The false problem of species extinction

[Owledge]

Smokers claim cigarettes taste good. I wonder why they're not eating them.

[zanshin]

Eating a little tobacco is good for pigs. Kills worms and digestive parasites.

[Marblehead]

Smokers claim cigarettes taste good. I wonder why they're not eating them.

I tried that once and it really turned my stomach.

 

Reminded me of something from a Robin Williams movie. He and another guy were in a car going somewhere and the other guy pulled out a smoke and put it into his mouth and Robin quickly said, (paraphraes) "That cigarette would do you more good if you stuck it up your butt."

[shanlung]

Yes, meat is quick protein and important when growing and for those who do a lot of physical labor.

 

Older folks like me and folks who don't do much physical labor really don't need that much protein and our needs can be satisfied with vegetable protein.

 

Dalai Lama loves a good thick juicy steak, and he loves it very rare.

Dont take my word, go google and check.

 

I do not think he is young, or doing much physical work either.

 

 

Idiotic Taoist

Edited November 27, 2012 by shanlung

[Owledge]

Dont take my word, go google and check.

Why don't YOU tell us your source?

[Marblehead]

Dalai Lama loves a good thick juicy steak, and he loves it very rare.

Dont take my word, go google and check.

 

I do not think he is young, or doing much physical work either.

 

 

Idiotic Taoist

So I have heard. If he does, he does it for pleasure, not as a necessity. But then, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Edit to add:

 

But then I just saw something stating that his doctors told him to include meat in his diet. I don't know how much truth there is in that.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Marblehead

[Owledge]

Eating meat would mean deliberately supporting the killing of animals. If he put his personal health over that, he'd be a corrupted Buddhist. (Well, some of his politics are very controversial (shugden), so I'd not be too surprised if it was true.)

[Owledge]

With regard to the claim that putting his health over that of an animal's being a sign of his corruption, I would challenge the notion that Buddhism encourages humans to suffer to avoid the suffering of animals. Please provide a reference to support this assertion.

Maybe Tibetan Buddhism is different, but if not, then honoring all life surely doesn't allow to eat meat. It is avoidable, and eating meat is a deliberate act of supporting the killing of animals for a moderate personal benefit.

I can only assume that Tibetans indeed treat that aspect differently, since this specific case involves no crucial necessity, and there are dietary alternatives for meat-replacement. I'm sure the Dalai Lama has no problem with availability of those.

[shanlung]

Maybe Tibetan Buddhism is different, but if not, then honoring all life surely doesn't allow to eat meat. It is avoidable, and eating meat is a deliberate act of supporting the killing of animals for a moderate personal benefit.

I can only assume that Tibetans indeed treat that aspect differently, since this specific case involves no crucial necessity, and there are dietary alternatives for meat-replacement. I'm sure the Dalai Lama has no problem with availability of those.

 

 

Ha ha ha!

 

I almost think you are trying to say you are more holy than the Dalai Lama. Know more about

Buddhism than the Dalai Lama!

 

Gasp!

 

Are you Buddha Incarnate? Opps, Buddha also love to eat meat.

 

And if so, why do a wannabe Buddha come posturing here in in Taoist forum?

 

Dont you know I decided to be Taoist because eating meat, drinking wine, eating dog is ok?

 

Shouldn't you be in some kind of vege forum?

Join the incarnate of Adolf Hitler who is a vegetarian?

 

Idiot rambling on the Path

[Marblehead]

I think that eating meat or not is more of a lifestyle choice than it is a religious concept. It is even said that the Buddha himself ate meat.

 

My Buddhist friend here said that the only meat she was forbidden to eat is water buffalo. She has no problem cause no one here in the states serves water buffalo. However, when she communes with the Buddha she offers him a vegetarian meal.

 

 

Anyhow, I think that the Chinese are doing much more harm leading to species extinction than are any of the Indians, be they Buddhist or Hindu.

 

 

BTW I had chicken for supper last night. I doubt they will ever go extinct.

[shanlung]

 

 

Anyhow, I think that the Chinese are doing much more harm leading to species extinction than are any of the Indians, be they Buddhist or Hindu.

 

 

 

Sadly I agree with you.

As said before, tables are about the only thing with 4 legs that will not be eaten by Chinese.

 

My dear departed mom (who was a staunch devoted Buddhist by the way) used to make me cringed every time National Geog was on TV. She would go and say how bear , antelope and tiger was to be cooked and braised with ginger and soya sauce and garlic.

 

Must have came from a time when Chinese were very hungry. In fact, Chinese greeting to another Chinese to this day will be have you eaten full already?

 

And if the creature is not delicious (like a well braised dog), then the creature will be very good for the ying or the yang ( like a well braised cat)

 

I think a well braised chicken will be both delicious and good for the ying or the yang.

With no fear of chicken extinction as well.

 

Taoistic Idiot

Edited November 27, 2012 by shanlung

[thelerner]

Unfortunately, cheetahs are not outrunning extinction. Their numbers have dwindled below 15,000 in Africa due to the shrinking of their habitat and scarcity of prey, the WCS says. In some parts, the populations of subspecies have fallen below 100, putting them among the most endangered cats.

 

The cheetahs in the composite video -- a female -- ran 100 meters from a still start in 5.95 seconds, National Geographic notes. Bolt, the world's fastest human, won the London Olympics 100 meters in 9.63 seconds and owns the

at 9.58 seconds (see video below). Either way, the cat leaves the athlete in the dust, as it's able to accelerate from 0 to 64 mph in 3 seconds, according to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

[Owledge]

Project Camotah:

Paint over all those black dots with the desert-sand-like color of the fur and see whether that improves their survival.

I mean, seriously, they should hire Darwin as a consultant. They might look pretty, but their prey will notice that easily and run away in time.

Maybe that's why they are so endangered compared to other species. Cheetahs are really asking for extinction with that color pattern.

[Brian]

Protect them via genetic engineering? "We'll fix them!"

 

[Owledge]

Exactly. Making a point is the last thing we want to do in this matter.

[oildrops]

Project Camotah:

Paint over all those black dots with the desert-sand-like color of the fur and see whether that improves their survival.

I mean, seriously, they should hire Darwin as a consultant. They might look pretty, but their prey will notice that easily and run away in time.

Maybe that's why they are so endangered compared to other species. Cheetahs are really asking for extinction with that color pattern.

 

Those colors are soooooo Pleistocene .....

[voidisyinyang]

Yeah I have a certificate in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development from a college semester in Costa Rica. A third of my undergrad courses are in ecology.

 

There's no point debating this -- Michael Soule, conservation biologist, demonstrated that "large mammals" have "stopped evolving." That was in the 1970s.

 

It was mentioned previously about indicator species -- if it is lost then the whole ecosystem will also go down. http://www.geowords.org/ensci/08/08.htm

 

According to biologist Jennifer Hughes and her colleagues at Stanford University, the loss of local populations of key species may be a better indicator of biodiversity loss than species extinction because these local populations provide most of the ecological services (Figure 1-2, p. 3) of an area. These researchers estimate that the loss of local populations is tens of thousands of times greater than the current estimated rate of species loss.

Because of these factors, many researchers believe the current annual extinction rate is somewhere between 1,000 (0.1% per year) and 10,000 (1% a year) times the rate before humans arrived. If the latter estimate is correct, researchers Edward O. Wilson and Stuart Primm estimate that 20% of the world's current animal and plant species could be gone by 2030 and half by the end of this century. In the words of biodiversity expert Norman Myers, "Within just a few human generations, we shall-in the absence of greatly expanded conservation efforts-impoverish the biosphere to an extent that will persist for at least 200,000 human generations or twenty times longer than the period since humans emerged as a species."

 

 

So humans have stopped evolving -- ecologically.

 

The rate of species extinction is faster than any of the previous mass extinctions in the billions of years of life on Earth.

 

Basically it's like this:

 

population growth of a species is exponential and then "carrying capacity" is achieved which then "overshoots" the environment causing the population to crash.

 

Now what modern humans have done in the past 10,000 years (and keep in mind this was not the case for the San Bushmen original humans from 100,000 BCE who had a qigong healing culture as their defining practice)....

 

So modern humans developed logarithmic math for logarithmic technological growth -- thereby taking exponential growth beyond just humans as a population but also including exponential growth of using natural resources and destroying the environment.

 

 

This lecture proves this is true.

 

Again this is not debatable - it is simple math.

 

So watch the lecture and take it in. It might seem dated but Dr. Albert Bartlett has given this same lecture some 2000 times and he has an updated version from last year -- it's online. He is quite old but he has the latest data and it just confirms his previous research.

 

So the fundamental math holds true - the details might change a little here and there but it doesn't change the accuracy of the math.

Edited November 29, 2012 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

Yeah I have a certificate in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development from a college semester in Costa Rica. A third of my undergrad courses are in ecology.

 

There's no point debating this -- Michael Soule, conservation biologist, demonstrated that "large mammals" have "stopped evolving." That was in the 1970s.

 

It was mentioned previously about indicator species -- if it is lost then the whole ecosystem will also go down. http://www.geowords....ensci/08/08.htm

 

 

 

 

So humans have stopped evolving -- ecologically.

 

The rate of species extinction is faster than any of the previous mass extinctions in the billions of years of life on Earth.

 

Basically it's like this:

 

population growth of a species is exponential and then "carrying capacity" is achieved which then "overshoots" the environment causing the population to crash.

 

Now what modern humans have done in the past 10,000 years (and keep in mind this was not the case for the San Bushmen original humans from 100,000 BCE who had a qigong healing culture as their defining practice)....

 

So modern humans developed logarithmic math for logarithmic technological growth -- thereby taking exponential growth beyond just humans as a population but also including exponential growth of using natural resources and destroying the environment.

 

 

This lecture proves this is true.

 

Again this is not debatable - it is simple math.

 

So watch the lecture and take it in. It might seem dated but Dr. Albert Bartlett has given this same lecture some 2000 times and he has an updated version from last year -- it's online. He is quite old but he has the latest data and it just confirms his previous research.

 

So the fundamental math holds true - the details might change a little here and there but it doesn't change the accuracy of the math.

 

Thanks for posting this! Some have argued that the present carrying capacity of the biosphere is 250 billion. What a stupid argument!

[Marblehead]

Thanks for posting this! Some have argued that the present carrying capacity of the biosphere is 250 billion. What a stupid argument!

Those are obviously people who don't know anything about science and the processes of change.

[ralis]

Those are obviously people who don't know anything about science and the processes of change.

 

Exactly! The biosphere is a complex dynamic non-linear system sensitive to initial conditions. Changes can be brought about by adding just one variable such as CO2 which in sufficient quantities will affect the entire system.

Edited November 29, 2012 by ralis

[Owledge]

Beware of people who say something is not debatable.

[Marblehead]

The biosphere is a complex dynamic non-linear system ...

I don't normally consider non-linear time as a vaild concept but in this case it states the conditions perfectly.

 

 

And yes Owledge, nearly every thought that can be thought is debatable. It is good to talk and discuss.

[ralis]

I don't normally consider non-linear time as a vaild concept but in this case it states the conditions perfectly.

 

 

And yes Owledge, nearly every thought that can be thought is debatable. It is good to talk and discuss.

 

In the case of species extinction, debate must be based on evidence obtained from solid research.

[Owledge]

evidence obtained from solid research.

The definition of that is debatable.

[ralis]

The definition of that is debatable.

 

From the tone of your post, you must not believe the scientific method has value?