Earth's oceans on course for mass extinction by Niki2

Beir bua agus beannacht

Scary.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, it's a race to the ... er... finish. The only question is, will man-made radionuclide contamination reduce human sperm count before man-made warming finishes off everything else?

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

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:36 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Hon,
wasn't it last year that ALL the bees were going to die, so nothing would pollinate the food crops, and we were all gonna die?

And a maybe a few years ago, the African killer bees were going to kill all regular bees, with the same result? ( Maybe a lot longer ago, actually. Wasn't John Belushi doing killer bee schtick before he died?)

And a while back, all the plankton was gonna die out, the very bottom of the ocean food chain, so everything in ALL the seas was done for, so we were all gonna starve.

SO even I am developing a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome about this stuff and these folks. I am starting to discount these guys all the time, because I have to, just to get out of bed.

I didn't read your whole piece, just the headline, but I 'll bet it's loaded with weasel words-- " this might destroy all life "; "events could cause massive destruction"; so on, so forth. I gotta wait for one of these guys to say, " this WILL happen, in a short, verifiable time period, I stake MY OWN PERSONAL reputation on it. "

EDIT- I went back and checked the article- these wasn't a single weasel worded claim in it. I WAS WRONG ! forgive me.. or as Gilda Radner might have put it, " Oh. Never mind."

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

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Hon,
wasn't it last year that ALL the bees were going to die, so nothing would pollinate the food crops, and we were all gonna die?

No, silly, they were just were gonna go on strike.

" 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

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

That bee thing still is of concern to me. But I know what you mean, if someone let themself worry about this stuff too much they'd be in a pickle.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:45 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
That bee thing still is of concern to me. But I know what you mean, if someone let themself worry about this stuff too much they'd be in a pickle.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

The bee problem came from the initiation of trading bees as a commodity. Each colony has local diseases they are immune to, and when you move them and mix them, they die. It's like what happened with Europeans and Native Americans.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:58 AM

Yeah, ocean acidification and coral reef die offs are pretty well understood and demonstrated, though they're not DIRECTLY related. It's more indirect. See, the reason the ocean is acidifying is because it's absorbing a lot of CO2, which after some finangling converts to CO3. Where does that extra oxygen come from? Oh, the water, H2O.

So now you've got a lot of 2H+ floating around, which lowers the pH level.

CO3 is required to form Calcium Carbonate, CaCO3, but as it turns out, that's actually a cool temperature reaction, warm temperatures drive the reaction the other way. Marine animals that rely on some ambient CaCO3 molecules to produce shells, such as mollusks have their shells dissolved from their bodies, and are more easily preyed upon and experience a die off. Also, the organic and inorganic CaCO3 dissolving produces yet more ocean acidification.

HOWEVER, even though coral is one of those marine animals that produce a CaCO3 shell, that die-off is actually more related to a migration of symbiotic algae the coral need to survive, probably also due to temperatures.

Anyway, despite knowing all this, I kind of have the same feeling about "the boy who cried wolf," and sometimes I feel like our efforts to make things better just make things worse. As ever, all I can really recommend is sustainability and self-sufficiency, and hopefully that will fix the problem.

We've been in an extinction event ever since people started slash and burn agriculture and started building cities, so I'm not sure this is anything new but rather a continuation of what's already been going on. Though I'll agree it is regrettable, and maybe we should stop overfishing and slash and burn as well.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The only events/actions that will make things better is a massive reduction in human population PLUS greater awareness of our ecological dependence. But, since humans are clever- not smart- neither is likely to happen. I have long resigned myself to the fact that we are our own worst enemy and that we'll not only create our own destruction, we'll take a lot of other species with us. Fortunately, nature will still be there to roll the dice after we're gone.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:48 AM

Sig, we have to work with the conditions that we have, and that includes existing population numbers for humans and the fact that all animal species, including humans, are hardwired to reproduce. The average human being is at least ignorant, and really shouldn't be punished for the greed and power-thirst of the higher ups that have mostly contributed to the big screw-over.

Now, we could actually easily solve a bunch of problems if we started creating city-sized space stations in orbit capable of supporting large populations of people with minimal support needed from planet side, all without imposing any particular restrictions on anyone. But that's more dependent on whether TPTB will LET us leave, since we've had the technology to pull this off for about twenty, thirty years and haven't acted on it. Which pisses me off probably more than anything else involved in this issue.

But until developers, investors, and the global governments wake up, all we can do is encourage people on their own for self-benefitting reasons to switch to self-sufficient and sustainable practices. And there are plenty of benefits to both. The only thing standing in our way are corporate and government entities that don't want people to be self-sufficient or sustainable.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Now, we could actually easily solve a bunch of problems if we started creating city-sized space stations in orbit capable of supporting large populations of people with minimal support needed from planet side, all without imposing any particular restrictions on anyone."

Hello,

It is possible to build virtually self-contained, carefully planned Arcology cities here on Earth. Saves the fuel to get it into orbit.

But it costs a lot of money and there's no greed-based incentive to do so.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:30 AM

That's where the space thing comes in. See, people have already populated the Earth except for Antarctica. Even a fully self-enclosed Arcology city, most people are just going to think "just another housing development" no matter how impressive or technologically advanced you make the features.

But say you've found a new frontier, and you need labor to make it accessible (railroad vs building spaceships in orbit as a comparison). You offer food and housing to people who'll come and work on the farms and metal working to bring about the possibilty of getting their own property somewhere on a space station or maybe even as part of a colony on another world.

People can, have, and will sell all their possessions just to.make such a trip, and have a chance at the next big thing.

THAT'S how you make the big leap forward, and the first investor to have the guts to try it and be successful will make out like a bandit.

Side benefit: saving the planet and human progress TO THE STARS.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:52 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

We could just force people to only have 2 children.

Like, you can't have children unless you've been married for 5 years, have a stable home, and money to pay for them..

Also, use science to make sure that you will always have a girl and a boy. One of each.

Then, you can start working on boosting their "abilities" Curing inheritable diseases, while also leaving enough diversity so we don't bottleneck ourselves...

At the very least, it would get rid of Octo-moms, and welfare queens...

But Im sure you guys have already thought of this.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:20 AM

...I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not, Wulf.

Also, I'm not sure your proposal would address either problem at hand? Even if you're pro-population reduction, a two-child limit would result in no population reduction because that replaces both parents.

Okay, I mean sure, birth control is a much better option for population reduction than other measures I could think of (e.g. deliberate mass extermination and warfare), but I don't understand why people think we should go that direction when we have a whole great big sky hanging over our heads we could go to instead. It's right there! So close I can taste it!* Why aren't we going?!

*Meant metaphorically, as sucking hard vacuum not exactly pleasant taste or experience

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:31 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte, I can't tell if Wulf is teasing either.

I want to stay here on earth, but making space an option sounds like a good idea.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:15 AM

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

Uh, NewOld, I'm glad you read the article. It's not a "theory", it's scientific fact.

The bee thing isn't gone,by the way, you're just not hearing much about it. I guess it's out of fashion or something, the MSM being what it is. The bees are still dying off. As of January of this year:

Quote:
[Researchers] documented a 96 percent decline in the numbers of the four species, and said their range had shrunk by as much as 87 percent. As with honeybees, a pathogen is partly involved, but the researchers also found evidence of inbreeding caused by habitat loss.

"We provide incontrovertible evidence that multiple Bombus species have experienced sharp population declines at the national level," the researchers reported ... calling the findings "alarming." http://www.grist.org/article/food-2011-01-04-bumblebees-join-the-die-o
ff bees are still doing THEIR thing, too, and it's increasing. As of a few days ago:
Quote:
They are famed as being the angriest insects in the animal kingdom.

But now experts believe killer bees have gotten even more furious in 2011.

Reed Booth, who calls himself the Killer Bee Guy and works with sheriffs' offices and fire departments to remove hives, had to this week take out a 200lb hive holding 250,000 killer bees on a farm in Bisbee, Arizona.

The bees killed a 1,000lb hog and sent a pregnant 800lb sow into a coma, leaving all her piglets dead.

'This is the worst I've seen in 10 years,' Booth told KOLD-TV. ‘They're much ornier this year for some reason.'

The massive find came after man in Wilhoit, Arizona, died following a bee attack and hives of 100lbs or more were discovered in homes in Phoenix.

Speaking on the Bisbee incident after he had removed the hive, Mr Booth said: 'A thousand-pound pig is a huge thing. I'm kinda surprised that they did kill it.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038687/Killer-bees-getting-an
grier-say-experts-hive-250-000-kills-1-000lb-hog.html?ITO=1490
The horrors we're wreaking on this planet are happening every day, we just don't know about them or don't pay attention to them uless it's on the MSM.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:23 AM

You also have to watch out for bees that have been affected by some parasites, because they'll be laying around on the grass enfeebled but still very much alive and ANGRY.

My brother's dog happened to discover this unfortunate fact.

And turned out to be allergic to bee stings. That was pretty scary. Since then whenever we see bees near the dog we very quickly get him away because he's not quite smart enough to realize that "eating the stingy angry bug things" is a dumb idea.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:29 AM

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

Wulf is being sarcastic...or trying to anyway. He's trying to make a point about extremes, I believe (as that's the only way it makes ANY sense, albeit not much). In other words, he's snarking, nothing more.

Population limiting as seriously suggested WOULD mean population decline. Not everyone gets married, not everyone lives long enough to have children, much less two--obviously it's not workable, I'm just point out that it WOULD create a decline in population.

We may not have to worry about that--well, if we had time, that is. Considering the rate at which some countries are populating, it's already too late. But I think Sig's remark about sperm count is right on target (it's already happening), and I agree with her every point.

Which means we will continue to be two of the few voices crying out in the wilderness, and things will go on just as they are. I'm just grateful I'm as old as I am; if I'm lucky, I won't have to watch.

Space isn't the answer. Mankind has always fucked up his environment, then either died out or moved on. We'd do the same in space, and you need raw materials to do any of that; earth only has so many, and what we DO have is being seriously depleted. How do you provide materials enough to start a colony such as suggested, much less keep it going and start others, when earth's material is less and less even with the population we have NOW?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:59 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Population limiting as seriously suggested WOULD mean population decline. Not everyone gets married, not everyone lives long enough to have children, much less two--obviously it's not workable, I'm just point out that it WOULD create a decline in population.

We may not have to worry about that--well, if we had time, that is. Considering the rate at which some countries are populating, it's already too late. But I think Sig's remark about sperm count is right on target (it's already happening), and I agree with her every point.

Space isn't the answer. Mankind has always fucked up his environment, then either died out or moved on. We'd do the same in space, and you need raw materials to do any of that; earth only has so many, and what we DO have is being seriously depleted. How do you provide materials enough to start a colony such as suggested, much less keep it going and start others, when earth's material is less and less even with the population we have NOW?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Niki,

You are right that limiting couples to 2 kids would bring the population down, but you are missing a key word - eventually. If we could get ZPG today, the population would continue growing for at least 20 more years before beginning to decline (and a lot can happen in those 20 years). The reason for this is that more than a third of the world's population is under 15 years of age (more than half in the countries growing most rapidly). There aren't many things in biology that you can state as a truism, but one is that when humans hit breeding age, they have kids. I tell my students that it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight or indifferent, almost everyone has kids. Putting the brakes on human population growth is very, very big job - about which little is being done.

You are also right about space not being an option, but the primary reason isn't the supply of materials - though that is by no means trivial - it's the energy cost to lift materials out of the Earth's gravity well. The only energetically feasible source would be the asteroid belt, and materials could be moved down into the suns gravity well. But then there's the small problem that we are nowhere near having the technology to do it, and as far as I can tell no one is even considering it.

Looks like we'll need to keep the Earth we've got - and try not to screw it up so much.

perfessergee

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:14 PM

Quote:
much less keep it going and start others, when earth's material is less and less even with the population we have NOW?

Niki, are you aware how big space is? Are you aware how much STUFF IS IN SPACE? You're really talking to me about a lack of resources?

Space has more than enough capacity to hold one little sometimes rather dirty and messy species. Better than being on a planet now, isn't it? Plus, we're getting better about that.

As for fuel, two words: space elevator.

Quote:
obviously it's not workable, I'm just point out that it WOULD create a decline in population.

Of course it's not workable. China as far as I'm aware still has over 1.3 billion people, and they had a one child policy implemented in 1979. There's talk about ending it in 2020. Provided, of course, the Chinese government doesn't have a workers revolution on it's hands before then, and I think it might.

Zero Population Growth. I think the fact that the Chinese policy has actually FAILED to bring about ZPG is a good sign that it's never gonna happen.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

My sympathy is with the fishes. The oceans have more ability to recover, given the huge biomass base, but still, there's species loss. Freshwater is in much more danger at the moment. I'm distressed by the loss of freshwater fish species over the last decade, it's pretty apocalyptic. We need a major change, and that will not come from elected leaders.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:08 PM

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

No, I didn't miss "eventually", Perfesser, I wrote "if we had time" and "it's already too late". That's what I meant. I'm a "child of ZPG" myself, insofar as I knew Lisa Marie, his daughter, during my folkdancing years at Stanford while I was a hippie. Believe me, I got all the details! I know it's too late, it was probably too late even then, so we'll just have to suffer the consequences, and it will NOT be pretty!

You surely aren't living in a dream world where we WILL, by any stretch of the imagination, "try not to screw it up so much"? I think it's a little late to even HOPE for that, much less have any belief it might happen...I'd say "in time", but I think time is already up, we just haven't realized it yet.

Byte, sweets, there's a lot of "stuff" in space, but it wouldn't necessarily support a population...one that grows and grows and grows ad infinitum. Nothing is ACTUALLY infinite, especially when there is a heavy, unceasing demand on it. We're nowhere near the technology to even go out there, much less jetting around looking for something to eat.

My sympathies too, DT. It pretty much finished it for me when I learned what we're doing to the oceans. Given their recuperative powers and enormity, once we began destroying THEM, I gave up all hope.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:44 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't think limiting couples to two kids each, and telling people who can and can't reproduce, is an answer, that concept is apalling to me. I'm choosing not to reproduce for a couple of reasons, but I can't force others not to make that choice, and I can't force, nor would I want to, anyone to only have two kids, after all its not doin much for ole China is it. We need to work with what we have, which is people having babies, that's reality. Of course making controception available to them that wants it is a good thing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:37 PM

Quote:
but it wouldn't necessarily support a population...

The answer to my two previous questions was "infinite" and "infinite." Meaning infinite Nitrates, Silicon and Aluminum based soil, Carbon Dioxide, Water/ice, and photons from various stars.

In other words PLANTS.

Really, we've already developed technology to recycle water and atmosphere on the International Space Station, the only thing we'd have to do is introduce hydroponics to the same basic model.

A far bigger problem than resources (which is simply not a problem) is muscular atrophy from zero gravity, but that's easily solvable through rotating sections of any future space station.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:45 PM

As a side note, What's WITH you guys? We're talking about SPACE TRAVEL and planet colonization for everyone. What part of Firefly did y'all like exactly?

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:09 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.

"As a side note, What's WITH you guys? We're talking about SPACE TRAVEL and planet colonization for everyone. What part of Firefly did y'all like exactly?"

Didn't miss anything but I think we're mostly on board with it being a fantasy, not an option.

BTW - I'm not sure you realize just how MUCH earth-based resources it takes just to keep the space station going,

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:17 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.

Kind of on a side note, I remember someone once talking about a completely artificial diet and what he said really struck home - he said that humans are exactly adapted to what earth provides.

When you think about it, maybe that means the 50ppm bromine in the air, as well as sunshine (causes white blood cells to release from blood vessel walls, better sleep and moods, and vitamin D synthesis), and gravity. Not to forget the omega-3 fatty acids and phytonutrients. I don't think we will ever get it all right.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:11 PM

Kiki, I have serious doubts that the space station is even a significant drain of resources compared to the other day-to-day sinks on earth... Or that we're in danger of being unable to continue to supply the station.

Considering that we're talking about how to solve that whole drain on earth resources thing... Insignificant drain... Significant drain. I'm still weighing it.

I think also humans would be in no real danger of not getting enough sunlight in space. The real problem, of course, is getting too much.

Also, never said anything about artificial, and as previously mentioned, fish and plants can be grown, though I have doubts that fish are really the alternative we want to be looking at. If we can avoid evil tampering, might be we can produce various proteins and oils in a food source through genetic engineering.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:17 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.

It takes a hell of a lot more resources PER PERSON (the operative value) to maintain a person on a space station than on earth. As for the other planets, we haven't gotten there yet, and haven't figured out how.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:22 PM

That's not because the technology doesn't exist or that we couldn't, Kiki, it's because we haven't made the effort to create a truly self-contained space station yet. The International Space Station might eventually be upgraded to that point, but I doubt it, it has engineering flaws that makes it unsuitable for such a purpose. But it's a possible staging point for building a better one.

The Space Station as it is right now is like going away to science camp for a couple months, their focus is research and astronomy, not actual long term living quarters.

As for getting to other planets, I can only assume you mean people, because obviously man-made technology has reached other planets. Which means it's not impossible.

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:35 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.

"... because obviously man-made technology has reached other planets. Which means it's not impossible."

We've successfully landed two pieces of technology on Mars - not a habitable planet. Are there habitable planets out there? No one knows, but if they exist, they a far, far further away than Mars.

As for getting people to Mars the same way we do technology, I suppose getting people to other planets as corpses will, in its own small way, reduce earth's population.

I realize this is an irrational idée fixe of yours and my chances of bringing you to rationality are small. Just let me point out that support for your idea is fairly limited.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:52 PM

You need to reevaluate your estimation. It's been more than two.

Venus is UNinhabitable (temperature and sulfuric acid atmosphere). Mercury is UNinhabitable.

Mars is habitable, but you'd need plants and an enclosed structure. Mars has: an atmosphere. Almost earth-like temperatures between 80 F and -80 F. Water ice. Carbon-dioxide, meaning oxygen that could be available with the help of plants.

You might want to bring earth soil with you to establish your colony vegetation area, as the iron content in the Mars soil might be poisonous. But other than that, Mars is more habitable than the moon, and even more habitable than Earth orbit, but we have to start somewhere, so Earth orbit it will be.

I see the lobbing insults part of the conversation has begun.

EDIT: typos

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:08 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.

"Venus, nearly Earth's twin in size, has atmospheric pressure on the surface 90 times that of Earth. The temperature on the surface may be as high as 900 degrees Fahrenheit." (Steel softens around 900 F.)

"Generally Mercury's surface temperature fluctuates by 920 degrees Fahrenheit every day."

What Mars doesn't have besides gaseous oxygen, liquid water, gravity and a stored energy source, is a nice protective magnetic field which protects the atmosphere against being ablated away under the sun's particle stream, and protects living things from radiation, including cosmic rays.

If we could overcome all these hurdles and make these planets habitable, our efforts would be more efficient making the earth habitable.

This isn't the first time you've been through this 'discussion'. That makes it pretty easy to insult you, b/c these arguments have been brought up many, many times already and bounced off the rim every time.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 4:37 AM

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

Byte, if all of this is even possible, it's a long, long, LONG way off and would require a large amount of money and resources, and before any of that, the WILL to do it. If you really believe our society will be willing to put that kind of investment, in time to avoid over-population (which is already occurring) to the point of extinction, you truly HAVE forgotten the point of Firefly, and Star Trek, Star Wars, and all the others: They ARE fiction. I can't think of any other explanation, because if you look at reality, it simply ain't gonna happen, certainly not in time. Certainly, like anyone else, you have the right to dream, but it helps to keep one foot firmly in reality.

What is "possible" (if it even is) and what "will happen" are worlds apart.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 5:12 AM

Um. Damn, typos. I meant to say Venus and Mercury are UNinhabitable. Though the "Sulfuric Acid atmosphere" thing should have given that completely away. Context.

But as for Mars and the cosmic bombardment, that also has a pretty simple solution. You go underground, rather than remain at the surface. The initial transport would have to be pretty heavy lead, so it'll stay there awhile and fold out in some manner into a kind of dome. But under the protection of that, you have some heavy machinery to drill down and carve out some underground caverns.

Also, this is getting at the joke I was making about getting too much sunlight, but again, that isn't a deal breaker (vitamin D supplement apples anyone?). And, maybe you missed it, but there IS water on Mars.

There really isn't anything that's a deal breaker with Mars.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 5:42 AM

The hell it's a long way off. As I said, we've had the technology for going on thirty years now. The effort has stagnated for political reasons, NOT because it's impossible.

Quote:
HAVE forgotten the point of Firefly, and Star Trek, Star Wars, and all the others: They ARE fiction.

Niki, people don't write popular fiction stories because "Oh this could never happen!" They don't intentionally write unrealistic characters or situations. There's something called the willing suspension of disbelief that has to be in place for the audience to keep reading and watching, or else they'll throw their hands up and say, "okay, this is becoming just too stupid for me to continue."

Suffice to say, no, the point of Firefly is not that it's fiction. Perhaps you meant to say it's entertainment, which is getting closer to the reason it's made (writers turn creative fun hobbies into money!), but that's still not the point of sci-fi or fantasy.

The point of sci-fi and fantasy is to ask "what if" and construct plausible scenarios from that baseline question.

The reason Firefly is popular around here is because it constructs a very plausible scenario, with likeable characters and interaction and an intriguing setting.

And in the backstory of Firefly, maybe you missed the very brief mention made in the episode openers and in the episode Heart of Gold, but humans fled earth before it became uninhabitable. I say good for them, maybe that's something we should aim for before things get bad for us, and really bad for the rest of the planet? (conceding, of course, that things are somewhat bad for the rest of the planet currently, and maybe why we should be seriously considering this option)

I mean, just summarily dismissing the best option for everyone and everything (mother Earth) involved in this situation because it would take a little effort is something that frankly baffles me. To promote a solution that ignores human nature over one that works with it? If you ask me, ZPG is what's never going to happen, because people will do everything they can to get around it. ZPG works against a human instinct for genetic survival, which it appears even some of you ZPG supporters are subject to. It hasn't worked in China, and there's talks of repealing it. I just don't think it WORKS. The only way it could work is through world war or if you mass sterilize large portions of the population against their will - like me - but is THAT really where you want to go? I don't think any of you want to go there. I think you all want to believe humans will be honest and for the greater good agree to sacrifice their own reproductive potential. But I don't think they will. And that's not even getting into the potential for abuse and genetic bottlenecking, which leads me to wonder if some people will be allowed to reproduce and others won't be, and if THAT happens I can guarantee only the people who have money and power will be allowed.

Also, I proposed to Anthony a realistic scenario about how developers and investors might get in on the whole space thing, backed up by historical precedence. All it would really need is just the right spark.

Quote:
What is "possible" (if it even is) and what "will happen" are worlds apart.

Not at all. This is the beauty of science fiction.

In 1865, Jules Verne published what many consider to be the first or at least definitive sci-fi novel, From The Earth To The Moon. While Verne proposed a cannon instead of rocket fuel, he shared in common the idea of needing some manner of propulsion to reach escape velocity. A century and four years later, well, I don't think I need to tell you how that turned out. You probably SAW it, while I wasn't even born.

Space Stations have been envisioned since 1869. In my opinion, we're due.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 8:19 AM

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

Envisioning is one thing; getting the will, the money, the resources, and all the other things necessary to make what you envision come true is entirely another.

I'm interested to find out:

Quote:
The reason Firefly is popular around here is because it constructs a very plausible scenario.

Is that true? It's something I enjoy because it's well written, has great characters/actors, presents a vision I think is interesting and settings I find entertaining, makes me ponder questions, all the things good sci fi does for me. But "plausible"? Not for me; not even slightly. It posits a time so far in the future that I can't see it having any chance of happening, given our history and our current situation. I'd like to see how others feel. I KNOW Wulf sees it as plausible, someone who is so invested in movies and videos and TV obviously would. But how about the rest of us?

For me, it's called science FICTION for a reason. Yeah, some of it has come to pass, but earth was on the UPSWING at that time; I don't think we still are. Some of the negative things science fiction has come up with have come to pass as well. It's possible that, given time and the will, there are possibilities such as what you describe, tho' I do wonder about it on a large enough scale to sustain Earth's population, a GROWING population. But our forays into outer space are stagnating, if not going backwards, at this time in our history, and I see little possibility of them being revived economically...to believe we will get back to the economic footing we were on before is, for me, also fiction. This is a global crisis, it won't pass easily or quickly and I don't think things will be the same if/when it does, but our over-population is growing much more quickly.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I wish I could believe what you envision were possible, but I do not. Or maybe I don't even wish I could; I'm not crazy about the idea of our species out there doing to other places what we've done to earth.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 8:49 AM

So you're human. Maybe you all need to forgive yourselves for the fact, and stop punishing yourselves. It's not like you had any choice in the matter.

I don't see us as any better or worse than the other forms of life on this world just trying to survive, though in the process we've done some damage. I just like to think that all those lives have value, no matter what they have or haven't done.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 8:56 AM

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

How does forgiving myself or punishing myself (if I felt the need to) come into it? I was commenting that I don't think what you posit is feasible, that has nothing to do with forgiving myself. I'm confused.

There's nothing I can do to stop what's coming; the studies of other extinct civilizations show the course they took, and we're right on the mark. The difference is that we're all over the globe, so there's nowhere to go in the time I believe we have remaining to change things, and no sign to me that things WILL change dramatically enough in time.

Every fallen civilization follows much the same path...overpopulation leading to abuses of the environment to feed the populace to shortages, starvation, war, end. We're much like Easter Island; once we cut down that "last tree", there's nowhere to go.

Every life is important to me, very much so. But my feelings about every life don't change anything and never will. I think globally/act locally, and there are many of us who do. But not enough, even in just America, much less evolving societies or third-world countries just trying to survive NOW.

In my opinion we ARE different than every other species on earth in that we are dominant, we change our surroundings to fit us (which changes the balance of nature), and we cover the globe.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 9:06 AM

Your comment about not wanting to see humans do the same thing to other worlds.

I'm not trying to be rude here, I just can't see what's being expressed here as anything but, well, racial suicide. That's concerning to me. You clearly don't want our race to die, yet you insist it's impossible to save ourselves. You're dismissing solutions that might have a chance of saving us because you feel like we don't deserve it, support a solution that's likely to end up destroying us anyway through genetic bottlenecking and which will likely destroy the planet we're on by us continuing to stay on it, regret the measures of that solution and even seem to think it won't work anyway, and then you're sad that we're rushing off a cliff.

I can't say I understand it.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 9:20 AM

Quote:
In my opinion we ARE different than every other species on earth in that we are dominant, we change our surroundings to fit us (which changes the balance of nature), and we cover the globe.

All animal species do this BTW. Herd animals convert forest area into meadow land, and overgraze into desert. Predator species kill herd animals and shift things back into forest.

Except for Antarctica, this is true everywhere. Those species trying to survive, it's good, and yet with us, it's bad. It's a double standard.

Now, okay, we mine and drill and have man-made chemicals we pollute with, but on a basic level, we're not any different than any other animal. So sometimes I hear arguments, and none of them from anyone on here, but some people say that it would be best if all humans died so that the Earth and all other animals would recover. But things don't work that way, and killing humans fixes nothing, because the problems we've made will remain.

I actually think we do have some responsibility to clean up after ourselves, so even though I want to see us go to the stars for our own survival, I'm not saying we should leave Earth trashed. But I don't think we can help anything while we're still onworld, y'know?

That's the thing about humans, yes, our attempts to survive have done damage, but unlike the other animals, we're the only ones that can really fix all that too. I have to think that makes us worth saving.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 10:37 AM

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

Interesting; I can't understand your position either, and I certainly don't see it as "racial suicide" (I'm guessing you mean "species suicide"?). One of the differences is that I DO feel every life is important...EVERY life, not just human life.

"Suicide" means you want to die. "Short sightedness", "lack of global agreement", "unwillingness to finance technology" are the things I've addressed, "suicide" has nothing to do with it.

Another is that I don't believe some science or other will "save" us, when I see nothing in history OR in the current state of the world which indicates it will in the time we have, or that there is the will to do so. I consider that REALISM, not "suicide". I'm not "insisting" it's impossible to save us, I'm stating that from ALL our history as a species, our way of dealing with things indicates we won't. Not that we couldn't, if we had the time and the conviction that it HAD to be done. But that we are a short-sighted species, always have been, and by the time enough people are convinced that we'd better do something, it will be too late. Maybe it already is.

Where you got the "don't deserve it" is totally beyond me. I've disagreed with the solution you proposed for a number of reasons, none of them having anything to do with deserving. I said I think what you posit may be possible--tho' I have serious doubts--but that it won't happen in time. See above.

I never said no other species changes its environment...or I misspoke if I did. What I meant to say was that we are SO dominant and that we have populated essentially the whole earth--and WOULD populate it if there were the resources and we kept on going as we are. One species can alter its environment to the detriment of the environment, which will then cause that species (if they can't adapt or move) to become extinct. But one species doesn't inhabit the entire planet. We do, and we've fouled all our environment to an enormous degree. When the oceans can't cleanse themselves, it's a pretty strong indication Nature won't be able to recover from what we're doing and if we continue to do.

That you believe we can "fix" what we've done in time puzzles me. I've never seen any example of our species doing so. Every civilization which ran out of natural resources disappeared, from the Myans to the Easter Islanders and so on. Do you know of any example of civilizations which have changed their ways and still survive when they couldn't move and have made survival impossible where they are? I don't.

I take issue with your stance that the removal of humans wouldn't fix anything. There was a TV series of documentaries showing what would happen if we vanished tomorrow, and Nature did a damned good job of recovering and renewing. I'm one of those who doesn't believe we are a positive influence, and I think you're referring to me, given I have said in the past that if my death resulted in all humans vanishing from Earth, I'd give my life gladly. As I said, I value ALL life, not just human life. It has nothing to do with "deserving" or not deserving, it's merely looking at things, seeing what's happened throughout history and what's happening now, and extrapolating what I believe the future would bring for this planet.

You speak of how we have the technology to go into outer space. I don't know if that is completely true, but it's not merely about technology. It's about how the human brain works, and convincing enough governments/politicians/people to make the EFFORT. That you think we could accomplish this in any time frame prior to the earth becoming unsustainable is something I don't understand. History, and even what is going on around us every day, show otherwise.

If we can't even agree to clean up what we've done because it is fouling our own nest, how do you see us agreeing to go forth into the black--soon enough that our own nest isn't so fouled we can't survive?

I'll let someone else make my argument for me:

Quote:
Humans have been extraordinarily successful. When the British made landfall at Sydney Cove in 1788 and began colonising Australia, the world's population was about 750 million. The total today is nearly eight times as many; there is hardly a place where humans haven't been … and nowhere they don't influence.

Thanks to industrialisation, our hunger for resources and the sheer number of people, humans have an immense impact. They outstrip every other species in demand for energy and resources, to the point where their impact on the biosphere arguably threatens our own long-term viability.

THE WORLD IS IN THE SWAY of a dangerous illusion. Most leaders, officials and institutions behave as if the human enterprise is somehow remote from the environment; as if human expansion can go on forever; as if the Earth's resources and energy were limitless. And yet, we know this is not the case. We know many complex civilisations, successful and advanced, have nevertheless collapsed. Ours could too.

The worldwide population is expanding by about 75 million people a year. Even given that population growth rates are declining, United Nations projections put the global population at almost 8 billion in 2025.

Humans have already used nearly a third of all available land area – some 3.8 billion hectares – in agriculture or built-up areas. Most of the remainder is too dry for agriculture. Global grain production, currently 1.84 billion tonnes annually, will need to increase by about 40 per cent to meet demand in 2020.

While demand is going up, our capacity to meet that demand is under a growing cloud. Human-induced soil degradation has been getting worse since the 1950s. About 85 per cent of agricultural land contains areas degraded by erosion, salination, compaction, and other factors.

It has been estimated that soil degradation has already reduced agricultural productivity by 15 per cent in the past 50 years. In the past 300 years, the rate of topsoil loss was 300 million tonnes per year; in the past 50 years that rate has more than doubled to 760 million tonnes per year.

..... (it's a very long and fascinating article, but that's a good beginning. ""We have just two more generations, at most, to fix the problem with our climate systems. We are aware of what we need to achieve to survive in the longer term, but the big trick is to identify the next steps."

On top of this, if current water consumption patterns continue, half the world's population will live in water-stressed river basins by 2025.

What it all adds up to is hotly debated, but for many people it looks a little like Easter Island: that we are driving headlong into a crisis we seem unable to see. We're getting to the end of the trees, and still we keep chopping. As if nothing was wrong. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/2736/survival-species?pag
e=0%2C4

It's a very long and fascinating article, but that's a good beginning. M.R. Raupauch cauioned: "We have just two more generations, at most, to fix the problem with our climate systems. We are aware of what we need to achieve to survive in the longer term, but the big trick is to identify the next steps." Do you really think we can accomplish what you posit in two generations? Even if he's wrong, say in six?
It concludes with

Quote:
How did the Easter Islanders deal with the increasing probability of ecological collapse back in the 16th century? As their cultural trajectory had them hurtling towards a barren future in a treeless land with no prospect of escape, surely some of their elders were advocating the need for the entire society to adopt radical change? If so, then they were either ignored … or they spoke up too late.

THAT is my main premise; there isn't enough time.

So you see me as some kind of "suicidal" person who doesn't think our species "deserves" to become extinct. I see me as someone who looks at what is around me and sees the possibility of us surviving as minimal, based on fact and history. Has nothing to do with deserving.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 10:44 AM

I probably shouldn't question what you've told me about your motivations, but it's the way you say things. Like how you say you'd die if it meant that you could kill off all other humans, it's really concerning, and really does almost suggest blaming all humans for something most of them have had no say about. It seems to suggest wanting to punish them.

Not wanting humans to go into space, to stay here and go extinct, that sounds like a punishment to me.

Maybe I should let this go. It kind of makes me sad.

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 1:07 PM

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

Byte, you're still not getting it. I've got nothing against humans going into space (yeah, I made a crack, but it was a CRACK). Actually I think it would be neat, especially if we cleaned up our act and were responsible once we got out there. My point is THERE ISN'T TIME. I'm talking logic, not personal opinion of humans. That's my whole main point; you can't get enough people to agree it needs to be done and agree to DO IT (and PAY FOR IT) before time's up. That's the human failing I'm trying to express, obviously poorly.

No, it's not about punishment, and I said nothing about killing human beings, or ME killing them (which I would never do). The idea was that if my own death would cause all humans just not to exist (which is different from "killing" them, as in causing pain and suffering) and allow Nature to repair this lovely blue marble for all the other species.

Has absolutely nothing to do with blaming or punishing or anything like that, merely that our species have certain propensities which aren't healthy for what I consider an absolutely magnificent planet.

Let's see...would you "blame" and "punish" a dophin for playfully splashing you in your best Sunday clothing? Horrible analogy, I know, but the idea is I'm not BLAMING humans for being humans...I'm ashamed of us, certainly, because I think there's a huge potential for us to be better, but I'm looking at our actions throughout history and assuming they will continue.

If I revere ALL life, how can I be in favor of one species which is destroying not only others of its own species, but causing the suffering, death and extinction of so many millions of other species, and destroying the habitat of almost all those who remain? To do so is, to me, a special kind of selfishness...something we do share with all other species, but we're supposed to be better, or so people say, because we think, reason, have empathy, etc.

You say you're sad about my beliefs, but they're just MY beliefs, and I happen to love humans. One at a time and those I can respect, anyway. I think we're amazing; I think our brains are inconceivably fantastic, I'm just sad that we never "grew up" as a species. If I had my druthers, I'd wish we'd evolve beyond our more base tendencies and work to heal the world. I don't see it happening, there CERTAINLY isn't time for THAT! That makes ME sad, but to me it's just a fact of life. To twist a signature, "It's not personal, it's just LIFE!"

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, September 23, 2011 3:58 PM

If all humans just "vanished" I don't think the end result would be all that positive and wonderful for the world, and I think wanting people to disappear is just as scary as wanting them to suffer and die.

You're ashamed of humans, and want us to disappear. Or maybe never exist. But you don't see that other species can be destructive as well. Other species kill each other, other species hunt each other. Other species will use up all available resources to the detriment of the environment. You talk about species never growing up, and maybe humans aren't perfect, but humans are more grown-up and more evolved than the other species.

Does that give us some responsibility as caretakers? Yes. Have we sucked eggs at being caretakers? Yes. Does it make us evil?

No.

As for "time," most climate scientists predict we'll hit 600 ppm CO2 in about 100 years. Even that's not untenable, and it's unlikely we're all gonna die in some horrible climactic cataclysm.

We have time. It's the other animals who don't.

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

Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:18 AM

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

Did I ever say we were "evil"? No, nor do I believe it. Did I ever say I was ashamed of my species? No, nor do I believe it. Please don't mischaracterize me. I agree to disagree, and your judgmentalism is starting to get to me, so how about we give up? It's my OPINION, and like I said, I've seen and read estimations of what would happen if we weren't around, and Nature WOULD recover...at this point.

I was very clear in saying that, while other species do some of the same things, they don't inhabit the entire world; their actions are limited to individual areas. Why you're not reading what I'm writing is beyond me, but I ask you to do me the decency of not putting your own views out in such a way as to judge me. I voiced my opinions; I didn't judge you for YOURS, I just said I don't think there's time (by numerous scientists' studies) and that I don't think going into outer space may be viable. Let's just let it go, if you don't mind. Better than that, I'm just not going to respond further. Think what you want, it's your right.

Our oceans are dying, that's the point of this thread; and if they die, we eventually die too.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte: You are doing the equivalent of "Beam Me up, Scotty.

First of all, pushing significant numbers of people and material up the gravity well and creating self-sufficient colonies (either exo-planet or in space) takes a LOT more resources than creating the same number of self-sufficient colonies here on earth. We would strip the planet bare trying to appreciably lower our population's impact... make things worse, not better, that way.

Second, if we haven't been able get things OK here, yet, on Earth, what makes you think we will be able to make things better elsewhere?

Our test is now, not later.

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

Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:27 PM