ALL Species Are Endangered

Dude, what is your problem? I am more grounded in reality than you believe. I don't "think" life will survive b/c I know that it will. All the evidence (which you are not taking into account) shows this is true. It is obvious that you have little to no background in the fields of biology and geology. Perhaps you should educate yourself. If you want to have a scientific discussion about this subject, present some facts that support your position. If you would rather state your opinions, then this is a pointless argument.

BTW, the Earth can't "die," as it is not alive b/c it doesn't share the features of a living organism. It doesn't have motion, reproduction, consumption, and growth. It is inorganic. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about a "living" Earth, have fun. Just don't try to pass off your beliefs as a scientific fact.

Peace and love

 

Dude, I know this because I have been to a lead mine, visited a limestone quarry, and have taken a class in economic geology. I understand that there is much damage to the environment and never once have I denied it. Perhaps you aren't paying attention to the subject of your thread, so let me refresh your memory: It's the claim that ALL species are endangered and once again, this view contradicts the evidence that life will survive. Why did you bring up the topic of geologic economics anyways? It has nothing to do with extinctions of species. If you can't stay on your own subject, then why do you create threads? If you want to discuss the damages of open mining operations or the harmful biproducts of mineral purification, start a new thread.

And if you had a real education in the sciences, you would understand that life can survive the harshest environments. Btw, if you know so much about economic geology, please explain what resources are retrieved by underground mining, what is actually mined, and how the raw material is refined? Actually, let's put this in a different thread b/c it has nothing to do with the biology.

Peace and love

 

You are a perfect example of the typical psuedo-environmentalist.

You want to play games with words instead of facing reality.

The environmental movement is an abject failure because of
people like you.

And it IS an abject failure. Every year since the first Earthday
we have done more damage to the planet than the year before,
and the rate is increasing.

All the while, the so-called 'environmental movement' has been
growing too.

A bunch of elitist leaches who produce nothing and live fat on
the money given them, directly or indirectly, by the very
corporations that are destroying the planet

The same corporations that own the scientists that fools
like you believe to be impartial investigators of
reality.



Littlefoot

 

You sound a little paranoid... All scientists are owned by corporations? How many of these scientists exist? Why won't you answer the questions I pose? If anyone can't face reality, I would say the chip lies on your shoulder. If you are so concerned about environmental problems, why aren't you doing something about it instead of trying to insult those who have a better understanding of the situation. Perhaps educate yourself on what the problem actually is instead of rambling nonsense on a forum.

Peace and love

 

I wonder how long it is going to take this domineering and arrogant
person to finally figure out that she is not going to take over this
thread?

Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether she figures it out or not.

We are doing incredible harm to this planet. You can't do that
without suffering terrible consequences. To date, for the most
part, we've managed to export most of the environmental
damage to the "Third World".

In the last 35 years or so, this has been largely the doing of the
so-called 'environmental movement' with their de facto NIMBY
(Not In My Back Yard) policy: They want all the benefits of
extensive industrial activity but don't want to live with its
effects and consequences.

Their real mott is: "I want to save what's left of the Earth
after me and all my buddies in the developed world get our
pieces of it."

They want us to believe that we can have our Earth and
eat it too.

Instead of telling us that we should cut back radically on
what we consume, they tell us, because their corporate
funding would be jerked if they didn't, to just go ahead
and keep on living as we are and the scientists will figure
out wonderful new technologies that will save us all.

Been hearing this for 35+ years, and the condition of the
planet not only keeps deteriorating, but the rate at which
it is deteriorating keeps increasing.

Obviously, a new strategy is called for. That's what sensible
people do when a plan isn't working: They try a new one.

It's obvious that this system is fundamentally terraphageous.
It is based upon turning natural resources into trade goods
with labor.

We are all involved in this process, directly or indirectly. If
people did what obviously needs to be done: Cutting back
radically on what they consume, this system would collapse.

Therefore, we need a new system, built on different principles.

Littlefoot

 

Damage to the Earth is increasing due to larger human populations.


Industrial practices are a lot better standards are tighter, fines are heavier.
at least in Western nations.

The waters of N Y Harbor and the Hackensack Meadowlands are much better than in the 70's people actually swim The Hudson.
Herons, Egrets, Osprey and Commorants are back.

Voters in New Jersey have just put forth yet another green acres bond to purchase more land for parks and forests. The State has passed controversial land use laws known as: The Highlands Act which regulates development and protects water sources.

The Ocean and beaches are a lot cleaner than in The 80's we borrowed for all those new sewage treatment plants. Landfills are capped and monitored by the DEP.

Our planet is feeling its greatest pains in places away from Western nations.
The degradation in: China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Iraq, Tropical Rain Forests.

 

So what's the solution? You seem to have all the answers, except to the questions asked.

Peace and love

 

How am I arrogant and domineering? Because I have knowledge based on evidence about the subject of extinction? If you forgot, I have already tried to have a discussion with you over the FACTS about extinction, and you have rejected the offer. You sling meaningless insults which show that you don't understand the subject.

I think you read what you want to b/c I have agreed on numerous occasions throughout this thread that humans are doing serious damage to the environment. However, life will continue on, even if we are out of the picture. The Earth, in the end, is more powerful than man and someday, our species will be among that 99%.

Peace and love

 

So did you just read what you posted in a GreenPeace flyer.
Sure looked like. A nice little commercial for a failed
movement.

Littlefoot

 

The solution is to radically reduce our individual
ecological footprints. Then, of course, the collective
ecological footprint will be radically reduced, which is what
is required.

That means localizing production and using the lowest order of
technology that will get the job done. Human power must
be the energy source most used, that forms the backbone
of the new economy.

Walking must become the most common form of transportation.

People must eat out of gardens near their homes.

And so forth.

In-other-words, we have to re-write civilization from the
ground up.

People like Piney, and I'm sure you, believe, and want us to
believe, that this is a good system being mismanaged. That
if only we'll let enlightened people like you manage it, that
everything will be okay.

Well, I've been hearing that for 40+ years now, and things
get worse and worse no matter which party is in power.

And all we hear is that "technology will save us" because,
of course, that's where all that lovely investment income
is created. And all those great jobs.

LIttlefoot

 

Yes, I believe that mankind is damaging the environment because our fuel sources have not adapted to the changing times. The current system is petroleum based- and I do not support it (unlike your claim)! Instead of reducing our waste and finding better energy sources, we are still depending on the technology from the 1900's. The problem is that clean resources are available but first, one has to fund the research and with big oil companies dragging their feet by claiming that oil production won't peak for another 40 years, the public doesn't see the need for change. However, oil production has more than likely already hit this peak and if it hasn't, then it will happen by 2010.

The bottom line is that the US economy is based upon a fossil fuel energy source, and unless we adapt, then the infrastructure will crumble with the end of the fossil fuel age. Many companies are trying to delay the inevitable by finding other oil sources that are not as pure and refinement would be very costly, both economically and pollution wise. One such "new" source for oil is shale. The economic cost is high, as the process of refinement is more complicated than the refinement of petroleum. Plus, large amounts of water is used during this process, which dries the local wells of residents in the vicinity or makes the groundwater polluted and unusable.

What's a better way? For starters, windmills, solar power, geothermal energy, etc. can provide electricity for the infrastructure. Transportation energy is a different issue. Many proponents believe ethanol and biodiesel are the solutions; however, when one calculates the energy used to produce these fuels and compare the energy that fuels produce, there is a net loss of energy. If our society wishes to keep cars, then we must find a radically different fuel solution. Perhaps the answer lies with hydrogen. There are many different types of hydrogen fuel cells and more are being developed.

As a society, we must leave outdated technology behind us and look toward the future. Recycle the resources we have instead of burying them, only to mine the same product and refine it to make it usable. There is much that can be done, and local economies must be supported through farmer's markets and self production.

Your solution is naive at best. Of course walking is preferred when one is going a short distance (walk instead of driving two blocks away), but what about traveling across the country? To say that walking is the best solution for transportation is very short sided. Also, you say one should raise their own foods, which is a good idea, but what about in the winter when gardens don't grow? You have to remember that the growing season in the northern part of the country is limited. If I wanted tomatoes in December in Indiana, where would they come from? There must be some transportation of food to areas that cannot sustain farming or is out of season.

All in all, your "solution" is nothing more than nice thoughts that one should try to follow when possible. If one wants a REAL solution, then all aspects of the situation must be analyzed and answered properly. Which leads me to conclude that you have an oversimplified idea of the problem. Do a little research and then come back with a REALISTIC solution.

Peace and love

PS: If you want to continue to appear arrogant and uneducated, keep posting quotes with either the message broken up with your replies or the text deleted. It really shows that you can't defend your position.

 

Then apply to the petroleum businesses the same leverage that has been applied to tobacco. Tobacco ruled during the 1700s and 1800s. It's now just a fringe concern. Can you hope to do that with petroleum?

If so then consumers need to look at the consumption of petroleum in commodities that they don't normally associate with it's use. Global economy necessitates transportation of goods, and with that transportation comes the use of petroleum. Are we all willing to look at the hidden costs?

Locally produced goods will equate to more environmentally safe products...will our global economists buy into that? I am thinking not!

How about taxing the petroleum industry like we are now taxing tobacco? Think that's going to work?

 

I don't know if taxing would work because unlike tobacco, the US has built its entire infrastructure on fossil fuels, petroleum mainly. Coal and coke fell out of favor once petroleum, a much cleaner resource than the other two, became widely used. However, petroleum creates pollution and is non-renewable, and we (globally) are running out of it. Right now, a majority of the country DEPENDS on petroleum products to function daily. Taxing the average citizen would be a catastrophe, unless there are alternative fuels widely available. If this was the case, I would support the taxation of petroleum b/c there would be alternatives. Perhaps that might be the solution to "encouraging" industry to turn away from fossil fuels when an alternative exists.

With tobacco, one may be addicted to the substance, but the alternative (to not smoke) would not prevent the average person from functioning in daily life. One can live without cigarettes if the cost is too expensive. However, if the average person has an older car b/c they can't afford a newer vehicle, they are dependent upon petroleum to get to work, travel, etc. Not only would gas prices put that person in a bind, but so would the increased cost of heating, electricity, food, clothing, medication, etc. The average person would not be able to afford these increases, especially if they are living off a minimum wage job.

If petroleum should be taxed, industry must bear the burden and only after an alternative energy source is in place. Then industry has a choice: either modernize or pay the price of using out-dated technology, a technology that is negative on the environment. In fact, once alternatives are in place, I believe that industry still relying on oil should be forced to pay for the environmental damages (oil spills, etc.) AND be taxed.

Peace and love

 

hippie_chick666 wrote:

"Yes, I believe that mankind is damaging the environment because our fuel sources have not adapted to the changing times."

That is utter nonsense. If we were to develop a completely free and endless
and utterly non-polluting energy source, it wouldn't diminish our collective
ecological footprint by a measurable amount.

We need to FUNDAMENTALLY change the way we live.

This System is not a good one being mismanaged, it is
rotten from its very foundations.

Littlefoot

 

Can you explain your position? It is very unclear what you mean. How do you propose we change the way we live? Live in caves? Log cabins? Stop using running water? What? You are very vague.

Peace and love

 

Still going to be vague and sketchy given the space limitations and the
complexity of the subject, but I'll be MORE specific. It all
follows logically from the need to use the lowest order of
technology available. And to minimize the workload.

This would be in reference to a temperate or cold-temperate
location. There would be numerous variations possible on
this general theme.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Small villages with homes and workshops and gardens and
community centers and storage buildings.

With trees and minerals and some plants being harvested
from surrounding wild areas.

Earth-sheltered homes, flammable gas for heating and lighting
and hot water and cooking and workshop from gasified wood,
which can be used directoy for illumination, is very efficient,
and smokeless.

Glass from woodashes and quartz/quartz sand.

Steel from woodashes, charcoal, and iron ore (nearly
ubiquitous in small deposits). We've been making good
tool steel for about 3500 years.

Soap from vegetable oil and wood ashes (potassium
hydroxide[lye]).

1/4 acre or less per person growing veggies, bush-cane-bramble
fruits, grains, oilseeds, fiberplants, sugar beets. No-till farming
methods.

Pipes made from native clay or split and hollowed-out and
re-assembled trunks of tall, skinny trees that are members
of the Pine family.

No animal products at all.

Clothes made from flax/hemp/nettle (all excellent bast fibers)
using multiple harness looms and spinning wheels. Plant and
mineral dyes.

Aspirin from the inner bark of willow.

Morphine from opium poppies.

Penicillin from mold.

Sulfa drugs from sulphur obtained from a variety of
common minerals like iron pyrite.

Electronic communication with simple radios operating
in the HF (3-30Mhz band) needing less than 5 watts of
power to communicate around the world. Basic bipolar
junction transistors are easier to make than vacuum tubes.

Electricity and ventilation from large clockwork motors.

Long distance mass transit with hydrogen dirigibles powered
by simple internal combustion, hot-bulb ignition motors fueled
by woodgas. Hydrogen can be made by running steam over
red-hot charcoal and can be used quite safely.

There would be no trading in material goods between villages,
only in recipes. Gifts of necessities would be given in emergencies.

Along those lines. The dirigibles would be the only project that
involved more than one village, with all those in a particular
area pooling resources and labor to create and fly and maintain
and fuel them.

Local and medium-range transportation would be walking.

Littlefoot

 

You are assuming that all of the raw material, the iron ore, the quartz, and other resources are widely available. This is simply not the case. We have already used up most of the iron that was once amply available, so now it must be mined. Where I live, there are no such resources. Only limestone, calcite, and small quartz geodes. That is a very ideal solution, but how realistic is it?

This might work on a small scale, but how many people are going to want to revert back to making their own clothes? Especially now that no one knows how to do most of the things you suggest. People want to advance their way of life, and finding clean energy sources, creating biodegradable plastics, supporting both the local and global economy to find ways to "clean" up their act, and develop alternative food sources and clothing crops. End the prevalence of eating meats. Allow hemp to be grown in the US as a major cash crop. Stop the government and corporate pollution of water both above and under ground.

Right now, the general public is too complacent to demand these changes b/c they are ignorant of the damages being caused by fossil fuels and their own government. Perhaps when the sea begins to rise, their water becomes undrinkable, or they can no longer breath outside due to air pollution that people will want to change. But now, they can't "see" any damage and the old saying is "out of sight, out of mind." That's what the Bush admin. wants the public to believe...

Peace and love

 

The Green movement is honest about the consequences

of implementation of its agenda; it would mean a return to a more

primitive lifestyles and population levels. This Agenda calls for

a reduction of population by a tremendous degree.



I wonder if the Voters would go for this ?



The environmental programs enacted by state government are really about the comfort of the human residents. We all want green-spaces for recreation and nature observation, even hunting. The investment to clean up our ocean shores was about tourism, beaches, fishing and revenue.

Highlands land use legislation is about drinking water and view-sheds.

Maybe we can legislate a little extra open space some elbow room for us and if some animals and birds benefit; it’s a twofer. Yeah there is a little bit of vanity in the environmental voter, a little bit of posing.



But let’s not belittle the big financial commitments made to open space purchases or to beach replenishment or those new sewage treatment plants that have made the Jersey Shore cleaner. Voters have taken on huge government debt to support these iniatives. Vanity can be expensive.

Purchasing open space at the height of a real estate bubble is quite an investment.



To a large degree our environmental problems, like our garbage disposal have been sent to places far away. Those smokey old industrial plants are now mothballed, production has moved offshore to third world countries. The industrialists would have been able to comply with an 85% emissions reduction as economically feasible but that was not good enough for our Greens who wanted a 92% emissions reduction. Now, the Plant, and its jobs are located in Honduras where it has a 60% emissions reduction; Tell me how that benefits global pollution?

Well its great for pollution right here at home, so long as everything is imported.

So now our Nihilists go on about Industrialists not wanting to pay competitive wages when it was the uncompromising Greens who chased the factory jobs away.



Can our Voters really control what goes on in Honduras? Are we that powerful? Perhaps the people of Honduras are happy to trade the life of sustenance farming for that of a plant worker just like Anglos did four or five generations ago. Who’s choice is it?



That is the crux of this thread

Yeah, the thread,



Do people really want to choose the life of a sustenance farmer, an Iron Age or Neolithic Age lifestyle?



Is a Paleolithic lifestyle better ?



Remember, it was Paleolithic Man who did the great wave of terrestrial extinction in his time: The Woolly Monmouth, Mastodon, Cave Bear, Woolly Rhinoceros, Great Ground Sloth, Giant Bison, Saber Tooth Tiger and more, all were wiped out by Clovis points, not guns.



All Species are Endangered, they always have been.

:horseshit

 

What you see above is more propaganda from the
psuedo-environmental movement.

Scare tactics: Live like this or live in mud huts wearing
stinking animal furs and eat grubs and work yourself to
death.

We can take the best from every culture that has
ever existed and create a very nice life for ourselves.

Littlefoot