undergo massive changes without us around, in the hopes of staving off what I believe to be the inevitable for as long as possible. I see no reason to live in "doom and gloom"; what will be will be, but I can care about future generations and do what I can to help them survive as long as possible. You know, "humane", as someone mentioned. I have no kids of my own, so no future generation to care about, but I care about those who will suffer anyway.

Expecting technology will solve everything is to me Wile E. Coyote thinking. We're already some 35 years behind being able to change things to keep our species around, and technology isn't even slightly changing things. Technology alone won't work unless the demand is great enough, and it ain't. I fully agree with Oonj:

Quote:
When I mention this to others, response is a blank stare, then they return to
the comfort zone of mundane conversation.

We, the American people, have been marvelously coddled in ignorance. We like our illusions!

That's so right; as the major utilizer of Earth's resources, and a very rich country, we're way behind many other countries in changing things. I don't see it happening any time soon on a scale that would impact this little blue ball enough to stave off what's coming.

Quote:
But we ARE at that point. And you not recognizing it is one of the reason why we will never "do stuff".

Agreed...hence my agreement that we're living in the Wile E. Coyote moment.

Not only do I think "The truth is unacceptable. Denial is the only answer", but I think the ignorance mentioned above will continue because our government doesn't WANT to make us face the facts, and too many of us would deny them even if they did...as we can see right here.

As to

Quote:
I already live green....Who here isn't?

A goodly number of people here aren't, and resist even the idea that they SHOULD...which is a pretty good reflection of the world at large. Except that people here are better informed than the general population and some of us care enough TO live green, or even do the simple things we could do to further the solution(s).

I agree with Sig:

Quote:
What we have set in motion in terms of climate shift is far beyond our capacity to even slow down.

Except that if it were JUST climate shift, I'd feel differently. It's the fact that tipping point has been passed or is fast approaching on NUMEROUS fronts that convinced me. More like it is

Quote:
The idea that we will someday solve our energy/ carbon cycle/ nitrogen cycle/ water cycle problems through science is a little like the idea that we will someday colonize space.

Bingo.

Sorry, Cav, I have to disagree. Some have been predicting doom and gloom for 35 years (and more) because they SEE it...nobody can estimate how, when, how much, etc., but it's been right there in front of our eyes for longer than 35 years, scientists have been pointing it out, and little has changed.

Quote:
there seem to always be deeply troubling trends and somehow, we survive.

Can you conceive of the idea that we survive...until we don't? Just because we've gone through a lot of shit and survived doesn't mean we always will. That's part of the Wile E. Coyote thing, in my opinion; because we've always survived, and things aren't dire enough yet, many (most?) people think "yeah, well, we'll survive this too".

Nuclear was a big thing when I was a kid, too. It didn't happen, it hasn't happened...yet...but that's no guarantee it won't happen, far as I can see. As to buying into desperation; I'm not desperate, I'm just looking at the facts, our history as a species, and accepting what I see as the inevitable. History kinda speaks for itself, and it's not about tyranny or ANYTHING societal or governmental. Fighting one another is one thing; fighting the scientific facts of nature is quite another. There's nothing arrogant about it...in a way, no more arrogant than dinosaurs saying "a meteor may come along and make us extinct." We've never come up against the sort of thing that's coming because there have always been other places to move, other oceans to fish. You can't conquer Nature, you can't take Her prisoner, and you can't compromise with Her once you've gone too far. She's based on laws that, once broken in enough ways, carry their own toll.

You may well be right, Oonj, regarding your conspiracy of the 1%...in fact, I think it's more probable than not. But my doubt is that they'll be able to come OUT of those habitats again and find an earth that will sustain them.

Mildly amusing that in the midst of this debate on our survival, Rap pops in with posts entirely self-oriented. Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:41 AM

Quote:
There's doing what we can, even if, like I, one believes we've passed tipping point and the earth will undergo massive changes without us around, in the hopes of staving off what I believe to be the inevitable for as long as possible.

All right then, so long as you all are still fighting. Here's to hoping you'll all be happily surprised in our lifetime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, love, I just turned 64 a few days ago. Whatever happens, the odds of it getting really horrible in the time I've decided to stick around are pretty slim...the odds of things getting SOLVED in that time are even slimmer. But I certainly wish the species well and will continue doing what I've been doing to lessen my own footprint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:34 PM

OONJERAH

^
| What Niki said.

"Duuuhst in the wind. All we are is dust in the wind."

I'll be 70 in November -:)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:44 PM

Niki, Happy Birthday!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Niki, Happy Birthday!

Oh hey. Congratulations on the new level. *Byte is a geek*

How'd you spend it? Good day?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:17 PM