Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6591)	2/26/2001 1:31:27 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

twfowler, on your general theme in the last paragraph, I think the mainstream environmentalist's aim is for 'sustainable' living. [I'm not even going to try and speak for the more extreme variants]. This means, using resources at a rate that allows - if not replenishment (since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to 'replenish' oil, for example] - at least use for the foreseeable future, with the likelihood of viable alternatives. At the US rate of consumption ~1994, the sustainable world population was about 500 million - so either consumption or population has to give... which horsemen do you expect? Energy is certainly a key need: and will be until safe fusion becomes a reality, IMO [leaving out the even more SF ideas about solar mirrors, etc...]. However, you overlookthe point that although there is indeed enough land, food, and fresh water, for most if not all of the present planetary population - it is not distributed where needed, nor is it always usable. And lastly... In developing countries pollution might increase as they develop their economies, but as their people become richer they tend to start caring about the environment more, plus they gain the wealth to do something about it. But can the planet really support 1.2 billion Chinese, 1.1 billion Indians (not to mention the other 3 billion in developing nations) living at US standards? I think not - But I wouldn't want to be the one to tell them so... or try to enforce that... Meanwhile, talking of the richer nations reducing pollution, nor does the current US administration show signs of being overly eager to lean towards the environmental lobby. Even when it's already committed to doing so, for example on CO2 emissions - remember the Kyoto Treaty? - those obligations are being ignored. And probably will be until the entire topsoil of Texas is removed when the rains stop altogether. <sigh> Not getting at you... but I think you're far too sanguine about real dangers.

To: TimF who wrote (6591)	2/26/2001 1:37:10 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've had terraria. Sure it is theoretically possible for people to turn the Earth into a terrarium (that is what you're proposing). We have not demonstrated the ability to do that even on a small scale with enough biodiversity to produce a stable environment for people. Do you remember that project, Biosphere. It was a disaster. They couldn't control CO2 levels to save their lives (literally). So what your proposing has no working model. It's not conservative to promote solutions that have never been demonstrated to scale. To propose a solution that has never been successful is a lot of theory without much practice. It is like being on a life raft and saying, we'll figure out a way to increase the floatation LATER so we keep adding people and hope for the best. I would argue that your hopes have never been supported by empirical evidence. The history of Homo Sapiens is one of many periods of near extinction. Our dominance on the planet is not born out by any geologically significant period of time, but rather seems to be a noise-spike. We are experiencing extinctions at rates that were comparable to the greatest die-offs in Earth's history. I'm a degreed geologist in addition to being a computer scientist, so I can assure that this is true. I'd be willing to provide documentation if you doubt it. The cavalier attitude that you (and others of your mindset) have to me smacks of anthropocentric hubris. If you look back at what people said in the 19th century they sounded a lot like you do now. Humans love to over-simplify. We create a system that works and assume it is scalable. Right now, as we speak, there are gold companies that are making the exact mistakes that were made in 1848 California with mercury extractions of gold. If everyone, everywhere, makes all of our mistakes, the planet will not be fit for Homo Sapiens nor most other vertebrates. Do you think that definition is weak or vague? I don't. It is unlikely that we could ever wipe out all life on the planet. You appear to be clueless because you don't see that the fermentation we have as animal and vegetable is highly interdependent and mutually reliant. It is also intrinsically inefficient, therefore not necessarily scalable. I find it sad that people who claim to be "conservative" want to produce prolific impacts on the environment. That just isn't conservative by any meaning. It isn't conservative to make a mess and hope you come up with means to solve it later. The irony of such thinking is clear with automobiles which were hailed as an environmental solution to horses. Initially they were less obnoxious than horses, but were not as scalable as people expected. The land surface of much of Texas was ruined by the oil production there to feed automobiles. We are seeing the same thing going on now in the former Soviet states that are producing oil now.