Our Inevitably Diminishing Resources and Degraded Environment

[Makalakumu]

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]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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]

"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.

Think about this. 15-degree temperature change over a million years...and we get a mass extinction. What happens if we change the temperature 5 degrees in a hundred? That is exactly what many of the models predict. Life depends on a stable environment in order to prosper. Human, in order to support our current population, NEED a stable climate. We are changing the climate and we can measure the changes and even though we can't figure out how these changes might affect us yet, the climate is still changing.

I liken this process to the famous flowerpot islands around many south pacific islands. These islands are made of limestone and coral and there is an algae that feeds on the CaCO^3 in the rock. Feeding on the algae are small mollusks called Chitons. These creatures have iron teeth that they use to scrape the algae away. Unfortunately, it also scrapes a little bit of the rock away, too. Over the years this has led to a mushroom shaped island with the stems getting smaller and smaller every year.

If the chitons were capable of thought, they might look at the way they were living and ask the question, if we keep scraping the rock away on the stem of these islands, the whole thing is going to come crashing down to kill us all. But they are not, and they continue to scrape and the island falls on the entire community. Do you see my point?

Extinction is in our future whether we like it or not. It may be tomorrow, or it may be a million years from now. The forces of nature could extinct us easily and there would be nothing we could do about it. Just as quickly though, we could extinct ourselves with vast amounts of thermonuclear weaponry. Much more insidious, though, is this "chewing up the island" process. It does not happen quickly, so it doesn't send us into a panic that would unite people against it. Yet, the changes are going to lead to a different global climate in a short time.

Global warming has the potential to affect our lives and our children's lives negatively. Something needs to be done about it. We can sit there and stare at the island above us and hope that it doesn't fall, meanwhile ignoring the fact that the small things we all do will tip it over, as long as we want. Or at least, until it falls. Then what? Extinction? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, the concept alone is unthinkable. It is different then death because at least something of us would pass on. The immortality of our genetic lines end. It's too much to risk just driving an SUV.

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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]

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.

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

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:

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.

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]

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]

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:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

What is unnatural in this picture? What is degraded?

 

[elder999]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. There 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.

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 "Searaping," then, with some pooping on the bigger couch. :lfao:

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

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:

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: