It is about the multiplication of money without a rational sense. The gain for the gain itself, the exacerbated surplus value. It is known as wild capitalism.
Here the frogs where soybeans are grown have disappeared, due to the use of glyphosate (banned in many countries years ago), is that necessary?
Monsanto does not know the damage it causes? We always had the wet pampas, a land benefited for the cultivation in a natural way, but now many avid gentlemen of easy money (without working) do not even perform the rotation of crops necessary to maintain nutrients, etc., etc.
Keep providing data if you wish, but it doesn't help much, folks.
Here the frogs where soybeans are grown have disappeared, due to the use of glyphosate (banned in many countries years ago), is that necessary?
Monsanto does not know the damage it causes? We always had the wet pampas, a land benefited for the cultivation in a natural way, but now many avid gentlemen of easy money (without working) do not even perform the rotation of crops necessary to maintain nutrients, etc., etc.
Keep providing data if you wish, but it doesn't help much, folks.
"If you believe in evolution..."
Scientific principles don't require belief, just data and confirmation and evolution has certainly met the test. So we and our hominid ancestors evolved to occupy a formerly vacant slot, the tool making predator whose tools now include industrial agriculture and a carbon based globe spanning economy. That higher concentrations of CO2, CH4, etc. reduce the rate of Earth's infrared energy radiation into space and require a higher temperature to re-equilibrate with incoming energy from the Sun is undeniable, if we're sticking to science. On a planet that had been stuck for hundreds of millennia in cycles of glaciation from which we now seemed to have created the Holocene exit it's hard to argue that this has been all a bad thing so far.
While science provides us with insight into cause and effect it would be foolish to argue that we know exactly and precisely where we're headed with any certainty. Warmer...certainly, higher sea levels...undoubtedly, but those are merely compass directions lacking the precision of GPS coordinates. That the cataclysmic predictions and proposed solutions of the doomsday alarmists seem to so neatly dovetail with an established strain of political and economic dogma does provide reason for pause to many.
Imagine that the photosynthetic organisms that oxygenated Earth's atmosphere over several billion years were intelligent and that some among them raised protests over the poisoning of the atmosphere with a highly reactive gas that was the result of their exhalations. They brought us a world of fire and oxidation but would anyone suggest that it was a catastrophe in retrospect?
The disconnect is imagining that we are separate from nature and evolution when we are not. The disconnect is believing that our brains, optimized for near term small group dynamics, will place the needs of the future ahead of the present. Asking or insisting that billions among us who are finally seeing improved living conditions turn from the path seems more than improbable. If you believe in evolution and recognize that we are both its products and its agents then how would you argue that this is not evolution? So use less fossil fuel where you can, raise efficiencies and reduce waste, and if you happen to own an oceanside vacation property you just might want to put up that For Sale sign now.
Scientific principles don't require belief, just data and confirmation and evolution has certainly met the test. So we and our hominid ancestors evolved to occupy a formerly vacant slot, the tool making predator whose tools now include industrial agriculture and a carbon based globe spanning economy. That higher concentrations of CO2, CH4, etc. reduce the rate of Earth's infrared energy radiation into space and require a higher temperature to re-equilibrate with incoming energy from the Sun is undeniable, if we're sticking to science. On a planet that had been stuck for hundreds of millennia in cycles of glaciation from which we now seemed to have created the Holocene exit it's hard to argue that this has been all a bad thing so far.
While science provides us with insight into cause and effect it would be foolish to argue that we know exactly and precisely where we're headed with any certainty. Warmer...certainly, higher sea levels...undoubtedly, but those are merely compass directions lacking the precision of GPS coordinates. That the cataclysmic predictions and proposed solutions of the doomsday alarmists seem to so neatly dovetail with an established strain of political and economic dogma does provide reason for pause to many.
Imagine that the photosynthetic organisms that oxygenated Earth's atmosphere over several billion years were intelligent and that some among them raised protests over the poisoning of the atmosphere with a highly reactive gas that was the result of their exhalations. They brought us a world of fire and oxidation but would anyone suggest that it was a catastrophe in retrospect?
The disconnect is imagining that we are separate from nature and evolution when we are not. The disconnect is believing that our brains, optimized for near term small group dynamics, will place the needs of the future ahead of the present. Asking or insisting that billions among us who are finally seeing improved living conditions turn from the path seems more than improbable. If you believe in evolution and recognize that we are both its products and its agents then how would you argue that this is not evolution? So use less fossil fuel where you can, raise efficiencies and reduce waste, and if you happen to own an oceanside vacation property you just might want to put up that For Sale sign now.
Which I guess goes for ALL species. I can't see the use of any living species. Evolution blindly led to the current situation, species are evolving for better and better surviveability which means using more and more resources to the detriment of the other slightly less fit species. And so they come and go, until the Big Boom.
Jan
There are many symbiotic relationships in nature......people on the other hand seem to epitomize greed to the point of implosion, quite interesting actually.....almost as if we’ve been given the rope to hang ourselves and then knowingly and uncaring tying our own noose in it.
“I can't see the use of any living species. Evolution blindly led to the current situation . . . “
This could get deeply philosophical but that is of no interest to me.
No one knows the purpose of life. But, you could argue that life forms a link in Gaia, working in concert with all the geological processes to make a planet what it is. It might be that the natural order of things in the universe is that if a planet is (un)lucky enough to find itself in the Goldilocks zone, life will evolve and shape the planet. Of course this is probably bs because why have a ‘garden’ planet when a bare rock with virtually no atmosphere and probably no life like mercury is a much easier outcome all round.
Once we get off this planet, we will go out and trash the next one. Sure as eggs.
This could get deeply philosophical but that is of no interest to me.
No one knows the purpose of life. But, you could argue that life forms a link in Gaia, working in concert with all the geological processes to make a planet what it is. It might be that the natural order of things in the universe is that if a planet is (un)lucky enough to find itself in the Goldilocks zone, life will evolve and shape the planet. Of course this is probably bs because why have a ‘garden’ planet when a bare rock with virtually no atmosphere and probably no life like mercury is a much easier outcome all round.
Once we get off this planet, we will go out and trash the next one. Sure as eggs.
Every species tries to collect/use as much resources as possible. Literally in their genes. We're just pretty good at it, better than the whole lot.
Jan
At least we have reached an agreement on something (in bold).
Anyone is free to make predictions, at least that's the case around where I am. As for reconvening on this subject in a few years, are you up for it?
The hard reality about a hotter Earth, is production of food will be badly affected, and such production, depends on how plants respond to higher temperatures. Till now, genetic engineering has not reached a level of fine controlling a plant, like say, changing the structure of a flower, changing a leaf shape, changing a plant's vascular system, changing a seed's structure, etc.
Without adequate food, the food supply will be impacted, and food prices will soar, and many people will die of famish.
This is how 'benevolent' nature will solve it. People do not want to respect themselves by saving the planet that nourishes them, and nature will savagely respond according to what food plants need.
Some argue global warming of the Earth is cyclic. Yes, it is true, that there were periods of hot Earth in the very very very far past, but there were no 7 billion human beings requiring to be fed. There were only animals who ended up extinct or almost eradicated.
Dreaming about going to another habitable planet, like a terraformed Mars, or even beyond the Solar System, is fit for a teenager's daydreaming. This is the 'only' planet supporting us, if humans do not care about their host, why should it care?!
Without adequate food, the food supply will be impacted, and food prices will soar, and many people will die of famish.
This is how 'benevolent' nature will solve it. People do not want to respect themselves by saving the planet that nourishes them, and nature will savagely respond according to what food plants need.
Some argue global warming of the Earth is cyclic. Yes, it is true, that there were periods of hot Earth in the very very very far past, but there were no 7 billion human beings requiring to be fed. There were only animals who ended up extinct or almost eradicated.
Dreaming about going to another habitable planet, like a terraformed Mars, or even beyond the Solar System, is fit for a teenager's daydreaming. This is the 'only' planet supporting us, if humans do not care about their host, why should it care?!
Last edited:
Indeed, economic activities summarized as "profit above all else" determine the course of events. Argentina is one of the worst examples as it's probably the only country with "medics of the fumigated peoples" (medicos de pueblos fumigados), trying to stop mass spraying of toxic pesticides and to treat their horrific effects on humans. It's a model the GMO crowd (Monsanto & ilk) would like to introduce everywhere and global warming fits that agenda perfectly: heat and drought resistant, patented crops that require special (also patented) fertilizers. Experiments with robotic bees have been taken already, GMO salmon has been introduced just before the wild species were starting to die out.
Precisely what do you expect to be discussed in a few years? I’ll tell what it will be in 2025:
CO2 probably at 425 to 430 ppm
Global temperatures continue to rise
Vast swathes of the Amazon destroyed
Continued crop failures in many formally arable places around the globe
Record summer heatwaves
Further dramatic reductions in ice cover in the Arctic and Antarctica
Further reductions in glaciers
And my most definite prediction: climate deniers will still b3 saying it’s all perfectly natural and mankind has nothing to do with it.
Now if we could reconvene it in say 5000 years, I’d be up for it.
edbarx - yes, I think the planet will have the last word /laff in the conversation. How many millennia it will take before the particular carbon based life form that has the hubris to describe itself as the crown of creation with the birthright to dominion over all finally peters out, and by what it will be replaced is certainly open to entertaining conjecture.
Spot on. Regrettably.
In fact, I had almost the identical online discussion sixteen years ago, in 2003. That was the year Europe was plunged into a record-breaking heatwave, and nearly 15,000 people died of the heat in France alone. Another 2000 people died in Portugal, and another 1500 in the Netherlands ( 2003 European heat wave - Wikipedia ). 200,000 square kilometres of Russia burst into fire due to the extreme heat and dryness. ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160802541549?journalCode=tres20 )
Here we are a decade and a half later, in 2019. Europe is deep in the throes of a record-breaking heatwave. Paris hit nearly 43 degrees Celsius ( Europe heatwave: Paris latest to break record with 42.6C - BBC News ). Russia is in flames, again. ( Siberia wildfires: Russian cities are choking in smoke from massive blazes - Vox )
Welcome to the new climate disaster, same as the old climate disaster. Except that everything is even further along the road to an unlivable burning-hot earth.
-Gnobuddy
GW will cause shifts in what foods can be grown and some areas might even have longer production seasons thus allowing more production. Rather than running around ringing the bell, we should be studying how we can take "advantage" of the situation and adapt.
On that note, the more efficient use of fossil fuels should be highly encouraged to the point of legislation to regulate instruments use it. Ever noticed how transport machines e.g. autos etc. have grown larger though they might have become more efficient given their size, transport could become even more efficient if the vehicles were smaller. On that idea, one might point out it was due to safety reasons, but at what cost? How many human lives are worth the more efficient use of fossil fuel. How many humans will drown because of the larger emissions of CO2 due to the safety regulations. Does it balance? Would that not help with the population problem which is really at the crux of the GW issue and not fossil fuel itself? Hmmm...no answer really.
OK, now how many are willing to give up using tubes and class A stages for minimizing global warming? Mandatory class D and low power op amps.
On that note, the more efficient use of fossil fuels should be highly encouraged to the point of legislation to regulate instruments use it. Ever noticed how transport machines e.g. autos etc. have grown larger though they might have become more efficient given their size, transport could become even more efficient if the vehicles were smaller. On that idea, one might point out it was due to safety reasons, but at what cost? How many human lives are worth the more efficient use of fossil fuel. How many humans will drown because of the larger emissions of CO2 due to the safety regulations. Does it balance? Would that not help with the population problem which is really at the crux of the GW issue and not fossil fuel itself? Hmmm...no answer really.
OK, now how many are willing to give up using tubes and class A stages for minimizing global warming? Mandatory class D and low power op amps.
We'll find out if and when we get there.
Amazon destruction is from deforestation by loggers so that doesn't belong in this category, does it?
How about one in 4 years from now, then another one in 4 years from there on and then another in 3 years from there on which makes it 3 sessions in 11 years (due to the possible end of humanity as we know it in 12 years). Deal?
Cutting down trees causes climate change.
Systematic burning of trees during logging causes climate change.
Soil depletion through growing crops and grazing cattle causes climate change.
Diversion of rivers for watering crops and cattle causes climate change.
Desertification through soil erosion causes climate change.
Right now, the Amazon rain forest is on fire - due to climate change.
tapestryofsound
- Status
- Not open for further replies.