The Earth is getting greener

[Marblehead]

I do understand the conflict.  However, I do not have enough knowledge to speak well to the subject.  Humans are causing great harm to the earth.  With a little good luck we won't damage it so badly that it causes our extinction.

[ralis]

I do understand the conflict.  However, I do not have enough knowledge to speak well to the subject.  Humans are causing great harm to the earth.  With a little good luck we won't damage it so badly that it causes our extinction.

 

The research indicates that we are already in the 6th mass extinction. If key species go then we go. Key meaning pollinators!

[Karl]

Once again, you write as if I haven't already agreed upon much of what you say (I have and I will point it all out), and then manage to bring capitalism into it when the discussion does not merit it at all.

 

 

 

Quite a lot. Here's a very, very small sample (an image I made a while back in response to another thread)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we go again with the survival thing. Yes, we all want to survive. Yes, we have to eat things and make houses, etc. We need to cut down some trees, mine some stone, pick fruit, etc -- fine.

 

There's a lot that we do that we absolutely do not need to do.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was 'nature' which gave us life.

 

 

 

Without which we would not be here.

 

 

 

I already said this. You act as if I don't agree so as to drive your argument forward, but I already agreed to this.

 

 

 

Again, I already said this.

 

 

 

I do do this with a lot of things. More people would benefit from actually considering the impact of their actions on themselves and others and the environment (the environment that was damaged in its production, for example, or the environment that will be damaged after its use..).

 

 

 

Yet you claim to believe that the future of humankind is important, do you not? We had a long argument about whether or not the spread of humanity throughout the galaxy would be like a plague -- as I remember, you think it is the way forward, and I said that I do not really care, but that it is not my favorite idea of all.

 

You do care about the future of humanity, and you do believe that we should consider it, do you not? You do not believe that all we can or should care about is the present. That's me, I'm the one who doesn't look into the future very well!

 

 

 

I didn't say any of that, did I? Or even imply it. I don't think I implied it.

 

What I said was:

 

Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity

...

These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage.

 

And you seem to want to disagree that we do have any say over our own contribution..? Or that we just shouldn't give the slightest fuck, even over the short-term? The oil spills, the landfills, the billions of caged animals, the forests being destroyed (yes, much is still being destroyed)...?

 

 

 

I'm going to leave it there for now because (in my experience) you're unlikely to respond to 90% of what I've said anyway, so less is probably easier.

 

Did I say we shouldn't give the slightest fuck. No. I most specifically said the best way to correctly allocate resources-avoiding waste and unnecessary environmental damage-is by laissez faire capitalism and by a strong, objective law that prevents the initiation of violence (including the pollution, damage to persons and property).

 

That means that we can continually innovate and compete, pricing in pollution damage where it is avoidable through the mechanism of law and removing waste/ damage created by Government policies that subsidise industries and agricultural activities of a type/geography where they should not be.

 

To understand where I'm coming from requires an enormous amount of knowledge. Where you see things in silos I do not. I'm not a pragmatist and you are- most people are-they think they can manipulate a certain thing, tweak something, add a policy and it all turns out fine, and if it doesn't quite work out then tweak it again.

 

People buy junk, but that's not a crime, they are told to buy junk 'cos the aim of life is hedonistic pleasure and junk promises hedonistic pleasure. Of course because 'we are all pragmatists now' and reason has been buried somewhere, then the pragmatic approach is to keep on buying junk until it gets the desired result. No need to worry about the cost of junk either because the government runs its printing presses overtime making credit so insanely cheap and easy that ectasy comes with a swipe of some plastic. It's not worth saving because there isn't any interest on savings and we are told saving is evil according to Keynesian doctrine, the good spend there way to heaven. Similarly businesses get cheap credit and use it to make the junk everyone is supposed to buy.

 

You say there is a lot that we absolutely do not need to do. Yet you fail to say what that is or how you would achieve it. It's just pie in the sky dude. Nice words but sod all practical value. There are people the world over telling us what we should and shouldn't do and attempting to get Governments to force us into doing it. Well we tried that and it doesn't work. So let's have a go at liberty and Law. Let's get Governments out of the manipulation/subsidy business for good. Let's accept we won't get perfection, but that what we will achieve will be far better than our current failings.

 

No doubt I haven't answered any of what you asked. :-/

 

 

[Brian]

BTW, anyone who buys into the meme 'climate change' which is a term coined by Dr. Frank Lunzt, chief propagandist for the right wing, must understand where that meme originated. 'Global warming' was changed by him via one of his so called focus groups.

 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Lunzt didn't coin the term. It dates back to at least the 1950s.

[ralis]

Lunzt didn't coin the term. It dates back to at least the 1950s.

 

Coined or not, he is manipulating the discussion which has led to much confusion.

[ralis]

Lunzt didn't coin the term. It dates back to at least the 1950s.

 

That is beside the point of the conversation. My posts do not require vetting.

[Brian]

I'd say the confusion stems more from blatant and intentional manipulation of data in an attempt to frighten the population into submission to an emergent centralized global government whilst the policy makers line their own pockets and position themselves to wield the authority they are working to establish -- but I suspect this is one of those cases in which we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Brian]

That is beside the point of the conversation. My posts do not require vetting.

Oh, I think they do...

 

EDIT: OK, perhaps not "require" but "warrant."

Edited April 27, 2016 by Brian

[ralis]

Oh, I think they do...

 

EDIT: OK, perhaps not "require" but "warrant."

 

Global warming defines the problem differently than climate change. Along with the 97% of climatologists and other scientists that are working on this problem, I am in agreement with. Further, the so called manipulation of data is just another piece of bullshit propaganda brought on by so called experts.

 

The problem lies in a lack of clear explanation to the general public as to what the ramifications of AGW are.

 

To understand complex systems and their non linear properties is the place to begin.

Edited April 27, 2016 by ralis

[Geof Nanto]

As I started this thread I feel some obligation to state my opinion. My thoughts on the subject of climate change are multifaceted. I take no sides. I couldn't do justice to my perspective with any short comment. But I'll make a start with some words for basic background…..

 

The Earth is not some inert rock. It is a hyper-complex web of dynamic systems that has evolved over many millennia and continues to evolve.  We humans are animals and hence innately of this web – not apart from it. This may seem obvious but it’s worth stating as it seems to me we humans are becoming increasing isolated in that we are increasing moving into a reality of our own creation.

 

One of the best simple descriptions of humans I've come across is from environmentalist Tim Flannery: “We are a part of the Earth’s crust that has become conscious of itself.”  For those who live in the city its perhaps easy to forget that life is not man made and intelligence is not limited to humans. In fact intelligence extends all the way down to bacteria – even slime mould has intelligence and memory: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-27/slime-mould-can-learn-even-without-brain/7363176

Edited April 28, 2016 by Yueya

[Orion]

Climate change is not as big of a threat as habitat destruction. The mass extinction thing is real.

[Karl]

Climate change is not as big of a threat as habitat destruction. The mass extinction thing is real.

 

The biggest threat is the current philosophy which has taken us down the path to apathetic degenerative self destruction.

[Geof Nanto]

As some further basic background information here’s an excerpt from  Virginia Morell’s, Animal Wise: How We Know Animals Think and Feel …….

 

Animals [as well as us human animals] have minds. They have brains, and use them, as we do: for experiencing the world, for thinking and feeling, and for solving the problems of life every creature faces. Like us, they have personalities, moods, and emotions; they laugh and they play. Some show grief and empathy and are self-aware and very likely conscious of their actions and intents.

 

Not so long ago I would have hedged these statements, because the prevailing notion held that animals are more like zombies or robotic machines, capable of responding with only simple, reflexive behaviors. And indeed there are still researchers who insist that animals are moving through life like the half dead, but they're so ... 1950s. They've been left behind as a flood of new research from biologists, animal behaviorists, evolutionary and ecological biologists, comparative psychologists, cognitive ethnologists, and neuroscientists sweeps away old ideas that block the exploration of animal minds. The question now is not "Do animals think?" It's "How and what do they think?"

Edited April 29, 2016 by Yueya

[Karl]

They are perceptual thinkers not conceptual thinkers. Therefore they experience pain and pleasure, they have perceptual skill sets so of course they can of course overcome problems, but they aren't anything like humans. Animals don't have to choose life as a value as a primary value as humans do, they don't need to plan for the future, they don't have the choice of altering their environment because that is a conceptual ability. If they run out of food, then they must move to somewhere where food can be found. They are quite capable of perceptual thought and strategy when hunting, they certainly aren't robots.

 

Rand explains the difference from a mathematical perspective. Humans and animals are both limited by the number and variety of perceptions that they can cope with at any one time. In NLP training it was commonly accepted that we, as humans, can manage around 7 things at once. Beyond nine things we can't cope, so, humans have developed concepts in order that we can essentially go through maths (perceptual concretes) into Algebra (conceptual abstracts). Animals lack this faculty they can cope with the maths, but can't do algebra. Their world is all concretes, all perceptual. That means both memory and dreams are entirely functional in that realm, but not beyond it. The abstract conceptual mind allows us to hold a concept which has some value, but no specific value until we reapply it to the perceptual world as a mathematical concrete.

 

Leopards, as an example perceptually count. They don't hold the abstract of number, so they are limited to say; car plus 4 occupants. Now, if a leopard sees this quantity drive past it once, then a second time and the number stays consistent, then it stays calm, but, say the car is minus one person, then it goes on high alert. It knows the number has changed and as it cannot have a concept 'different car' 'passenger dropped off at lodge' then it thinks it is being hunted.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Karl

[Geof Nanto]

To get to know our fellow animals one has to engage with them. Other animals have much to tell us about ourselves and our environment.

 

For instance see http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/38123-animalwise-a-parable-for-wayfarers/?p=619804

[Marblehead]

Well, I am not going to engage with an angry tiger.

[Karl]

To get to know our fellow animals one has to engage with them. Other animals have much to tell us about ourselves and our environment.

 

For instance see http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/38123-animalwise-a-parable-for-wayfarers/?p=619804

 

I don't have fellow animals. I have fellow human beings. Animals are a resource.

[Karl]

Well, I am not going to engage with an angry tiger.

 

Well said angry gorilla.

[Geof Nanto]

Well, I am not going to engage with an angry tiger.

 

Do you mean Karl?

[Karl]

Do you mean Karl?

 

I'm more three toed sloth.

[Marblehead]

Do you mean Karl?

Nah.  Karl is just a pussy cat with a loud meow that sounds like a roar.

 

No Karl, you are faster than a sloth.

[Marblehead]

I don't have fellow animals. I have fellow human beings. Animals are a resource.

 

And most humans are a pain where I sit.

[Karl]

Nah. Karl is just a pussy cat with a loud meow that sounds like a roar.

 

No Karl, you are faster than a sloth.

Alley cat stylee. I'm only faster when I'm on the bike and then only a bit faster.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

And most humans are a pain where I sit.

 

Try a sofa then.