WIll this world be worth living in?
nowayout 08 Nov 2010
A third of the Amazon is gone already, replaced by wastelands and soy fields. When I was born, the Amazon was still largely intact.
The Indonesian and Asian rainforests are doing much worse, 80% or more gone in many places. When I was born, they were still largely intact.
The "Great American Landscape" is a wasteland of ugly crumbling strip malls. The great Niagara falls is in the middle of a ugly crumbling ghetto. Much of it happened since I was born.
There are almost no true wildernesses any more. Kilimandjaro is covered knee deep in garbage. So is a lot of Alaska. There are plans to pave the Serengeti.
Many of the idyllic places of my childhood have been paved over for living space or commerce. Only the odd one out survives.
It is estimated that half of all living species will be extinct in 100 years.
Our atmosphere is poisoned by carbon dioxide, already irreversibly so, since humanity will never cooperate to address this. As a result of rising CO2, the oceans will soon become an acidified wasteland, as barren as our continents.
Because of human greed and avarice, these problems will not be solved.
What is there left to live for?
Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 02:42 AM.
Elus 08 Nov 2010
rwac 08 Nov 2010
Name a large animal that's gone extinct in the last 50 years.It is estimated that half of all living species will be extinct in 100 years.
Our atmosphere is poisoned by carbon dioxide, already irreversibly so, since humanity will never cooperate to address this. As a result of rising CO2, the oceans will soon become an acidified wasteland, as barren as our continents.
CO2 levels have been higher in the past. There's no basis for the acidified wasteland bit.
sponsored ad
forever freedom 08 Nov 2010
PWAIN 08 Nov 2010
Name a large animal that's gone extinct in the last 50 years.
CO2 levels have been higher in the past. There's no basis for the acidified wasteland bit.
West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex
http://dodosgone.blogspot.com/
CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........
rwac 08 Nov 2010
That's three. That's not a basis for claiming a 50% extinction rate over the next century.West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex
Animal life in the sea survived just fine through those ages of high CO2.CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........
There have been many extinctions, but it doesn't make sense to attribute that to increased CO2.
nowayout 08 Nov 2010
That's three. That's not a basis for claiming a 50% extinction rate over the next century.West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex
Can I ask why the size of the organism matters? For every large organism going extinct, there are hundreds if not thousands of smaller ones going extinct.
The loss of biodiversity in landscapes all over the world has already been enormous.
Even if the extinction rate is 10%, maybe you do not realize the enormity of this.
The current extinction rate due to human activity is estimated to be about 100 times the normal background rate.
Animal life in the sea survived just fine through those ages of high CO2.CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........
There have been many extinctions, but it doesn't make sense to attribute that to increased CO2.
Species adapt to gradual changes. Abrupt changes have been accompanied in the past by mass extinctions. The changes over the last 150 years has been abrupt.
Are you trying to get by us that the enormous extinction rate of the past number of years is not due to humans? Sorry, that won't fly.
Already coral reefs are dying (blanching) in places because of higher water acidity and temperature. When they go, whole ecosystems of thousands of species vanish with them.
Shelled organisms in parts of the oceans have already been shown to have weaker and thinner shells due ot higher acidity.
Not to mention that vast areas of the oceans have been reduced to wastelands due to deep trawling.
Frankly, I surely didn't expect to find retarded climate change denial arguments repeated on a somewhat more intelligent science-based forum like this.
Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 02:48 PM.
robomoon 08 Nov 2010
If there aren't those Biodiversity Metrics, something in environmental studies must be seriously wrong.
Old rain forests contain a higher biodiversity in any case. So when 1/3 of the Amazon is gone and some places of Asian rainforests are doing much worse with a depletion of 80%, it would be useful to know how much in percent of all the old rainforests has been reduced since the beginning of the 20st Century. Are there Rainforest Metrics to see how much of all the old rainforest in percent (like 5%, 10%, or 30%) has been reduced globally? It would be important to know how much of the old rainforest has been left globally after 100 years during the end of the 20st Century. Please explain, I'm not an expert and only a dummy.
If there aren't those Rainforest Metrics available, something in environmental studies must be seriously wrong.
Next to exploitive farming, the ghettos and garbage in former beautifully developed landscapes make things worse. So it must be stated that sufficiently advanced food production, vertical housing, and adequate waste removal are missing over there. There aren't adequate living resources to save important nature from destruction.
Currently, measures like atmospheric CO2 and extinct large animals can be taken out of the calculation - oversight about a sincere preservation of biodiversified places is sure enough to worry about. Regarding space travel, a scientific supercomputer grid on the moon will become useful to solve these environmental problems during this Century instead of misguided economic stunts like a human colonization effort on Mars.
rwac 08 Nov 2010
The current extinction rate due to human activity is estimated to be about 100 times the normal background rate.
And how is this estimated ?
Already coral reefs are dying (blanching) in places because of higher water acidity and temperature. When they go, whole ecosystems of thousands of species vanish with them. Any evidence that this is more than a local trend ?
Shelled organisms in parts of the oceans have already been shown to have weaker and thinner shells due ot higher acidity. Do you have more than anecdotal data for this ?
Not to mention that vast areas of the oceans have been reduced to wastelands due to deep trawling. Yes, overfishing is a problem, unrelated to AGW.
Frankly, I surely didn't expect to find retarded climate change denial arguments repeated on a somewhat more intelligent science-based forum like this.
The evidence for AGW(and indeed Global Warming) is seriously lacking.
And sometimes the mainstream science is just wrong, like say nutrition.
Elus 08 Nov 2010
However, we should still strive for greener technologies because we can see that many of our current technologies cause harm in ways other than global warming. One example of this is deforestation, which we only do because we haven't figured out a clever substitute for wood/paper that won't cause environmental damage.
Edited by Elus, 08 November 2010 - 09:14 PM.
nowayout 08 Nov 2010
To assert that global warming is man-made is a very bold statement....
However, we should still strive for greener technologies because we can see that many of our current technologies cause harm in ways other than global warming. One example of this is deforestation, which we only do because we haven't figured out a clever substitute for wood/paper that won't cause environmental damage.
Most rainforest loss nowadays is not from the wood or the paper industry.
For example, vast areas of the Amazon have been burned down or bulldozed to plant soy. You can drive for days in the former Amazon and only see flat and featureless fields, like the U.S. Midwest. Much of this soy goes to the U.S. and other industrialized countries to feed livestock, so we have to share responsibility for these environmental crimes when we eat chicken or beef here in the North.
Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.
Robomoon, these metrics certainly exist and can be obtained by some googling.
Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 10:34 PM.
Brainbox 08 Nov 2010
And we are not halfway the road of knowing correlation regarding environmental issues.
Obtaining political gain from extrapolated incomplete knowledge seems to be part of the game. But is this acceptable from a viewpoit of unbiased scientific research? It maybe is if it is used to change an existing bias, but at the moment it becomes the new "political correct" bias it is not. And this is exactly what is happening. Huge political polarization pared with the fact that certain political movements need renewed proof for their existing fading dogma's does not help. Adapting dogma's, e.g. after the emancipation of the working class is almost competed in the western world, is to much to ask?
I get a strong feeling that the biological diversity argument is being used to keep the diversity of development of humanity within limited managed boundaries. Strange paradox?
At the other side of the coin there is the matter of strange economics. I fail to understand why a burger, obtained from cows that are fed with soy from the other side of the planet with huge additional misuse of resources, costs 1 euro (1,30 $), while a decent portion of fresh honestly raised vegetables costs at least double or triple that price?
How does the political polarisation fuelled with all kinds of pessimism help to solve these issues? Why are we unable to change political paradigms in favor of finding a real solution in stead of continuing the extrovert political bullfights?
Kolos 08 Nov 2010
Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ecology should be practical but unfortunately for many activists it became a form of religion and that's what I call pathology. A lot of them seem to have luddite mindset, they hate civilization and industrialization in particular.
rwac 09 Nov 2010
For example, vast areas of the Amazon have been burned down or bulldozed to plant soy. You can drive for days in the former Amazon and only see flat and featureless fields, like the U.S. Midwest. Much of this soy goes to the U.S. and other industrialized countries to feed livestock, so we have to share responsibility for these environmental crimes when we eat chicken or beef here in the North.
Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.
Robomoon, these metrics certainly exist and can be obtained by some googling.
Soy is a curse. I don't eat soy, 95% of the meat I eat is soy free.
Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less. Consensus doesn't make it fact.
Elus 09 Nov 2010
Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.
Alright, then perhaps one of us should make a thread about it. I'd love to debate this. Keep in mind, I'm a pro-environment kind of guy. It's just that I don't see compelling evidence for man-made global warming.
I think there would be great merit in a thread discussing this controversy. And yes, it is a controversial issue.
robomoon 09 Nov 2010
Soy, a vegetable with a high nutrition value from protein should not be replaced by other vegetables with lower nutrition value. Carrots are fine, but FRESH is no summa summarum of all the nutrition value required in good food.
The final argument only boils down to this: the nutrition value of meat. Now, what does the higher educated thinktank say? Oh, nothing biased, some are vegetarians, but as dull as I am, I believe everything in every popular scientific article from them on my desk. And I can "search" for metrics - to repeat it without using a commercial "g"-word? Gimme a break, put some artificial meat or fish surrogate largely made from vertical farming resources on the table!
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ...
Given this attitude, no wonder Central/Eastern Europe is such a shithole.
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less.
Can I ask what are your scientific qualifications entitling you to make this assertion?
There is no controversy, except that created by the oil industry for political gain. The Bush administration's "We create our own reality" kind of thinking.
rwac 09 Nov 2010
Can I ask what are your scientific qualifications entitling you to make this assertion?
There is no controversy, except that created by the oil industry for political gain. The Bush administration's "We create our own reality" kind of thinking.
Oh, there's plenty of controversy.
There's controversy over:
Whether the tree ring data is actually a proxy for temperature.
The accuracy of temperature stations, and the data processing involved.
The accuracy of simulations showing x degrees of warming over the next century.
Hiding the unprocessed data and code used to manipulate it, to the extent of dodging FOIA requests.
The scaremongering by politicians and environmentalists to scare us into limiting CO2.
Plus, look at the treatment of anyone skeptical of AGW, like Bjorn Lomborg and Steve McIntyre.
Put all that together, and it sure sounds like bad science to me.
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Oh, there's plenty of controversy.
You mentioned skepticism over vitamin studies.
Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.
Edited by viveutvivas, 09 November 2010 - 06:36 PM.
rwac 09 Nov 2010
You mentioned skepticism over vitamin studies.
Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.
I'm pretty sure Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Bjorn Lomborg are not funded by oil interests.
chris w 09 Nov 2010
Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ...
Given this attitude, no wonder Central/Eastern Europe is such a shithole.
Well, I still prefer living in a shithole with runing water and sanitation over an estethically impressive shithole where you can dhiarrhea yourself to death.
rwac 09 Nov 2010
Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.
Just so you know, there's not much independent research in this subject. It's just a handful of people poking huge holes into mainstream climate research.
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Well, I still prefer living in a shithole with runing water and sanitation over an estethically impressive shithole where you can dhiarrhea yourself to death.
You are committing the logic fallacy called false dichotomy.
Edited by viveutvivas, 09 November 2010 - 08:01 PM.
firespin 09 Nov 2010
Some of these doom-gloom of the environment is way over-blown, and don't have enough data to support them. They often are bias studies meant to pull on people's emotions to support a agenda. A example is human overpopulation. Every human being on the planet can leave in Texas with enough room, and yet somehow there is a danger of overpopulation? The populations of developed countries are also shrinking, standards of living are increasing for everyone because of the increase of technology and education. There is enough food, water, and housing for everyone on the planet with plenty left over. The current reasons there are poor countries is because of corrupt governments, (most which are also socialist/ or communists) this can be solved if the governments were changed.
Edited by firespin, 09 November 2010 - 10:27 PM.
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Nature have done far more damage to the environment and brought to extinction to far more animals than man has ever done, ...
This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.
Would you then agree that because humans, through human nature, have always killed humans throughout history, it is therefore okay to commit murder becasue it happened before and is in our nature? Same kind of argument.
nowayout 09 Nov 2010
Just so you know, there's not much independent research in this subject. It's just a handful of people poking huge holes into mainstream climate research.
What do you mean by independent research. Climate scientists all over the world in scores of independent universities have come to a consensus that man-made climate change is real.
Or by independent do you just mean dissenting? Well, in that case you will probably like Duesberg, the HIV denier, or the number of Holocaust deniers. The fact that these people dissent against overwhelming evidence does not make them right.
rwac 10 Nov 2010
What do you mean by independent research. Climate scientists all over the world in scores of independent universities have come to a consensus that man-made climate change is real.
That's the thing. Climate science is controlled by the gatekeepers, who will keep dissenters out. This is groupthink plain and simple. No one wants to threaten the billions of dollars of funding for this field.
The dissenters have not been given the unprocessed data to reproduce the results of key papers from scratch. This points to something being rotten.
Kolos 10 Nov 2010
I agree with most of your post but reasons why there are poor countries are far more complicated... Sometimes even relatively good government can't do much because peoples mentality is too conservative, there is no tradition of high work ethic and responsibility and/or there is instability related with ethnic/religious confilcts. Italy is rich not because Berlusconi is such a genious etc. As for "communist" countries there are few of them left if any. You can change government in like 5 years(in democratic country) but it takes decades or even generations to change mentality of a nation.The current reasons there are poor countries is because of corrupt governments, (most which are also socialist/ or communists) this can be solved if the governments were changed.
Even if it is true what is so bad about this? It happened many times without human intervention, in fact there would be no humans if it didn't happen 65 milion years ago so I would say this type of "destructions" are quite normal, they push life into new directions and we already see how different organism adapt to man-made environment. By the way I'm still waiting for my explenation why should I care about plants or ants without any higher feelings or self-consciousness more than I do about minerals and metals. But I guess you prefer to insult my mother this time...This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.
Edited by Kolos, 10 November 2010 - 12:38 AM.
sponsored ad
niner 10 Nov 2010
You aren't skipping the argument if you take a couple shots like that.Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less. Consensus doesn't make it fact.