THIS IS JUST TOTAL COMPOST

There Go The Looney Tree Huggers again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1447863,00.html
from JoeUser Forums
I just came across an article on the internet that must have been written by some looney on the whacko far left. The link to the article is at the bottom of this posting. Here is some of what the article said:

· Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

· An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated.

· Water withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land.

· At least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing.

· Since 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded.

· Deforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge.
2,839 views 17 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
'The Guardian' is one of the UK's quality broadsheets. Admittedly, it has something of a 'middle of the road' reputation, but can we expect to see Tim Radford (their science editor) manning the barricades come the dawn of the revolution? I think not.

You've excelled yourself this time, Marvin - providing both the link AND quotes from the article. The only thing missing is a solitary argument of any kind - cogent or frothing at the mouth, take your pick - AGAINST it. A classic case of belt and braces but no trousers.

Incidentally, here are a couple of quotes from the article that Marvin chose NOT to share on his blog. The report is 'backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields', and was 'prepared in Washington under the supervision of a board chaired by Robert Watson, the British-born chief scientist at the World Bank and a former scientific adviser to the White House'.

Yup, definitely sounds like the work of a Revolutionary Socialist splinter cell to me! Consequently, there's only one way to sign off this comment ...

I just came across an article on the internet that must have been written by some looney on the whacko far right.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I saw this on the news tonight here in Australia. Wacky? No MArvin this is science and the state of the planet at the moment. Serious stuff and something all governments need to think about right now and make some changes.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Spot on, Phoenixboi. However, Marvin did get something absolutely right - he called this thread 'THIS IS JUST TOTAL COMPOST'. You said it, Marvin.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

What marvin did not say, and what the 2 of you apparently do not understand is that:

1: Unless we shoot the water into outerspace, it is not consumed.  It is recycled (earth to earth, ashes to ashes and piss in a pot!).

2: WHile the deforrestation of the Amazon and Africa has happened at a great rate, that is the normal cycle of any society.  At some point, they reforrestation will occur as more people leave farming and work in industries.  DOnt beleive me>  Check out the amount of forrested area in 1800 and 2000 in the USA.

3: Nature abhors a vacuum, and once a fish stock is over harvested to the point of depletion, it becomes uneconomical to continue and the species that have filled the vacuum are then harvested.  Until such time as they become uneconomical, etc.  See the crop cycling taking effect?  The previous depleted stock wil then, due to being left alone, start to thrive!  Garlee!

4: Coral Reefs are a thing of beauty and have been growing and dying since before man realized their existance.  They will continue to do so.  What nature (for man is not harvesting coral reefs) destroys, it replaces with others, perhaps not even the same.  After all, none of the coral reefs in existance today existed during the dinosaur age.

So while he did not really refute the article, articulately, his title is dead on.  I can show you were 'man' wiped out the passenger pigeon.  But guess what?  The population of birds today is greater than it was 300 years ago in North America.

But that is not news, so most people dont know how to google it.  Too bad.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doubtless there will be some red faces on that Washington board of scientists when they realise that Dr. Guy has shot down all their research in flames - and in under 300 words as well. Do let us know how you get on, Dr. Guy!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doubtless there will be some red faces on that Washington board of scientists when they realise that Dr. Guy has shot down all their research in flames - and in under 300 words as well. Do let us know how you get on, Dr. Guy!

Why thank you Furry.  I just call them like I see them.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the issue here is more we're growing at a rate that isn't sustainable. The cyclic nature of... well... nature, only works if everything goes in cycles. Including population. There are more people requiring more land and more resources than ever before. The past 100 years have seen an insane amount of expansion and consumption compared to all of recorded human history.

I'm not saying it's all doom-and-gloom or that we're going to wipe ourselves out. I'm just saying there is reason for concern and we need to work much harder to get a good understanding of what it is we're doing to the planet. We can't just keep going on willy-nilly without a care for eventual consequences.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think the issue here is more we're growing at a rate that isn't sustainable.

ANd nature jerks back.  Famine, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Cyclones, Typhoons.

They all kill more and more each year.  Man may come and Man may Go, But Earth Abides.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It reminds me of a comedy bit by (I think) George Carlin...

Goes something like this:
"I hear all of this crap about 'Save The Earth!' Fuck that! I say 'Save Humans!' We'll eventually blow ourselves to bits, but the Earth will still be here, spinning away"
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Zoomba, I was trying to quote a book by George Stewart, Earth Abides. Actually it is a biblical passage:

Men go and come, but Earth Abides.
Ecclesiastes 1:4

But I like your George Carlin!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
DR. GUY.........YOU REALLY DID YOUR HOMEWORK.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
'ANd nature jerks back. Famine, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Cyclones, Typhoons.
They all kill more and more each year. Man may come and Man may Go, But Earth Abides.'

I have no argument here, Dr. Guy. And I don't believe the authors of the report do either; refer the following quotes from the Guardian::

"Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says.

"In many cases, it is literally a matter of living on borrowed time. By using up supplies of fresh groundwater faster than they can be recharged, for example, we are depleting assets at the expense of our children."

"These are dangerous illusions that ignore the vast benefits of nature to the lives of 6 billion people on the planet. We may have distanced ourselves from nature, but we rely completely on the services it delivers."

So nobody here is saying that the earth will end, only that we are changing the planet so radically that the ability of our own species (as well as many others) to continue to exist upon it is seriously threatened. The earth WILL abide - but not in a form that allows us to continue to abide upon it.

'Famine, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Cyclones, Typhoons. They all kill more and more each year.' Your own words, Dr. Guy. Is that really what you wish upon future generations of the human race, given that research such as this may just indicate how modifying our behaviour can prevent (or even just slow down) the process of 'sh*tting in our own nest'?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not that I care much either way, but y'all might want to check out a nineteenth century French economist/mathmatician named Malthus, since you're arguing his theory.

Malthusian economics states that mankind is growing at a geometric rate, but replacing resources at an arithmetic rate. (multiplication vs. simple addition)By his theory, it's only a matter of time until our ability to replace resources is outstripped by our growth.

While it's not a hundred percent dead on, it is the basis for much of the ecology and economic theory of today, not to mention quite a few post-holocaust type stories. (Mad Max for example)
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

So nobody here is saying that the earth will end, only that we are changing the planet so radically that the ability of our own species (as well as many others) to continue to exist upon it is seriously threatened. The earth WILL abide - but not in a form that allows us to continue to abide upon it.

The earth is not the same earth it was a billion or even a million years ago, and man did nothing to affect those changes.  He was not even around.  What the self important scientists are doing is taking a couple hundred years of observation and extrapolating over billions.  That is why they come across as a bunch of buffoons and with little credance.

The earth is a near perfect self correcting eco system.  That man has yet to even begin to understand.  Whether through intelligent design, Creation, or just survival of the fittest (on a planetary scale), the simple fact is that nature and the earth will abide.  We may destroy ourselves, and yes we have taken a few species away, but then the earth has filled the gaps.  it always will. 

That does not mean we should ignore it, for then we just doom ourselves.  But the resources are there to be used.  What purpose does oil serve?  It is actually a poison to 'nature' as we know it, yet we have found microbes that thrive on it.  Should we deplete the oil, those microbes will cease to exist.  But the earth and nature will not.

I reject the premise that we have the power to destory nature.  No, we are a part of nature.  We only have the power to destory ourselves, as do all species (over population, dependance on a singular food supply, etc).

long before man came, species were dying off due to their own sucess, and without regard to the future. For alone among animals, Man is the only one that thinks in 4 dimensions. So he is the only one that can then prevent his own extinction, not by rejecting who he is, but by accepting his limitations and working with them.

And that does not mean abandoning what we have learned to go back to 'bear skins and stone knives".  Nor does it mean kow towing to the ignorance we have, but striving to learn more and more and to adapt, and overcome.

They would have us abandon and go back.  I would have us adapt and overcome.  It is easy to poke holes in their doom saying as it has no basis in long term history.

They only tell us what is, not what will be.  taking 200 years of observations and extrapolating over billions is the reason that just 30 years ago, these very same people were clamoring about a new ice age.  They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

'Famine, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Cyclones, Typhoons. They all kill more and more each year.' Your own words, Dr. Guy. Is that really what you wish upon future generations of the human race, given that research such as this may just indicate how modifying our behaviour can prevent (or even just slow down) the process of 'sh*tting in our own nest'?

You missed the point.  Did we cause the tsunami?  Did we cause Mt St Helens or Mt Pinatubo? Di we cause the 9.2 and 8.7 earthquakes with anything we did?

No.  But while 'thousands' died just from the quakes in those lands, in the first world, they kill 10s or maybe 100s, not thousands.  Why?  We have learned to live and adapt to that which we cannot control.

Modifying our behavoir?  Only in dragging everyone up to our level.  And that wont come by stifling mans inquisitive nature and need for knowing more.  It will come from a constant onward pressure to better ourselves and our situation.  Arguably, while the first world countries are experiencing a life style never seen in the history of this planet, third world countries enjoy a lifestyle they have never seen and is akin to 18 or 19th century for the first world countries.  They are being dragged along and in some cases (more and more each year), they are racing to join the first world countries.

Through progress, not regress.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Malthusian economics states that mankind is growing at a geometric rate, but replacing resources at an arithmetic rate. (multiplication vs. simple addition)By his theory, it's only a matter of time until our ability to replace resources is outstripped by our growth.

yes, I know of Malthus.  According to his theory, that point was reached in 1960.  The factor that he lacked and all subsequent models lacked was that as we advance, so does our ability to replace the resources.  Thus we will always be a mere 100 years from totaly anihilation.  But we never approach it as it keeps moving with us.