# Our Inevitably Diminishing Resources and Degraded Environment



## elder999 (Jul 30, 2014)

So, I&#8217;m going to share some _thoughts_ here, and some *facts*. Just as I&#8217;ve already posted, *facts* will generally be *bolded*, and my _thoughts_-no matter who they are in agreement with &#8211; will be _italicized_. This will avoid confusion, I hope, between what is *factual* and what I believe or think to be the _truth._ 

By way of example then, *the earth has a mass of 1.32X 10E25 lbs.*

How much is that? Is it &#8220;a lot?&#8221; Well, as my H.S. physics teacher Mr. Schrader taught me to ask, _Compared to what?_

*The earth&#8217;s atmosphere has a mass of 1.32X10E18 lbs.* That&#8217;s 1/1,000,000 of earth&#8217;s mass

*Most authorities* (the USGS, the oil industry, OPEC, other governments)*put the world&#8217;s remaining recoverable crude oil at a mass of 3.0X10E18lbs*(estimated remaining world recoverable:1.0 X10E12 barrels, at approx.. 300lbs/barrel-roughly a little less than 3/10,000,000 of earth&#8217;s mass.

According to this site, world population is just over 7 billion. At an average of 110 lbs*., the mass of all people on earth is roughly 7.7X 10E10 lbs*.-and increasing, but still much less than half of the mass of the earth&#8217;s atmosphere-about 5/100,000,000 of the earth&#8217;s mass.

And, of course, *the mass of atmospheric CO2 is 3.0X10E12 lbs., approx. double what it was 120 years ago,* when it was only 1.5X10E12, or 1900 times the mass of people on earth-today, of course, the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 4000 times the mass of all the people on earth.

My point? Or, at least, _my thoughts_&#8230;.well, we&#8217;ll get to those in a bit, but some more perspective&#8230;

My great-grandfather, and most Cuffees before him back to about 1760 or so, were whalers. They sailed around the world-opened new whaling grounds in the Pacific back around 1820, and helped drive much of the world&#8217;s cetacean population to near-extinction. In fact, the whales may wind up extinct yet. 

Per this Wikipedia page, you can look to the following for animals extinct because of human activity:The following 59 pages are in this category, out of 59 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more). 


*A*


Atlas bear
Aurochs
*B*


Baiji
Bali tiger
Barbary lion
Big-eared hopping mouse
Bluebuck
Bubal hartebeest
Bulldog rat
Bushwren
*C*


Cape lion
Caribbean monk seal
Carolina parakeet
Carpathian wisent
Caspian tiger
Caucasian wisent
Cebu warty pig
Chadwick Beach cotton mouse
Chatham bellbird
Chatham fernbird

*D*


Dodo
Dusky seaside sparrow
Dwarf hutia
*E*


Eastern elk
*F*


Falkland Islands wolf
Formosan clouded leopard
*G*


Goff's pocket gopher
Great auk
Guam flying fox
Gull Island vole
*H*


Haast's eagle
Hemigrapsus estellinensis
Huia
*J*


Japanese sea lion
*L*


Laughing owl
*M*


Madeiran scops owl
Moa
*N*


New Zealand owlet-nightjar
New Zealand quail
North Island snipe

*P*


Paschalococos
Passenger pigeon
Piopio (bird)
*Q*


Quagga
*S*


São Miguel scops owl
Sardinian pika
Saudi gazelle
Schomburgk's deer
Sea mink
Small Mauritian flying fox
South Island snipe
Steller's sea cow
Stephens Island wren
Stout-legged wren
Syncaris pasadenae
Syrian wild ***
*T*


Tarpan
Thylacine
*W*


Western black rhinoceros


The journal, _Science_, in this 2006 article, , predicted that the world will basically run out of wild-grown seafood by 2048, almost entirely due to fishing-or overfishing-trying to meet increased demand, while pollution and other environmental factors continue to further reduce piscine populations.

The area where I live and work, the desert southwest, is an extreme drought-more to the point, though, it simply lacks the water to support all of its uses and users-something that would be true even if it weren&#8217;t going through a drought: According to recent federal forecasts, nearly half the lower 48 United States are experiencing drought- this, coupled with a *99% population increase since 1950*, and a *127%* *increase in water usage*, leads to several grim forecast models for U.S. water usage-with shortages in areas far afield from the desert southwest, like New York, and Washington, D.C.

And, of course, there&#8217;s this disaster-an island of plastic in the North Central Pacific-*the Great Pacific garbage patch was actually predicted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association back in the 80&#8217;s*, and is having several far-reaching and lasting environmental impacts.

Short version-_mankind has an impact on our environment,_ and it&#8217;s not always good:sometimes species nearly get wiped out because they provide material for an Industrial revolution, and sometimes species disappear altogether, simply because they're tasty (though some of them may have been ill-adapted for longevity) and some things, like our atmospheric carbon burden, are real, measurable and have lasting effects: in the case of CO2, it only starts with the acidification of lakes and oceans. Additionally, the resources we consume are *finite*-they can, just like the dodo and passenger pigeon, go away, and likely will-oil especially, though the U.S. is becoming a net-exporter of oil, which for us is a good sign-on the other hand, part of that is due to natural gas, and fracking thereof, which uses large amounts of water.

Long version-_we are in an era of diminishing resources, and increased degradation of the environment, and there is little we can do to stop either._ We are on a path to having more people, less energy resources, less water, less food, and poorer quality air (which leads to even less water and, consequently, less food), and diminished quality of life for all. These things,_truth_ and *facts*, are not exactly "good for business," and so, _business lies to you._, which is the reason I've provided so few references: see for yourself, and make up your own minds, but seek *facts*, and come to your own _truth_-don't just blindly swallow someone else's-including mine....(especially my *math*, which can be a little wonky at 03:20 A.M. :lfao: )


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 30, 2014)

[italic] Humanity is already screwed. Perhaps some unforeseen evolutionary step will allow us to live in harmony with our environment and for the good of our spaceship rather than ourselves. But I doubt it.[/italic]


----------



## donnaTKD (Jul 30, 2014)

i think that in the future (not in my lifetime) that there will be a forever natural change along the lines of what happened to the dinosaurs and the only ones that will survive it are the ones in places where they already struggle to eek out an existence - the rest of "us" will be gone cos we got too greedy.

the whales are already suffering cos people got greedy, oil and gas supplies are a finite resource and population increase puts more pressure on those resources to the point of breaking down and not being able to supply the needs of the people.

think that everyone needs to take a really good look at how they live and find improvements that will enable them to live in better harmony with their surroundings.

jmo.....


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 30, 2014)

But how many people are willing to eat vegan, buy local, buy used, recycle everything, walk to work, grow their own food, live without a lot of mod cons?

It's easy to highlight that change is necessary, it's harder to be that change. Even for someone who tries to live a sustainable lifestyle, it would be hard to stay motivated and feel like one was making a difference when 7 million others are happy in their ignorance.

Until something happens to make us more capable of altruism and behaving as a group (perhaps eusocially), there's nothing down for us as a species.


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 30, 2014)

Nice post elder999 :supcool:


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 30, 2014)

Gnarlie said:


> But how many people are willing to eat vegan, buy local, buy used, recycle everything, walk to work, grow their own food, live without a lot of mod cons?
> 
> It's easy to highlight that change is necessary, it's harder to be that change. Even for someone who tries to live a sustainable lifestyle, it would be hard to stay motivated and feel like one was making a difference when 7 million others are happy in their ignorance.
> 
> Until something happens to make us more capable of altruism and behaving as a group (perhaps eusocially), there's nothing down for us as a species.



Like so many other human issues, the overall food wastage is shocking. I remember back in the day when I could be eating remnants of the Sunday roast on a Tuesday. These days I wonder just how much of beef cow will be destined for the bin as it were.


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

I'm having a great deal of trouble accepting that someone (*Elder*) could post what he has and not been howled down. How refreshing to read such a post. I would love to argue against it but I can't because it actually makes sense. Well done that boy!
:s81:


----------



## Buka (Jul 30, 2014)

99% of species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Only the  ones that work well survive. Having been around for a mere 200,000  years, we are like children  playing with matches. And we are coming precariously close to that pile  of old newspapers that dad keeps in the cellar. We're probably going to  get what we deserve. Sometimes it seems to me that the only two  qualities we have in our DNA is greed and violence. Especially here in  the U.S. It seems that the more successful a person gets - the greed  goes up. The less successful - the violence goes up. Those in the middle  sit around watching Honey Boo Boo, eating doughnuts, not giving a  rat's *** about anything.

Bleak stuff. But, will the indomitable human spirit  save us? I sure hope so. But I'm guessing the horseshoe crab won't be making  too big a bet on us. They're probably thinking, "Odd species, many toys,  lot of noise, make mess. The dodo was better"


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

This video presents a series of arguments regarding overpopulation that contradict many of the predictions made above.
http://youtu.be/WT_CxJfFgh0


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

For those of you with less time than I have, here is a brief summary of those contradictions.

1. Resource consumption will eventually wipe out the Earth's stores of valuable resources. As industrialized countries fall in population growth due to lack of replacement, wouldn't that suggest that they would use less resources? Also, as world population peaks and begins to fall, wouldn't that indicated that the demand for resources would diminish?

2. Technology has allowed humans to grow more food on less land with fewer hours of labor and this process has only gotten more efficient in terms of energy consumption. Aka...farm machinery uses less gas to do more than it used to. Combine this with GMO super crops that can grow with less and less inputs of water and labor and we have a situation where our food is being produced more efficiently and more cheaply than before. Combine this trend with the decreasing human population trend and it follows that humans will have more food, grown on less land, leaving more room for nature, decreasing habitat pressure on many species overall.

3. Carbon dioxide is an important part of photosynthesis and it's abundance in the atmosphere has been historically linked with times of increased plant growth. Therefore, wouldn't it follow that the changing atmosphere would make it easier to grow food? Combine this with increasing technology making things more efficient, a falling population decreasing demand on resources, it seems that the standard of living for every human on the plant can only go up.

4. This argument is not supported by the video I posted and contain some counter thoughts on the garbage problem. The amount of waste that humans produce is a problem that is growing ever more visible all of the time. This is why we see efforts in industrialized countries to reduce/reuse/recycle more and more products. For example, on Oahu, where I live, the people have recently decided that they will stop using plastic bags and styrofoam food containers. A similar effort is being undertaken when it comes to plastic bottles and other one use items. The increase in biodegradable products is also on the rise. I predict the entire industry will switch over as the garbage problem gets more visible and people seek to find ways of mitigating it.

5. Regarding the plastics that exist in the ocean now, over time, those will erode into smaller pieces and actually become part of the fossil record. Combine this with a diminished waste stream due to increased communication and growing environmental consciousness and the world oceans could be poised to be far cleaner in the future.

I could go on, but I have martial arts to practice. I don't think we need to lose hope in humans just yet. We certainly have our problems, but they aren't as insurmountable as they would seem.


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> This video presents a series of arguments regarding overpopulation that contradict many of the predictions made above.
> Over Population is a Myth - YouTube


I knew I'd get my arguement. 

It took me a bit of running around but it looks like Documentary Full has heaps of conspiracy theory stuff available, Titanic, New World Order etc. 

Then I looked at who produced this little gem ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23S4xxhuqHk

:hmm:

Population Research Institute ... 


> PRI created the website Overpopulation is a Myth in 2010.[6][7] The project was started as a part of PRI to reduce funding to family planning programs and to instead re-allocate the funds to developing countries for more pressing health concerns: water access, malaria treatment, and other necessities.


Right wing, pro life, no peer review.

So for an alternative view ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wji2uQUEVu0

Thanks *Maka*. I knew I could rely on you to fill the void.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

It's interesting that you decry the religious origins of the PRI when the original argument regarding overpopulation comes from religious origins.  

 You might want to consider that, my friend. Malthus was invoking Original Sin all of the way through his treatise.

 I honestly don't know if the arguments in the overpopulation is a myth series are true.  I've gone to the website and looked at the sources, but I don't have time to wade through all of the counter arguments made by all sides to really form an informed opinion here.  At this point, i'm simply putting forth a different viewpoint with the full knowledge that it might be wrong.  If you have something specific to bring up, you should do that instead of relying on sophistry and fallacy.

That said, I grew up with the doom porn of overpopulation being shoved down my throat by the government schools.  We had these pamphlets that we were forced to read, they were called "Weekly Readers" and it seemed like half of the stories were about how horrible humans were and about how "we" were killing the world.  Now, I realize that this was all great government propaganda.  Whether it is really is true or not, the message was that we really need the government to save us from ourselves or we're going to murder the Earth.  

Its not getting any better.  My daughter was treated to this movie during her brief stint in government school.

Humans- Cool Cartoon! - Video Dailymotion

Regardless of it's veracity, this is not a healthy perception of humanity.  Based on my professional training, I think we're better than this.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 30, 2014)

It is my opinion that there is no way that humans as a species can survive in harmony with the planet in the long term. We are too creative, too destructive, and we increase exponentially. Our only hope for long term survival, again in my opinion only, lies in creating some way to continue our outward expansion. The entire history of the human race is one of expansion. We evolved as a species to expand into new territory. It's what we do, and we're good at it. However, we've pretty much expanded our territory to encompass the entire globe, so now we have to turn our resources toward expanding beyond our globe. NASA - Some Emerging Possibilities | NASA


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> It's interesting that you decry the religious origins of the PRI when the original argument regarding overpopulation comes from religious origins.
> 
> You might want to consider that, my friend. Malthus was invoking Original Sin all of the way through his treatise.



The original arguement has nothing to do with religion. Humans are in plague proportions in many countries and they can barely sustain life. We are degrading the planet and over utilising the resources. In the OP there was no mention of religion so I'm not sure where this comes from except your video (which you did post in the Basement some time back). Now, I'm not an expert on original sin, I'd put it right up there with the tooth fairy but each to their own. PRI is a pro-life organisation, against all forms of contraception. How realistic is that? There could be a whole thread on PRI.



Makalakumu said:


> I honestly don't know if the arguments in the overpopulation is a myth series are true.  I've gone to the website and looked at the sources, but I don't have time to wade through all of the counter arguments made by all sides to really form an informed opinion here.  At this point, i'm simply putting forth a different viewpoint with the full knowledge that it might be wrong.  If you have something specific to bring up, you should do that instead of relying on sophistry and fallacy.


I think that you only have to look outside the door to see what's happening to our world. We are the extremely privileged people living in First World countries, devouring resources at a rate that is unsustainable. The arguement of 'don't worry, science will look after us' is wearing a little thin. Even when scientists come up with GM crops to increase nutrient value and yield, they face huge opposition from those who only want 'nature's products'. Well that's fine too if the population is small enough.



Makalakumu said:


> That said, I grew up with the doom porn of overpopulation being shoved down my throat by the government schools.  We had these pamphlets that we were forced to read, they were called "Weekly Readers" and it seemed like half of the stories were about how horrible humans were and about how "we" were killing the world.  Now, I realize that this was all great government propaganda.  Whether it is really is true or not, the message was that we really need the government to save us from ourselves or we're going to murder the Earth.


 Why would it be 'Government Propaganda' to say that we causing great damage to our planet?



> *Environmental Destruction*
> The planet's natural ecosystems and regenerating bio-capacity are being severely degraded and, as a result, this compromises the ability of the planet to sustain life. Forests, fisheries, oceans, rangeland, fresh water systems (lakes, wetlands, rivers) and other natural ecosystems are all threatened while many are on the verge of collapse. Water, land and air are getting increasingly polluted, water tables are falling, soil erosion is leading to desertification, global warming is well underway, and species are dying out 1000 times faster than their natural rate of extinction.
> Environmental Destruction | World Centric





> *20 Gut-Wrenching Statistics About the Destruction of the Planet and those Living Upon It*
> 20 Gut-Wrenching Statistics About the Destruction of the Planet and those Living Upon It : TreeHugger


And I'm not even a 'Greenie', although I do support a number of their policies.



> According to a Newsweek poll, 40 percent of people in the United States believe the world will end with a battle between Jesus Christ and the Antichrist. And overwhelmingly, those people also believe that natural disasters and violence are signs of the approach of the glorious battleso much so that *22 percent of Americans believe the world will end in their lifetime*. This would logically mean that concern for the world of their great-great-grandchildren makes no sense at all and should be dismissed from their minds.* In fact, a recent study found that belief in the second coming reduces support for strong governmental action on climate change by 20 percent.
> *...
> Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) says *the planet is in fine shape and guaranteed to stay that way because God promised Noah *as much.
> 
> ...


So it's OK, God has it all under control and we won't be around for much longer anyway. 



Makalakumu said:


> Its not getting any better.  My daughter was treated to this movie during her brief stint in government school.
> 
> Humans- Cool Cartoon! - Video Dailymotion
> 
> Regardless of it's veracity, this is not a healthy perception of humanity.  Based on my professional training, I think we're better than this.


*Maka*, that's the best video you have posted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

Here is a simple fact.

No one involved in discussing this matter in this thread has actually taken the time to review the literature in a serious way. 

Instead, what most people do, including you K-man and others, is that you jump on a bandwagon built by those authorities that say the things that conform to your bias. 

IMHO what you are all failing to understand is the origin of your biases. Some of this anti-human attitude is coming right out of the training you received in government school as a child. That training is based on religious concepts that state that man is a piece of **** and that we need god (government) to save us. 

What I've noticed in this thread and others is a general lack of awareness of bias and a lack of any hint of self knowledge regarding the origin of that bias. The idea that humans are a plague upon the earth is religious in nature. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that even non-believers who were raised around believers have a difficult time dispelling. 

That said, I'm going to give you a few "commandments" that will help you think about everything better.

1. Become aware of the influences surrounding your mind.
2. Be honest about what those influences want.
3. Recognize that your thinking is still subject to those influences and that you have conformed to them unconsciously.
4. Recognize that if you truly question the fundamental influences that shape your thinking you will experience negative feedback from the people who are closest to you.

How dare I suggest that overpopulation might be a myth and that we might be okay!

Lol!


----------



## elder999 (Jul 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> For those of you with less time than I have, here is a brief summary of those contradictions.
> 
> 1. Resource consumption will eventually wipe out the Earth's stores of valuable resources. As industrialized countries fall in population growth due to lack of replacement, wouldn't that suggest that they would use less resources? Also, as world population peaks and begins to fall, wouldn't that indicated that the demand for resources would diminish?



I didnt say anything about overpopulation, though I did mention it continuing to grow-its done nothing *but* grow since the Great Plague of 1350-from 370 million to 7 billion, andI dont see world population peaks, though one U.N. model shows it leveling off at 9.2 billion by 2050, and humans reaching the point of zero population growth at that time-in the meantime, though, its still growing-or didnt you look at that clock I posted? 
Its up by about 220,000 since I posted yesterday. 



Makalakumu said:


> 2. Technology has allowed humans to grow more food on less land with fewer hours of labor and this process has only gotten more efficient in terms of energy consumption. Aka...farm machinery uses less gas to do more than it used to. Combine this with GMO super crops that can grow with less and less inputs of water and labor and we have a situation where our food is being produced more efficiently and more cheaply than before. Combine this trend with the decreasing human population trend and it follows that humans will have more food, grown on less land, leaving more room for nature, decreasing habitat pressure on many species overall.



Not if there simply isnt enough water to irrigate-a great deal of that agricultural growth and technological development that youre speaking of took place in areas that didnt have the resources to support such activities in the first place-for example, some of the most productive agriculture in California is irrigated with water from hundreds of miles away, water thats taken from areas that are experiencing water shortages themselves; were nearing great dustbowl conditions in some parts of the country, and its going to show in our food prices and availability in the very near future-never mind 20 or 30 years from now.

Also, there's this part:



elder999 said:


> By way of example then, *the earth has a mass of 1.32X 10E25 lbs. *



Did you somehow miss this? 

That includes, in case you _*did*_ miss it, the seas, atmosphere, oil, animals, and_ us_. There has *always* only been so much of anything, and there is less all the time..except for us..and our pollution-_those_ are increasing.



Makalakumu said:


> 3. Carbon dioxide is an important part of photosynthesis and it's abundance in the atmosphere has been historically linked with times of increased plant growth. Therefore, wouldn't it follow that the changing atmosphere would make it easier to grow food? Combine this with increasing technology making things more efficient, a falling population decreasing demand on resources, it seems that the standard of living for every human on the plant can only go up.



As a farmer, I can tell you that as important as CO2 is to plant growth, plant CO2 transport (that is to say, _respiration_ and chlloryphyll conversion) and storage are directly proportional to soil nitrogen content-in areas where all other factors are good, plant growth increases due to CO2-otherwise, the plants really only use as much CO2 as they ever did-kind of like an animal, which isnt going to use any more or less oxygen in an increased O2 environment, and which may even suffer from deleterious effects from an increase of it-consequently, there is not necessarily going to be any increase in food production or farming efficacy. Granted, warmer temperatures and longer seasons attributed by some to increased CO2 _have_ resulted in higher crop yields in some areas, or, at least, two crops where previously thered only been one in a season, but such effects arent sustainable-one main reason why is that continued CO2 increases will lower the pH of water-including rainfall-worldwide, and this will have deleterious effects on plant viability and soil quality. Most of the models and experimentation in this area have shown that responses to increased CO2 are highly variable, and largely dependent upon other factors.
For example, all things being equal in terms of nutrients and water quality, an increased CO2 atmosphere _does_ improve hydroponic marijuana growth, but often kills tomatoes,

Its just not as simple as you make it out to be, John.



Makalakumu said:


> 4. This argument is not supported by the video I posted and contain some counter thoughts on the garbage problem. The amount of waste that humans produce is a problem that is growing ever more visible all of the time. This is why we see efforts in industrialized countries to reduce/reuse/recycle more and more products. For example, on Oahu, where I live, the people have recently decided that they will stop using plastic bags and styrofoam food containers. A similar effort is being undertaken when it comes to plastic bottles and other one use items. The increase in biodegradable products is also on the rise. I predict the entire industry will switch over as the garbage problem gets more visible and people seek to find ways of mitigating it.



The industry will switch over for profit. Plastics are petroleum products, generally, and are getting more expensive. The burden theyve already placed on the planet is continuing, though.



Makalakumu said:


> 5. Regarding the plastics that exist in the ocean now, over time, those will erode into smaller pieces and actually become part of the fossil record. Combine this with a diminished waste stream due to increased communication and growing environmental consciousness and the world oceans could be poised to be far cleaner in the future.



They become part of the fossil record by being ingested by sea life, sea life to which they are proving to be toxic.Here's a Pacific Albatross with a stomach *full* of plastic-part of your "fossil record."

View attachment $albatross.jpg




Makalakumu said:


> I could go on.


Please dont.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Here is a simple fact.
> 
> No one involved in discussing this matter in this thread has actually taken the time to review the literature in a serious way.



Actually, *I* have.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 30, 2014)

Elder
deep gassho. Why these posts now? What's on your mind to bring this out - now?

And you made me think of the sf story by Howard Waldrop, "The Ugly Chickens"
multiple award winner, and yes, a thoughtful, heartbreaking story ... about the dodo.

I hadn't thought of it in years.  So thanks, I think.
A


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Here is a simple fact.
> 
> No one involved in discussing this matter in this thread has actually taken the time to review the literature in a serious way.
> 
> Instead, what most people do, including you K-man and others, is that you jump on a bandwagon built by those authorities that say the things that conform to your bias.


You have this idea that everything in this world is a conspiracy cooked up by this government or that. That is a bigger bias than the rest of us have if all our biases were rolled into one.

As to reviewing literature. You don't have to dig far to find the evidence.

http://www.igreens.org.uk/rio_tinto_pollution.jpg 

Yes, I have seen that first hand.

And some more ...

World's 10 Worst Toxic Pollution Problems [Slide Show] - Scientific American



Makalakumu said:


> IMHO what you are all failing to understand is the origin of your biases. Some of this anti-human attitude is coming right out of the training you received in government school as a child. That training is based on religious concepts that state that man is a piece of **** and that we need god (government) to save us.
> 
> What I've noticed in this thread and others is a general lack of awareness of bias and a lack of any hint of self knowledge regarding the origin of that bias. The idea that humans are a plague upon the earth is religious in nature. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that even non-believers who were raised around believers have a difficult time dispelling.



I think God must have looked away for a few hundred years. It seems to be going pear shaped without His guiding hand. Perhaps if you took a look at what is happening with the population in India or Bangladesh or even Indonesia. 



Makalakumu said:


> That said, I'm going to give you a few "commandments" that will help you think about everything better.
> 
> 1. Become aware of the influences surrounding your mind.
> 2. Be honest about what those influences want.
> ...



I am holding this back up for you to read. 

Time for a reality check.



Makalakumu said:


> How dare I suggest that overpopulation might be a myth and that we might be okay!
> 
> Lol!


You can suggest what you like but that is not going to change the facts. We have way too many humans in some areas of this planet. You might by OK but millions are not.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Actually, *I* have.



You've probably reviewed things like I have, in an informal way, but have you put in a real in depth study where you review the literature and write a detailed annotated bibliography? Do you have any formal research into this field? If you have, then, I certainly with draw that assumption.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> I am holding this back up for you to read.



Don't waste your time. I look at this list all of the time. I posted this for YOU.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> For example, all things being equal in terms of nutrients and water quality, an increased CO2 atmosphere _does_ improve hydroponic marijuana growth, but often kills tomatoes.



An acquaintance of mine in Minnesota pipes the carbon dioxide from his brew pub to his green house and has experienced across the board increases in productivity. This isn't limited to just pot plants lol!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> They become part of the fossil record by being ingested by sea life, sea life to which they are proving to be toxic.Here's a Pacific Albatross with a stomach *full* of plastic-part of your "fossil record."
> 
> View attachment 18857.



You know that will not fossilize unless under very special circumstances, but alas...

Fossil record may not have been the best term for what I was describing. Cycles. The plastic is already starting to form sedimentary rock and I've heard  flippant name "urbanite" to describe it. I guess the broader point is that whatever humans do is fleeting and that the system responds in kind. 

Are we separate from these cycles or a part of them?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> An acquaintance of mine in Minnesota pipes the carbon dioxide from his brew pub to his green house and has experienced across the board increases in productivity. This isn't limited to just pot plants lol!



He's maintaining-or increased-good nutrient quality, proper irrigation and nitrogen balance to his soil or hydromedia-these factors are far more important than the increased CO2.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> You know that will not fossilize unless under very special circumstances, but alas...
> 
> Fossil record may not have been the best term for what I was describing. Cycles. The plastic is already starting to form sedimentary rock and I've heard flippant name "urbanite" to describe it. I guess the broader point is that whatever humans do is fleeting and that the system responds in kind.
> 
> Are we separate from these cycles or a part of them?



Plastic may form sedimentary rock in some places, but in the oceanic gyres like the Great Pacific garbage patch (the Atlantic has another, less-publicized one) what happens is far more insidious: the plastic is subject to photodegradation, and, rather than biodegrading, remains a polymer down to the molecular level of degradation, concentrates at certain levels in the ocean, and becomes part of the food chain, leaching toxic chemicals like polybiphenyls, PCBs, and others-toxic chemicals that work up the food chain to fish captured and consumed by humans.

Additionally, plastic that winds up on shore is consumed, as it was by that albatross-on Midway Island, all 1.5 million albatrosses are thought to have some plastic in their digestive tract!

"Urbanite" is the name for reclaimed, recycled concrete from the demolition of roads, buildings, and sidewalks.

Rocks formed from plastic are currently called "plastiglomerate."

Whether we are separate or part of these cycles does not differentiate whether or not our effect upon them is detrimental.

Is the cancer separate, or part of the patient?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2014)

elder999 said:


> .
> 
> Is the cancer separate, or part of the patient?



Is cancer natural? If humans are natural and they are cancer, shouldn't we kill them all?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Is cancer natural? If humans are natural and they are cancer, shouldn't we kill them all?



We may all die off yet.......


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 31, 2014)

Simple fact is that we are by our very existence, killing this planet. Through ignorance, stupidity and greed. I call the Star Trek syndrome. Yeah we will have space ships before the end or we will all die.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 14, 2014)

elder999 said:


> There has *always* only been so much of anything, and there is *less *all the time&#8230;



Your rep comment drew me back to this thread to see if I said something really nasty, but all I found was this...something I missed the first time.

This, IMHO, is the contradiction that a lot of the doom and gloom porn guys fail to see in their thinking.  We are all part of the Earth's mass.  Our bodies, what we use, what we throw away, is not becoming *LESS *at all.  That is, unless people have secretly been shipping their garbage to space, but let's not get too crazy here.  

Here's the point.  The word less says more about your bias rather than the actual fundamental science.  

What if the conservation of mass is the only conservation we really need?  What if it is the only conservation we can achieve?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 14, 2014)

Here is the natural extension of the pessimist mindset.

http://www.vhemt.org/

Lol.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 15, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Your rep comment drew me back to this thread to see if I said something really nasty, but all I found was this...something I missed the first time.



Nope. Read the comment again-what I said was, "No. No it doesn't." This was in reference to your post with a link to a Dominionist Christian site's video, which not only did not offer an argument, but I though more than slightly hypocritical of you to use as a source.

( Not to mention the utter hubris of thinking and arrogance of saying that your knowledge of the source, breadth and depth of* my *knowledge is "factual." :lfao: )



Makalakumu said:


> This, IMHO, is the contradiction that a lot of the doom and gloom porn guys fail to see in their thinking. We are all part of the Earth's mass. Our bodies, what we use, what we throw away, is not becoming *LESS *at all. That is, unless people have secretly been shipping their garbage to space, but let's not get too crazy here. Here's the point. The word less says more about your bias rather than the actual fundamental science.
> 
> What if the conservation of mass is the only conservation we really need? What if it is the only conservation we can achieve?


[/quote]

John, aren't you a science teacher?

Then you know that it's the conservation of mass *and energy.*

And mass can be converted to energy, as it is when any fuel burns-otherwise, the mass of wood ash would equal the mass of wood before burning. Granted, some of the mass in that example is converted to other chemicals in the process, but the sum total of parts does not equal the original-some of the mass is given up as converted to energy. 

The statement stands: there is less stuff, especially in regard to resources-or are you aguing that the amount of oil, coal, uranium, wood and water on earth (part of something I'll be posting on later) are of infinite quanitities?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 15, 2014)

elder999 said:


> And mass can be converted to energy, as it is when any fuel burns-otherwise, the mass of wood ash would equal the mass of wood before burning. Granted, some of the mass in that example is converted to other chemicals in the process, but the sum total of parts does not equal the original-some of the mass is given up as converted to energy.
> 
> The statement stands: there is less stuff, especially in regard to resources-or are you arguing that the amount of oil, coal, uranium, wood and water on earth (part of something I'll be posting on later) are of infinite quantities?



Okay, that is splitting hairs.  Technically, you are correct, but how much mass do you think has really been lost from the Earth throughout the history of human energy consumption?

If I burn 10 kg of firewood, I might lose a billionth of a gram.  So, are we talking 10 kg of mass?  100 kg?  10,000 kg?  Ninja please.  The Earth's mass is 6x10^24 kg.  That hair is split pretty damn fine!

Now to answer your query about infinite resources.  No, I'm not arguing that at all.  However, I think their might be some inputs that you aren't taking into account, which is ironic considering the mammoth and impressive project you are currently working on.  

How much sunlight is hitting the earth during a 24 hour period?  What is the total mass of those photons?  How many are absorbed by various processes and have you considered that it might actually "outweigh" what is being lost?  

Also, consider the fact that most of what humans use for energy is simply trapped sunlight.  As technology gets better, couldn't humans tap into these sources of energy?  Perhaps we could speed up nature and trap some of this energy in human time scales?  

Some of these questions are far above my pay grade, but I think the overall point was that perspective is important.  I grew up learning about how humans were evil and about how we were destroying the Earth and about how we would all kill ourselves eventually, either through nuclear holocaust or slow environmental seppuku.  

The irony is that this is a religious message and that a religious group is actually giving a message counter to it.  I wonder if PRI has considered how humanist they have become? LOL!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 15, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Okay, that is splitting hairs. Technically, you are correct, but how much mass do you think has really been lost from the Earth throughout the history of human energy consumption?
> !



The principal loss of earth mass is due to atmospheric off-gassing into space. The earth loses over 50,000 tons per year, part of it due to hydrogen and helium going into space, and part of it due to the earth core energy losses. No, this is not a significant amount in and of itself, but, as Mr. Schrader said, _Compared to what?_ :lfao;

Remember the quantities of matter I mentioned in the OP. The quantity of oil and coal available for consumption has simply diminished in mass-I was using the larger picture as a metaphor: these things are *finite* in nature, and will, ultimately, be gone. 

As we, the human race, no doubt will be as well.....


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> If I burn 10 kg of firewood, I might lose a billionth of a gram. !



A little more, depending upon the wood-but you are still left with less than half that amount in ash, depending upon the wood. The rest of the mass is lost to various gasses and water vapor-never to be recovered and utilized to release more energy, which is what I was really getting at.



Makalakumu said:


> How much sunlight is hitting the earth during a 24 hour period? What is the total mass of those photons? How many are absorbed by various processes and have you considered that it might actually "outweigh" what is being lost?



The photon is conventionally considered to be "massless," or of a very, very, very, _very, VERY, *VERY LOW*_ mass, though I'm pretty firmly in the "photon has mass" camp, the photon is special stuff, _non-stuff_, actually-so, while it has an equivalent mass (evident due to quantifiable momentum) it has no real substance as mass, so sunlight, composed of photons reaching the earth, has no weight. 

To roughly estimate the incident solar power (energy per second), the average radiation flux incident on the earth surface of about 1000 Watts/ square yard is multiplied by one half of the area of the earth (5 E14 square yards to yield 2.5E17 Watts. From E=mC2, the mass equivalent to this energy is about 2.8 kg/second. This does not, however increase the earth's mass. 

The earth does get new mass in the form of meteorites and space dust, about 40,000 tons a year, but it sometimes exceeds the mass lost due to off-gassing.Still, the earth is considered by most geophysicists to be losing mass-we have put some of the earth's mass into orbit, or onto the moon. Likewise, the earth's core is losing energy, and this translates into a loss of mass-though likely only about 1000 tons a year. All told, (and these are bar-napkin calculations, mind you) the earth is generally agreed to be losing 50,000 tons a year.....





Makalakumu said:


> Also, consider the fact that most of what humans use for energy is simply trapped sunlight. As technology gets better, couldn't humans tap into these sources of energy? Perhaps we could speed up nature and trap some of this energy in human time scales?



Another post, but you'd be talking about resources we don't have yet, and I posted here about the resources that we do have right now.



Makalakumu said:


> Some of these questions are far above my pay grade,



*None* of them are above mine. They are, in fact, what I get paid for.....:lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> The irony is that this is a religious message and that a religious group is actually giving a message counter to it.



Our quite finite resources *are* diminishing. Our quite finite environment *is* degraded, and continues to be. These are simply *facts* that I've stated.Where does religion enter into anything that I posted at all?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Our quite finite resources *are* diminishing. Our quite finite environment *is* degraded, and continues to be. These are simply *facts* that I've stated.Where does religion enter into anything that I posted at all?



I think you might need to dust off Mr. Schrader's question again.  Compared to what?  The Earth's environment is "degraded"?  "Our" resources are "diminishing"?  

If humans are a part of nature, then what humans build are also part of nature.  So, how can what humans do "degrade" nature?  This bias is fundamentally religious in nature as I've explained before.  

Also, in terms of resources, how are they "ours"? Don't other organisms use them as well?  Aren't they part of larger cyclic earth processes? This is another religious concept, IMHO. Again, are humans a part of nature or not?

Here are some more questions to consider. 

Is the scale at which the Earth's mass is decreasing at all comparable to the scale in which humans live their lives?  If you take that scale into account, couldn't the inputs of energy from space and the *inputs *of energy from the Earth's cooling core be viewed as practically infinite?  Couldn't humans shift from one energy source to another? Why do you have such a static view of human action?  Our oil based society is just a snapshot in time.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you might need to dust off Mr. Schrader's question again. Compared to what? The Earth's environment is "degraded"? "Our" resources are "diminishing"?
> 
> If humans are a part of nature, then what humans build are also part of nature. So, how can what humans do "degrade" nature? This bias is fundamentally religious in nature as I've explained before.
> 
> Also, in terms of resources, how are they "ours"? Don't other organisms use them as well? Aren't they part of larger cyclic earth processes? This is another religious concept, IMHO. Again, are humans a part of nature or not?



1)Show me another organism that uses coal or petroleum or uranium, and I'll grant you that those are not "our" resources.

As far as that goes, though, who's to say I'm not including the rest of the animal kingdom in that "our?" 

Certainly not you.

2)"Nature" is your word. I used "environment." 

"part of nature" or not, our pollution of the earth-things like the ocean garbage gyres-are a degradation of the environment, as evidenced by its effect on things within that environment, like the albatross.

There is, in fact, nothing at all "religious" about my viewpoint-it neither puts humankind at the apex or the bottom of any sort of heirarchy, in spite of your weak efforts at implying as much.


as for this:



Makalakumu said:


> Here are some more questions to consider.
> 
> Is the scale at which the Earth's mass is decreasing at all comparable to the scale in which humans live their lives? If you take that scale into account, couldn't the inputs of energy from space and the *inputs *of energy from the Earth's cooling core be viewed as practically infinite? Couldn't humans shift from one energy source to another? Why do you have such a static view of human action? Our oil based society is just a snapshot in time.








View attachment $b.jpg
:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2014)

1. Whilst I'm not certain about uranium, there are plenty of organisms that utilize carbon based sources of energy. For example, petroleum that seeps up from the ground is regularly eaten by species of bacteria. Also, there are several species of fungus that live on exposed coal beds. The broader point that I'm making is that humans are a part of nature and not separate from it. Do you agree?

2. Whether I say nature or the environment, the point stands. Humans are actors in both, therefore, what we create is natural and part of the environment. The "degradation" that you refer to is a reflection of your bias.  This bias comes from various religious doctrines that claim that humans are separate from nature and that humans are fundamentally corrupted.

As to the rest of what I said, the point is that the scale of all human societies pales in comparison to geological or astronomical scales. When you take that into account, phenomenon like the mass lost from the Earth or gained from space don't really matter to OUR big picture. Further, if you consider the energy inputs from the sun and from the cooling core of the Earth, these are practically infinite sources of energy when compared to the human scale. 

In other words, it's just a matter of perspective. And perspective was something that you were taught. I say break the chain of religious misanthropy be a real thinker instead of an automaton sophist that echoes the irrational barking of our simian ancestry.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> 1. Whilst I'm not certain about uranium, there are plenty of organisms that utilize carbon based sources of energy. For example, petroleum that seeps up from the ground is regularly eaten by species of bacteria. Also, there are several species of fungus that live on exposed coal beds.




Pseudomonas bacteria _will_ "eat" petroleum, but they consume other oils in the environment as well. 

In any case, one could argue just as you do about humans in our environment: such organisms are part of the environment that is "oil," and "coal." That they are part of the resource they interact with, and not separate from it. (Where does _pseudomonas_ whicheveritisI can'tremember exist except *in *oil? 



Makalakumu said:


> The broader point that I'm making is that humans are a part of nature and not separate from it. Do you agree?



OF course I do. In what way does that negate any of my basic premise, that we are using the resources we have, and that they are finite, and that we are degrading-polluting-the environment by doing so?



Makalakumu said:


> 2. Whether I say nature or the environment, the point stands. Humans are actors in both, therefore, what we create is natural and part of the environment. The "degradation" that you refer to is a reflection of your bias. This bias comes from various religious doctrines that claim that humans are separate from nature and that humans are fundamentally corrupted.



These are fallacious assumptions on your part.To say that pollutants that make water unfit to drink and air unfit to breathe are degradation only makes sense, and reflects no bias, religious or otherwise-nor does it in anyway imply any separation or fundamental corruption-you're taking this way too personally, John.



Makalakumu said:


> to the rest of what I said, the point is that the scale of all human societies pales in comparison to geological or astronomical scales. When you take that into account, phenomenon like the mass lost from the Earth or gained from space don't really matter to OUR big picture. Further, if you consider the energy inputs from the sun and from the cooling core of the Earth, these are practically infinite sources of energy when compared to the human scale.
> 
> In other words, it's just a matter of perspective. And perspective was something that you were taught.




Yes, but until we break free from the chain of fossil fuel dependence, everything I say applies, and there is no other perspective.



Makalakumu said:


> I say break the chain of religious misanthropy be a real thinker instead of an automaton sophist that echoes the irrational barking of our simian ancestry.



I say there is no religious misanthropy in anything I've said....or, if you prefer: _pancake bunny._ :lfao:


----------



## aedrasteia (Aug 16, 2014)

Elder

thanks again for these posts. Keep in mind that your information/explanations are valued by other MT folks here.
Maka is not the only poster/reader paying attention. He may not be persuaded by your
discussion but I learn from your comments. And I appreciate your presentations of science-based
explanations. 

What troubles me most is the accumulation of degradations _across_ related systems
(oceans/air quality/fresh water etc.).   Soil fertility (relevant to crops humans depend upon) 
 concerns me most of all - world wide dependence on fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide 
(many petroleum based) that wash into bays. gulfs, near-shore water. 

Degradation is a term related to our human dependence on these resources and systems,
correct?  Those systems will continue, but not with characteristics at levels humans need.
I don't know how to persuade people of this and less how to convince people to
alter behavior on the scale we need to avoid major environmental damage.
Never-the-less I appreciate your comments enormously, though they increase my
unease. Maybe that's the reason so many people resist this information and its
implications.

w/respect


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2014)

aedrasteia said:


> Degradation is a term related to our human dependence on these resources and systems,
> correct?  Those systems will continue, but not with characteristics at levels humans need.



From the perspective of what humans need in order to survive with our current behaviors intact, I can see how people could view what we are doing to the environment as degradation.  The missing piece, IMHO, is the consideration that human behaviors can change and as we become increasingly rational (or desperate), I can see people shifting to different modes of living.  Technology has the potential to alter a lot about how we live on this planet.  Human adaptability is a trait that cannot be underestimated as well.  Humans are capable of living in nearly any land based environment on the planet.  Some of these are harsher than anything most people have experienced, harsher than many of the polluted areas of the planet.  

The Earth's scale is far larger than anything humans can do to it.  All of the humans on the planet could easily live in the State of Texas and have a population density less than any major city.  The entire human biomass of this planet would fit into one corner of the Grand Canyon in Arizona.  There are organism on this planet that have a far greater impact on the environment and have shaped more about how the ecosystems of this planet operate than anything humans can do.  

Don't let the misanthropes get you down.  We're not that important.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2014)

elder999 said:


> These are fallacious assumptions on your part.To say that pollutants that make water unfit to drink and air unfit to breathe are degradation only makes sense, and reflects no bias, religious or otherwise-nor does it in anyway imply any separation or fundamental corruption-you're taking this way too personally, John.



Pollutants can make the environment unfit for humans, but those things can change.  Those things HAVE changed in many dramatic ways in fact.  I see more and more people interested in restoring natural environments and in preservation everyday.  The cynical perspective is a relic of irrational religious propositions that ignore human potential.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 18, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> From the perspective of what humans need in order to survive with our current behaviors intact, I can see how people could view what we are doing to the environment as degradation. The missing piece, IMHO, is the consideration that human behaviors can change and as we become increasingly rational (or desperate), I can see people shifting to different modes of living. Technology has the potential to alter a lot about how we live on this planet. Human adaptability is a trait that cannot be underestimated as well. Humans are capable of living in nearly any land based environment on the planet. Some of these are harsher than anything most people have experienced, harsher than many of the polluted areas of the planet.



"Human behaviors can change....as we become increasingly rational"

I'd say that the* evidence of all recorded history demonstrates that humankind's capacity for reason has not increased one iota*-_and probably has not changed in more than 100000 years._ 



Makalakumu said:


> The Earth's scale is far larger than anything humans can do to it.




This is blatantly false:* the atmospheric content of CO2 has gone from 290 ppm to 400 ppm since 1900, higher than it's been in 800,000 years, *almost all due to humans. This has resulted in increased acidification of the oceans., at the very least.

*Several animals have become extinct*, entirely due to humans-some, like the passenger pigeon, just because they were fun and easy to kill. 

*We have had the capability of destroying the world*-or, at least, degrading it to the point where it will no longer support life, for nearly 70 years now. 

"The Earht's scale is far larger than anything we can do to it." Who's "religious" now? :lfao: 




Makalakumu said:


> Pollutants can make the environment unfit for humans, but those things can change. Those things HAVE changed in many dramatic ways in fact. I see more and more people interested in restoring natural environments and in preservation everyday.l.



Let's not call it "the environment." 

Let's call it "_a glass of water."

_If we have a glass of water, and I drink half of it today, and you know I'm going to drink just as much tomorrow, where does the water come from for the day after tomorrow? Has that particular _resource_, the glass of water, been _diminished?_

Likewise, if we have a glass of water, and I put a chunk of plutonium oxide in it, is it _degraded? _

Would you drink it? Could you drink it?

I think it's "religious" thinking, or, more appropriately, _ magical thinking,_ to consider vital resources as anything but finite in nature-since the *fact* is that they are, no matter what you _think._




Makalakumu said:


> The cynical perspective is a relic of irrational religious propositions that ignore human potential



There's nothing cynical or religious in what I've posted-and it has nothing to do with human potential.

Potentially, we could have controlled fusion in 15-50 years.

Potentially, aliens could come "to serve man."

Potential doesn't pay the bills, or change the course we've set.


----------



## K-man (Aug 18, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Pollutants can make the environment unfit for humans, but those things can change.  Those things HAVE changed in many dramatic ways in fact.  I see more and more people interested in restoring natural environments and in preservation everyday.  The cynical perspective is a relic of irrational religious propositions that ignore human potential.


It would be interesting to see your solution for the huge amounts of plastic and other debris in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans for a start. Then with the deforestation occurring in South America and Indonesia I'm not convinced anyone can restore any balance to the natural environment. Then I suppose you are developing some sort of scrubber to reduce the atmospheric gases that are out of balance. Hmm! I think we are very close to stuffing the planet. :hmm:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2014)

elder999 said:


> "Human behaviors can change....as we become increasingly rational" I'd say that the* evidence of all recorded history demonstrates that humankind's capacity for reason has not increased one iota*-_and probably has not changed in more than 100000 years._



LOL!  The cave paintings at the famous sites in France showed that they knew calculus too!  Look, we all say silly things when we buy into this irrational anti-human ideology.  Look what I wrote in 2004!



> 50 million years ago, in the Eocene, the average global temperature was 26 degrees C! The world was covered with a blanket of rainforest and even the poles were green. The oceans were high and epicratonic seas swept over the continental shelves and reached far into the interior.
> 
> Then, something changed. The oceans currents began to slow and stop and ice began to form at the poles for the first time in hundreds of millions of years. In matter of a million years, the global temperature fell 15 degrees and 30% of animal species on earth went extinct.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2014)

elder999 said:


> "This is blatantly false:* the atmospheric content of CO2 has gone from 290 ppm to 400 ppm since 1900, higher than it's been in 800,000 years, *almost all due to humans. This has resulted in increased acidification of the oceans., at the very least.
> 
> *Several animals have become extinct*, entirely due to humans-some, like the passenger pigeon, just because they were fun and easy to kill.
> 
> ...



It's all small potatoes.  Chernobyl bounced back.

Chernobyl nuclear disaster site becomes a wildlife area, including over a hundred wolves (with updates) | The Wildlife News

Humans might not make it if we can't get our act together, but the Earth will be fine.  

That said, the essential question is whether or not humans have the potential to navigate the problems of the future.  I think we're fed a steady diet of propaganda telling us the answer is no.  We've been fed this message for generations and if you stop to research origin of this message, it's coming right out of western religious institutions.  Perhaps it is "religious thinking" to think that humans CAN successfully navigate the future...but doesn't make a good excuse to have another beer.

:drinky::drink2tha:drinkbeer:hb:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> LOL! The cave paintings at the famous sites in France showed that they knew calculus too! Look, we all say silly things when we buy into this irrational anti-human ideology. Look what I wrote in 2004!



I said _*capacity*_ for reason. 
'
Interestingly: Stone Age art was animation






Even if you don't accept that theory (I don't, entirely, myself.) the fact that "cave-men" basically invented "art" 40,000 years ago only serves to reinforce what I posted: Humankind's *capacity* for reason has not increased one iota.



Makalakumu said:


> It's all small potatoes.  Chernobyl bounced back.
> 
> Chernobyl nuclear disaster site becomes a wildlife area, including over a hundred wolves (with updates) | The Wildlife News



Not exactly.

Hell, from your own article:



> There are mutations, some obvious and some not. Reptiles and amphibians were hard hit. The re-created forests lack biodiversity. The horses are in decline. Some blame poachers hunting for food. It is not known if people are that foolish, and others blame radiation harming a rare horse that was already inbreed from its brush with extinction.




That wolves-who lack humans capacity to reason, and so are incapable of detecting radiation in any way-have moved into an area abandoned by humans and taken up by prey animals should not be surprising-they are, after all, opportunistic predators.

More to the point, once again you've stepped into an area that you clearly know nothing about, and I do: it's no violation of OPSEC or the National Secrets Act for me to say here that I've been to Pripyat and to the Chernobyl site(though it likely is for me to say _why, and what for_, so don't ask :lfao: ) You can take a tour yourself, should you go to Ukraine....

That particular disaster, though,  nearly 30 years later, is *an ongoing one.
*Ukraine Marks Chernobyl Anniversary, 2013 




Makalakumu said:


> Humans might not make it if we can't get our act together, but the Earth will be fine.



Mr. Schrader asks, _Fine?*Compared to what?*_

More to the point, that's not really they question here-go back to the title,  and let go of the "Earth being 'fine,'" for nowhere have I said anything about the ultimate fate of the earth, whether or not it will be "fine." 

I said our resources are finite, and that we degrade the environment-stay on point, please. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> That said, the essential question is whether or not humans have the potential to navigate the problems of the future.



No, it isn't. See above. 

Quite frankly, I'd be fine without an internet, electricity or fossil fuels-I could totally go "subsistence farmer/hunter-gatherer" tomorrow, and be pretty content reading by tallow-wicked lamps.



Makalakumu said:


> I think we're fed a steady diet of propaganda telling us the answer is no.  We've been fed this message for generations and if you stop to research origin of this message, it's coming right out of western religious institutions.  Perhaps it is "religious thinking" to think that humans CAN successfully navigate the future...but doesn't make a good excuse to have another beer.



Perhaps you should start another thread-as I've said, it's a *fact* that our _current_ resources are finite, and we're degrading the environment. Nothing you've offered contradicts that at all, or has been particularly relevant. Sorry.
]


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2014)

Energy resources, as far as humans are concerned, are not finite.  The energy escaping from the Earth and coming in from space will never run out in any human scaled time.  As far as the environment is concerned, my point is twofold.  What humans do to the environment is natural and fluid.  If humans go extinct, natural cycles will change.  If humans change their collective behavior, they will change.  

My last point has been to illustrate the existence of an ideology that cast something that is completely natural in a negative way.  You can see this ideology in the word choices people use to describe things and in the hyperbole they use heat their opinions.  Once you SEE the ideology, you can begin the process of understanding where it appears in your thoughts.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Energy resources, as far as humans are concerned, are not finite.  The energy escaping from the Earth and coming in from space will never run out in any human scaled time.



Who's "splitting hairs" now? :lfao: 


I think, as you pointed out, I was in fact talking about "our" resources. We are already harnessing solar power-which is finite, and it's not for you or anyone else to say that human beings won't be here to watch from afar when Sol fizzles out in about 5 billion years or so-though I'll grant that it's not likely, or as likely that we will have evolved into something else. As far as other  energy coming from space, *harness it*, and you'll have wealth beyond all dreams of avarice. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> i As far as the environment is concerned, my point is twofold.  Wh-what humans do to the environment is natural and fluid.  If humans go extinct, natural cycles will change.  If humans change their collective behavior, they will change.



With China putting coal plants that lack *any* of the pollution controls mandated here in the U.S., and often built by U.S. companies, to the tune of one going on line _weekly_ at one point, your point isn't "twofold."

It's not a point at all. 

I mean, John, seriously? I'm coming to Hawaii in a while; can I stay with you? I'll poop in your kitchen sink, and in your linen closet, and on your living room sofa while I'm there....after all, what's more natural than poop? I'm sure you won't mind, or feel that your living space has been...erm......_degraded_  in any way...:lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> My last point has been to illustrate the existence of an ideology that cast something that is completely natural in a negative way.  You can see this ideology in the word choices people use to describe things and in the hyperbole they use heat their opinions.  Once you SEE the ideology, you can begin the process of understanding where it appears in your thoughts.



_Pancake bunny_


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2014)

If you were going to poop on my couch, I'd ask you to stop.  My guess is that my appeal to your better nature would prevail.  That principle, writ large, could save humanity.  In all seriousness, let me know when you come.  I've love to meet you.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> If you were going to poop on my couch, I'd ask you to stop.  My guess is that my appeal to your better nature would prevail.  That principle, writ large, could save humanity.  In all seriousness, let me know when you come.  I've love to meet you.



Seems to me everyone was "asked to stop" 18 years ago, and all over the world, we're still "pooping * on our own goddam couch *. :lfao:

And lighting it on fire to stay warm.....


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 20, 2014)

This thread reminds me of one of my Mom's sayings ... "You can argue all you want with a brick wall, but you'll never convince it to become a window for you." Some people are much more concerned with being "right" than they are with making sense. Huh, just realized that this could be referring to most of our leadership unfortunately!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2014)

What is unnatural in this picture?  What is degraded?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> What is unnatural in this picture?



While it some - Earth-Firster types of the "religious" ilk you accuse me of being - might insist that there is something unnatural to be seen in that picture, there is nothing unnatural in that picture.



Makalakumu said:


> What is degraded?



While nothing appears to be degraded, it's *all* degraded.

Whether it's Antarctica:
View attachment $antarctic ice degradation.jpg
North America:
View attachment $American north degradation.jpg
South America:

Australia:
View attachment $australian-degradation-causes-poverty-i0.jpg
or Asia:
View attachment $Asian environmental degradation.jpg
we're all just pooping on the couch, John.

Of course, that's *natural*.  :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2014)

If we turned out all of those lights, wouldn't that "degrade" the environment for humanity?  How many of us would die?

What if those pictures you showed were the byproducts of our species overall success?

Couldn't we find ways of eliminating those byproducts and keeping the lights on?

Have you considered this?

8 Great Moral Imperatives - The Seasteading Institute, Floating Cities | The Seasteading Institute


----------



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> Couldn't we find ways of eliminating those byproducts and keeping the lights on?
> 
> Have you considered this?



I consider it every day.

I'm _doing_ something about it, I'd like to think.

That's not what this thread  is about, though-nor should it be.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2014)

If Seasteading becomes a reality, 70% of the surface of the Earth becomes more viable to use. There are huge energy resources in the oceans and huge potential for food production. There is also a real possibility to clean up the mess of previous generations. So, is a "degraded" environment and diminished amount of resources inevitable? Not in the near future, IMHO if this is the direction that humanity moves.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> If Seasteading becomes a reality, 70% of the surface of the Earth becomes more viable to use..


 
Oh, goody! _A bigger couch to poop on!_ :lfao:

Seriously, John? Given the evidence of.....I dunno, what did I say before?

Oh, yeah: *all of recorded human history. T*here is nothing whatsoever that demonstrated that, given your "if" (a pretty big one, and not at all the theme of this thread), we wouldn't just start crapping up the oceans even more than we already have:


The acidity of the surface water in your region of the Pacific has increased 30% in the last 50 years or so, due to atmospheric CO2.


Some scientists say that it will increase by 170% or more in the near future.

Due to a variety of factors, most especially overfishing, edible fish populations world wide have declined by 55% over the last 50 years.

In the North Atlantic, edible fish populations have declined by 66%., and, in some cases, by 90%.

Some reports project world fish stocks to be almost completely depleted by 2048-that's well within your lifetime, and possibly even within mine.





Makalakumu said:


> There are huge energy resources in the oceans and huge potential for food production. There is also a real possibility to clean up the mess of previous generations.



So, what you're proposing is more "Sea*raping*," then, with some _pooping on the bigger couch_.  :lfao: 

I mean, see above in re: "huge potential for food production." *NOT.*



Makalakumu said:


> So, is a "degraded" environment and diminished amount of resources inevitable? Not in the near future, IMHO if this is the direction that humanity moves.



And what, exactly-since you seem to want to go there- controls "the direction humanity moves?"

I mean, what sort of organism degrades its environment to such an extent that it will become unusable-sees that that is the direction in which it is heading, and does nothing about it?

I mean, given our history-*all of recorded human history*-we've pretty much *always* just used stuff up, and thrown the waste where it was convenient, but we're more advanced now, right? We know better, right? We can see that it's not in our interests to act that way, right? We can see that it's not in our interests to do so, right? You and I are agreed on that: human behavior needs to change, so, what kind of organism behaves this way?

Certainly *not* one acting from intelligence, or even its "full capacity to reason." 

What is it, then, that makes humankind *continue* to act against our own interests?

Well, whose interests is it in for us to do so? To plead about the "loss of quality of life" that less energy use would result in-to claim that green sources are not reliable enough or big enough to support the lifestyles to which we've become accustomed? To insist that pollution controls are not necessary, or, worse yet (to them) increase costs? To encourage consumption to the point of extinction-or, in the case of water, to the point of no longer being readily available?

*Corporations.*  Corporations drive this ideology-it is in their interests to maintain the status-quo, and maintain or increase profits. 

As an erudite and not so wise friend aptly said:



Makalakumu said:


> You can see this ideology in the word choices people use to describe things and in the hyperbole they use heat their opinions.  Once you SEE the ideology, you can begin the process of understanding where it appears in your thoughts.


:lfao:

I have to add, I'm struck by the passion with which you've embraced this corporate ideology, though it is ironic,  given that you've *chosen* to live on islands that get 85% of their electrical power from imported petroleum,

That import 85-90% of their food.

*That rely on surface water and rain cachement for the majority of their  potable water.*

Really, John-could you have chosen  a place that is any less sustainable for the size of its population at any given time? :lfao:

I mean, under the right circumstances of "national disaster," or worldwide emergency-never mind the "inevitable degradation and diminishing of resources," yours will be almost *immediately diminished and degraded. *Unless you have a "bug-out" boat, or some other plan to get yourselves off island,  you and your family will likely* die*, or, given Hawaii's history, _be eaten. _:lfao:


----------

