Muse's Muse Songwriting Message Board: World Population - Muse's Muse Songwriting Message Board

Jump to content

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

World Population

#51 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:47 PM

Quote

Ok, this will be a rare disagreement. From my understanding severe drought conditions complicated by severe dust storms destroyed much of the land and destroyed the lives of many. How do you farm in drought conditions? Mother nature created the drought and brought the storms. Where am I wrong? These were the depression era 30's. We didn't have the advances of agricultural technology and genetic engineering we have today. Blaming it on farm practices is like blaming residents for being in the way of a sudden tornado.


I'm just lifting this from Wikipedia

. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. ...., farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.

The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.'


It's interesting because increases in agricultural technology helped make the Dust Bowl....and yet people don't seem to want to learn the lessons of the past and keep on thinking that technology will save us.

Is Indiana big?
Every year cropland the size of Indiana is lost to soil erosion. That's just scary.


#52 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

There is one reason I'd love to go to Texas, and that's the SXSW Festival....(but not if there 7 billion other people present) :)

#53 User is offline   Roger Icon

  • Active Muse
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 13-June 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:37 PM

Quote

Isolated rural communities tend to veer toward social conservatism, which Texas has a lot of, but to reduce the great State of Texas to cattle, cowboys, and oil, is a stereotypical insult.


Exactly...thus explaining my comment about ignorance in this thread.

#54 User is offline   jonie Icon

  • ooo xxx
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 7,192
  • Joined: 29-January 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Reading, UK

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:22 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

Ok, this will be a rare disagreement. From my understanding severe drought conditions complicated by severe dust storms destroyed much of the land and destroyed the lives of many. How do you farm in drought conditions? Mother nature created the drought and brought the storms. Where am I wrong? These were the depression era 30's. We didn't have the advances of agricultural technology and genetic engineering we have today. Blaming it on farm practices is like blaming residents for being in the way of a sudden tornado.


I'm just lifting this from Wikipedia

. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. ...., farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.

The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.'

John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" is an enlightening piece of literature which, while entertaining, reveals this very reality.

And John Steinbeck was not an author who allowed himself to rewrite history. He simply created wonderful characters and placed them in the midst of it.

Quote

Ok, this will be a rare disagreement. From my understanding severe drought conditions complicated by severe dust storms destroyed much of the land and destroyed the lives of many. How do you farm in drought conditions? Mother nature created the drought and brought the storms. Where am I wrong?

You are almost there, bernabby, but not quite. The dust storms were not a wholly natural creation.

Windstorms (natural) lifted up the loose, eroded soil (unnatural - see Jackie Chan's Wiki reference for causes) made worse by drought (natural) conditions at the time, resulting in the removal of the entire layer of topsoil which rendered the land unfit for farming. Had it not been for the fact that the soil had been allowed to erode, the wind and drought would have still occurred but the devastation would have been much less severe. On the positive side, California grew agriculturally as a result of the dustbowl refugees who migrated there.
We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C. Clarke

Don Martin Lyric of the Year 2008 & 2009
1 + 1 Song of the Year 2009 Ain't That True

My Soundclick Page
My lyrics and songs hosted by Lyricadia

#55 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:51 PM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Be positive young man you live in the greatest creation by God's hand (oops, am I allowed to say this). Let man now take it from here.

Yep, move over God. We appreciate your efforts and all that, but this world will really be a much better place if you let us run it from here on it. You just sit back in your rocker and don't worry that ol' head of yours about all that balance of nature nonsense, ok?

#56 User is offline   Ian Ferrin Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,666
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:33 AM

View Postbernabby, on 15 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

View PostIan Ferrin, on 14 April 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

You could fit everyone inside a jacuzzi if you stacked 'em high enough (albeit some probably wouldn't survive in outer space).

The biomass of humans isn't overwhelming, I agree. But our ecological footprint is huge. Are we being good stewards Bern?

... my guess is yes, we are being good stewards. How does the population continue to grow if we are not good stewards?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that simply because human population is burgeoning, that we're being responsible and good managers of earth's environment and resources? I don't get the connection. You're going to have to enlighten me on how this is the case?

Peace,

Ian
Ian's Soundclick Page

"Hammers don't build houses. People build houses.

A hammer is just a tool. But it's a powerful tool" - me

#57 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:34 AM

View Postjonie, on 15 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

Ok, this will be a rare disagreement. From my understanding severe drought conditions complicated by severe dust storms destroyed much of the land and destroyed the lives of many. How do you farm in drought conditions? Mother nature created the drought and brought the storms. Where am I wrong? These were the depression era 30's. We didn't have the advances of agricultural technology and genetic engineering we have today. Blaming it on farm practices is like blaming residents for being in the way of a sudden tornado.


I'm just lifting this from Wikipedia

. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. ...., farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.

The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.'

John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" is an enlightening piece of literature which, while entertaining, reveals this very reality.

And John Steinbeck was not an author who allowed himself to rewrite history. He simply created wonderful characters and placed them in the midst of it.

Quote

Ok, this will be a rare disagreement. From my understanding severe drought conditions complicated by severe dust storms destroyed much of the land and destroyed the lives of many. How do you farm in drought conditions? Mother nature created the drought and brought the storms. Where am I wrong?

You are almost there, bernabby, but not quite. The dust storms were not a wholly natural creation.

Quote

Really!!! Who or what created those storms?

Windstorms (natural) lifted up the loose, eroded soil (unnatural - see Jackie Chan's Wiki reference for causes) made worse by drought (natural) conditions at the time, resulting in the removal of the entire layer of topsoil which rendered the land unfit for farming. Had it not been for the fact that the soil had been allowed to erode, the wind and drought would have still occurred but the devastation would have been much less severe. On the positive side, California grew agriculturally as a result of the dustbowl refugees who migrated there.

Ok, so I am mostly correct in attributing the dust bowl saga to mother nature. See, all things work out if there are no impediments put up against the will of the people to flourish. One land's catastrophe is another's gain. This is a prime example of how humans and the earth can live in balance.

#58 User is offline   Bruce N Icon

  • ' Ribbit '
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 5,284
  • Joined: 22-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg MB Canada
  • Interests:Sure.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

Quote

This is a prime example of how humans and the earth can live in balance.


I'd have to disagree with that sentiment, the Earth, Mother Nature, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't give a rat's patoony whether it can sustain human life or not. it was here long before humans, and in all likelihood will be around long after we're all gone. It's our human ego that creates the illusion, that we can control nature.

If the human race is expected to sustain it's self, the balance will have to be found amongst ourselves.

There is, what I think is a very telling and truthful Native American saying. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Nothing is infinite on this planet, regardless of what your views may be on oil reserves, eventually, we will have to find alternative sources of energy. To simply stick our heads in the sand, and ignore that eventuality, does our children no good.

If the world's population has more then doubled in my lifetime, and we are already near our capacity for sustainment as it now stands, what will be left for your child when the world's population triples in his/hers lifetime ?
The views and opinions expressed by me in the "Off Topic Forum" are mine, and mine alone and should not be considered as representing the views and opinions of this site, the site owner, or that of other Moderators.







#59 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:16 PM

Quote

Ok, so I am mostly correct in attributing the dust bowl saga to mother nature. See, all things work out if there are no impediments put up against the will of the people to flourish. One land's catastrophe is another's gain. This is a prime example of how humans and the earth can live in balance.



I admire your optimism...(sort of)....but it's not based in reality.

Read this wee article if you are still convinced that we're living in balance with nature. It's still about Texas.

With new technology the wells could reach the deepest water, and from the early 1950s the boom was on. Some of the descendants of Dust Bowl survivors became millionaire landowners.

'Since then,' says David Brauer of the US Agriculture Department agency, the Ogallala Research Service, 'we have drained enough water to half-fill Lake Erie of the Great Lakes.' Billions upon billions of gallons – or, as they prefer to measure it, acre-feet of water, each one equivalent to a football field flooded a foot deep – have been pumped. 'The problem,' he goes on, 'is that in a brief half-century we have drawn the Ogallala level down from an average of 240ft to about 80.'


Or

Estimates vary, but with careful conservation, less wasteful irrigation and seeds for corn, cotton, wheat and sorghum genetically engineered for drought conditions, farming may yet go on for 60 years. That would be over the deepest stratum of the Ogallala. But the husbanding of water, soil, minerals or anything else has never been the Texan way, and without it the dust will start blowing in as few as 10 years.

The sad thing, (and I don't mean this in a rude way) is that the attitude you are showing is an impediment for people flourishing.

If I had kids I'd like to be able to leave them a planet that wasn't a suffering ecological meltdown, but too many people just want to keep things the way they are and not change their attitudes. Which means that any kids I might have less of a chance of flourishing...


#60 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:39 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:


Read this wee article if you are still convinced that we're living in balance with nature. It's still about Texas.

That's a really interesting article, Dave; I hadn't heard much about the Ogallala before. I wonder what Bernabby might make of T Boone Pickens' business plans, given his climate change scepticism.




#61 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostIan Ferrin, on 16 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 15 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

View PostIan Ferrin, on 14 April 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

You could fit everyone inside a jacuzzi if you stacked 'em high enough (albeit some probably wouldn't survive in outer space).

The biomass of humans isn't overwhelming, I agree. But our ecological footprint is huge. Are we being good stewards Bern?

... my guess is yes, we are being good stewards. How does the population continue to grow if we are not good stewards?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that simply because human population is burgeoning, that we're being responsible and good managers of earth's environment and resources?

Quote

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

.I don't get the connection. You're going to have to enlighten me on how this is the case?

Peace,

Ian

My theory is that the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth. Abundance to mean not only natural resources but also to include needed things like air, climate, orbit and all other items necessary for life as we enjoy it and live it today. If the sky was falling due to man's destruction of the environment how is it that the population increases and not decreases each year? You, I, believers and non-believers all expect all this to end one day. Christians believe that day will be the second coming of Christ. Humanists believe man is accelerating that time with our behavior. No one knows the day and I believe it is safe to say that man's destiny is not going to be determined by those claiming to know that if keep up what we're doing we're going to destroy ourselves.

#62 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:14 PM

View PostSimple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

View PostJackie Chan said:


Read this wee article if you are still convinced that we're living in balance with nature. It's still about Texas.

That's a really interesting article, Dave; I hadn't heard much about the Ogallala before. I wonder what Bernabby might make of T Boone Pickens' business plans, given his climate change scepticism.

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not privy to his business plan. I believe he is against oil drilling because he has a very strong position in natural gas which he would like to fuel cars instead of gasoline. However, I understand you need to drill for oil in order to capture the gas. If he is a climate skeptic good for him.

#63 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:25 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

Ok, so I am mostly correct in attributing the dust bowl saga to mother nature. See, all things work out if there are no impediments put up against the will of the people to flourish. One land's catastrophe is another's gain. This is a prime example of how humans and the earth can live in balance.



I admire your optimism...(sort of)....but it's not based in reality.

Read this wee article if you are still convinced that we're living in balance with nature. It's still about Texas.

With new technology the wells could reach the deepest water, and from the early 1950s the boom was on. Some of the descendants of Dust Bowl survivors became millionaire landowners.

'Since then,' says David Brauer of the US Agriculture Department agency, the Ogallala Research Service, 'we have drained enough water to half-fill Lake Erie of the Great Lakes.' Billions upon billions of gallons or, as they prefer to measure it, acre-feet of water, each one equivalent to a football field flooded a foot deep have been pumped. 'The problem,' he goes on, 'is that in a brief half-century we have drawn the Ogallala level down from an average of 240ft to about 80.'

Quote

This is a misleading stat. Yes, in the southern portion the levels have been drawn down but the northern areas have remained relatively unchanged and farm/grazing lands are indeed flourishing in those areas. There are natural impediments to recharging the aquafiller such as droughts and underground roadblocks preventing water to filter through. Drilling and pipelines to the drought impacted areas should alleviate the long term concerns about wells going dry.


Or

Estimates vary, but with careful conservation, less wasteful irrigation and seeds for corn, cotton, wheat and sorghum genetically engineered for drought conditions, farming may yet go on for 60 years. That would be over the deepest stratum of the Ogallala. But the husbanding of water, soil, minerals or anything else has never been the Texan way, and without it the dust will start blowing in as few as 10 years.

Quote

Yes, man's ingenuity continues to open doors where they have been closed.


The sad thing, (and I don't mean this in a rude way) is that the attitude you are showing is an impediment for people flourishing.

Quote

No, my friend, it is the attitude of people like you (glass half empty) who are the impediments for our future. Have some faith and project a more optimistic attitude and you'll be surprised what can and will happen.


If I had kids I'd like to be able to leave them a planet that wasn't a suffering ecological meltdown, but too many people just want to keep things the way they are and not change their attitudes. Which means that any kids I might have less of a chance of flourishing...

Quote

Can you cite examples of this ecological meltdown and how people are dying off because of this meltdown?


I don't want to stand still. I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world. Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now. If we can go to the moon why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans? Don't sell the human mind and the desire for success short. We will, one day, have a full Ogallala underground lake and then some.

#64 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:32 PM

Quote

That's a really interesting article, Dave; I hadn't heard much about the Ogallala before. I wonder what Bernabby might make of T Boone Pickens' business plans, given his climate change scepticism.
|

well I was curious but it turns out T Boone Pickens sold his water rights to the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority....I'm not entirely sure it was out of the goodness of his heart....

Another thing about the Ogallala aquifer is that they want to build part of the Keystone XL oil pipeline over it to transport Tar Sands oil from Canada. So thats piping dirty oil over the vital water for some of the most important agricultural land in the States. And it's all probably to make money I would guess.


#65 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

Quote

No, my friend, it is the attitude of people like you (glass half empty) who are the impediments for our future. Have some faith and project a more optimistic attitude and you'll be surprised what can and will happen.


wow,I can't believe I didn't try this before..everything is much better now!Posted Image

#66 User is offline   Neal K Icon

  • Smile. It'll do you good.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,975
  • Joined: 20-November 01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kelowna, BC, Canada

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:24 PM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans?


We already do all these things. That's why many rivers don't even meet the sea anymore. Too bad for the fish that used to spawn in those rivers, and the fisheries they once sustained. Too bad that diverting fresh water from rivers encourages the encroachment of saltwater upstream, destroying habitat. I can't even start to tell you how wrong you are.

Neal
The forest would be silent if only the best birds sang.

#67 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:29 PM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not privy to his business plan. I believe he is against oil drilling because he has a very strong position in natural gas which he would like to fuel cars instead of gasoline. However, I understand you need to drill for oil in order to capture the gas. If he is a climate skeptic good for him.


I get the distinct impression that you didn't actually bother to read the article in question. If and when you do, I would be interested in hearing your opinions.


#68 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:44 PM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the main drive behind many (most?) business people was to make as much money as possible, or are you suggesting that most business folks care at least as much about altruism as they do about the financial bottom line?

Quote

Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now.

Fresh, non-polluted water is not a stable resource. In fact, fresh, non-polluted water currently makes up only 0.003% of all the water on Earth, and this figure is reducing all the time due to the increasing effects of agriculture and industry. Here is supposedly "clean, green" New Zealand, we have some of the most polluted rivers in the world, largely due to a massive agricultural shift towards intensive beef farming in recent years. A river I used to love swimming during the school holidays as a kid is now so polluted than I would hesitate to even wade in it, let alone consider putting my head under the water. It literally sticks. And why? Because farmers and the corporations they supply to care more about their profits than they do about their effects on our environment.


#69 User is offline   transmissiondown Icon

  • Active Muse
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 02-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salty lakes
  • Interests:Long walks down memory lane!
    Speed dialing the Police.
    Trying to write the best lyric possible
    just to put bad music to it.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:05 AM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

I don't want to stand still. I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world. Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now. If we can go to the moon why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans? Don't sell the human mind and the desire for success short. We will, one day, have a full Ogallala underground lake and then some.

Bernabby, Cuyahoga River.

#70 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:14 AM

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

No, my friend, it is the attitude of people like you (glass half empty) who are the impediments for our future. Have some faith and project a more optimistic attitude and you'll be surprised what can and will happen.


wow,I can't believe I didn't try this before..everything is much better now!Posted Image

Good. I told you a little optimism does wonders.

#71 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:36 AM

View PostNeal K, on 16 April 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans?


We already do all these things. That's why many rivers don't even meet the sea anymore. Too bad for the fish that used to spawn in those rivers, and the fisheries they once sustained. Too bad that diverting fresh water from rivers encourages the encroachment of saltwater upstream, destroying habitat. I can't even start to tell you how wrong you are.

Neal

Don't know about Canada but I couldn't find any here in the States that have been cut off to the sea. Diversion of river water also enables Southern California to survive. Should habitat be preserved at the expense of wiping out Southern Cal including me? I've been pushing for desalination of sea water to get us our own water supply system. I'm also wondering why we can't build a pipeline following our highways to bring flood waters from the south/mid west into our holding tanks. We can pay a fee so everyone benefits. These are the types of solutions we need to address our water problems.

#72 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:46 AM

View PostSimple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not privy to his business plan. I believe he is against oil drilling because he has a very strong position in natural gas which he would like to fuel cars instead of gasoline. However, I understand you need to drill for oil in order to capture the gas. If he is a climate skeptic good for him.


I get the distinct impression that you didn't actually bother to read the article in question. If and when you do, I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

I did indeed read the article and I wikied it to get a second opinion. I posted my findings earlier. As far as Mr. Pickens plans to corner the water market I think Jackie set the record straight on that accusation. As for my opinion, you should not be quick to condemn based on liberal internet misinformation.

#73 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:57 AM

View PostSimple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the main drive behind many (most?) business people was to make as much money as possible, or are you suggesting that most business folks care at least as much about altruism as they do about the financial bottom line?

Quote

I believe you misjudge the motives of the businessman. Yes, money is part of the bottom line but business people do indeed care about world affairs. If nothing else, there's no business if there is no world.

Quote

Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now.

Fresh, non-polluted water is not a stable resource. In fact, fresh, non-polluted water currently makes up only 0.003% of all the water on Earth, and this figure is reducing all the time due to the increasing effects of agriculture and industry. Here is supposedly "clean, green" New Zealand, we have some of the most polluted rivers in the world, largely due to a massive agricultural shift towards intensive beef farming in recent years. A river I used to love swimming during the school holidays as a kid is now so polluted than I would hesitate to even wade in it, let alone consider putting my head under the water. It literally sticks. And why? Because farmers and the corporations they supply to care more about their profits than they do about their effects on our environment.

Isn't New Zealand a socialist economy or, at least, governed from the left?

#74 User is offline   Ian Ferrin Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,666
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:35 AM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

My theory is that the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth.

Has the earth's abundance changed in the last 200 years? Population sure has. It sounds like you're saying the earth has become more abundant, by itself - IE humankind doesn't have anything to do with it?
Ian's Soundclick Page

"Hammers don't build houses. People build houses.

A hammer is just a tool. But it's a powerful tool" - me

#75 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:55 AM

View PostIan Ferrin, on 16 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

My theory is that the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth.

Has the earth's abundance changed in the last 200 years? Population sure has. It sounds like you're saying the earth has become more abundant, by itself - IE humankind doesn't have anything to do with it?

Not exactily. I'm saying the world's abundance has not even registered a tick of the clock in terms of life's resources. As mankind grows the earth is there to feed the growth, so to speak.

#76 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:57 AM

View Posttransmissiondown, on 16 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

I don't want to stand still. I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world. Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now. If we can go to the moon why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans? Don't sell the human mind and the desire for success short. We will, one day, have a full Ogallala underground lake and then some.

Bernabby, Cuyahoga River.

I'm not sure I understand your point?????

#77 User is offline   Ian Ferrin Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,666
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:12 AM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

View PostIan Ferrin, on 16 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

My theory is that the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth.

Has the earth's abundance changed in the last 200 years? Population sure has. It sounds like you're saying the earth has become more abundant, by itself - IE humankind doesn't have anything to do with it?

Not exactily. I'm saying the world's abundance has not even registered a tick of the clock in terms of life's resources. As mankind grows the earth is there to feed the growth, so to speak.


OK - here's the basic conversation so far (correct me if I'm wrong):

Ian:

"aren't you saying that simply because human population is burgeoning, that we're being responsible and good managers of earth's environment and resources?"

bernabby:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

--- you go on to say:

"the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth."

--- and you explain:

"As mankind grows the earth is there to feed the growth"


OK, I think I understand. I think you're saying that simply because we're able to grow, we have the moral imperative to keep growing until we can't grow any more. Is this correct?

Also, the basic assumption of your argument seems to be that humans are intrisically good. (I can't see how else you see us as naturally responsible and good managers). Is this also correct?

Peace,

Ian
Ian's Soundclick Page

"Hammers don't build houses. People build houses.

A hammer is just a tool. But it's a powerful tool" - me

#78 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:45 AM

View PostIan Ferrin, on 17 April 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

View PostIan Ferrin, on 16 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

My theory is that the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth.

Has the earth's abundance changed in the last 200 years? Population sure has. It sounds like you're saying the earth has become more abundant, by itself - IE humankind doesn't have anything to do with it?

Not exactily. I'm saying the world's abundance has not even registered a tick of the clock in terms of life's resources. As mankind grows the earth is there to feed the growth, so to speak.


OK - here's the basic conversation so far (correct me if I'm wrong):

Ian:

"aren't you saying that simply because human population is burgeoning, that we're being responsible and good managers of earth's environment and resources?"

bernabby:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

--- you go on to say:

"the growth of our population is directly proportional to the earths' abundance to sustain such growth."

--- and you explain:

"As mankind grows the earth is there to feed the growth"


OK, I think I understand. I think you're saying that simply because we're able to grow, we have the moral imperative to keep growing until we can't grow any more. Is this correct?

Quote

No, no no. I have not even hinted that growth is a matter of morals. That is another subject that I will gladly engage if you so wish. I have my science hat on during this discussion. I'm saying that the earth, in theory, has the capacity to sustain a population far greater than most believe or would like.

Also, the basic assumption of your argument seems to be that humans are intrisically good. (I can't see how else you see us as naturally responsible and good managers). Is this also correct?

Quote

No. You are reading too much into my responses. From my perspective, man is born of sin. But, again, that is another topic.

Peace,

Ian

My argument is stricttly one of logic. Let's leave religious references out of this discussion because I always get in trouble. Let me give an example. If you work at a job and continually get promotions do you believe you are being a good steward and expect more promotions? Similarly, mankind must be good stewards because there are more people today than yesterday and more tomorrow than today. Converesely, if you were not doing a good job you would be fired. The same could be said if mankind was not a good steward because there would be fewer people every day. It's all logic and nothing to do with morals or religion.

#79 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:21 AM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

My argument is stricttly one of logic. Let's leave religious references out of this discussion because I always get in trouble. Let me give an example. If you work at a job and continually get promotions do you believe you are being a good steward and expect more promotions? Similarly, mankind must be good stewards because there are more people today than yesterday and more tomorrow than today. Converesely, if you were not doing a good job you would be fired. The same could be said if mankind was not a good steward because there would be fewer people every day. It's all logic and nothing to do with morals or religion.

This represents a form of "logic" to which I have previously been unaccustomed, but I think I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

I can get this. It's like saying that because a cancerous growth continues to expand in mass, it must be a good steward of the body it inhabits.






#80 User is offline   Bruce N Icon

  • ' Ribbit '
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 5,284
  • Joined: 22-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg MB Canada
  • Interests:Sure.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:03 AM

Quote

Fresh, non-polluted water is not a stable resource. In fact, fresh, non-polluted water currently makes up only 0.003% of all the water on Earth, and this figure is reducing all the time due to the increasing effects of agriculture and industry. Here is supposedly "clean, green" New Zealand, we have some of the most polluted rivers in the world, largely due to a massive agricultural shift towards intensive beef farming in recent years. A river I used to love swimming during the school holidays as a kid is now so polluted than I would hesitate to even wade in it, let alone consider putting my head under the water. It literally sticks. And why? Because farmers and the corporations they supply to care more about their profits than they do about their effects on our environment.


I can remember those summer school holidays myself Simon, those endless summer days at my Aunts cottage on Lake Winnipeg. Though it's been years since I've vacationed there, I've been shocked by the news reports of what's been happening to that lake these past number of years.

Algae blooms of epic proportions, a lot of it due to phosphorus run off from modern farming techniques, though that's not the sole mitigating factor. A watershed of an 1,000,000 sq kilometers drains into Lake Winnipeg, the majority of that watershed being farmland. The other contributing factor that now seems to be exacerbating the problem is the Hydroelectric dams, along the outflow of the lake that empties into Hudson Bay. The dams have turned the lake into the third largest reservoir in the world. There is no more natural rise and fall of the lake level as it is now kept at a constant predetermined level, which as we are now discovering, has a very detrimental effect on the lakes health.

The lake is 24,514-sq kilometres in size, tenth largest fresh water lake in the world, though it would seem to matter little if it's of no use to anyone or anything. It supports a large commercial fishing industry, along with a huge dependence on vacationers and tourist for many lakeside committees that depend on that industry to keep them going, if the lake were to die, it would be a good punch to the gut to the economy of this province.

So when one says, "it's just a matter of balancing human needs with nature." Well, I just kind of have to roll my eyes at that statement. You have to keep finding larger and larger cans to contain those needs

There's an interesting doc from CBC's Nature Of Things, called "Save My Lake"

link: http://www.cbc.ca/do...011/savemylake/

Or you may be able to see it here, though I'm not sure if you can outside of Canada (copyright laws I think.)

link: http://www.cbc.ca/do...l?ID=1867857094
The views and opinions expressed by me in the "Off Topic Forum" are mine, and mine alone and should not be considered as representing the views and opinions of this site, the site owner, or that of other Moderators.







#81 User is offline   Ian Ferrin Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,666
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:55 AM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

My argument is stricttly one of logic. Let's leave religious references out of this discussion because I always get in trouble.

You were the one that made the connection with Christian end times bernabby. I didn't get it. But you were the one that got religious.

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

... mankind must be good stewards because there are more people today than yesterday and more tomorrow than today.


You know bern, biological and geological and ecological timescales are measured in millennia. We've only been burning fossil fuels for a couple hundred years. And we've had a massive population burst in that time too.

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Converesely, if you were not doing a good job you would be fired.


How do you know we're not going to get fired? On the timescale of millenia, the present day is only a tiny statistical blip. Hitler was successful for a time. Stalin was successful for a time. Rome was pre-eminent for a time. So were the dinosaurs. What makes you think this is something permanent?

You know bern, there's an uncomplimentary Bible verse that goes something like "Let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die". I seriously get that vibe from you. Sorry.

Peace,

Ian



PS....

Ian Ferrin said:

Also, the basic assumption of your argument seems to be that humans are intrisically good. (I can't see how else you see us as naturally responsible and good managers). Is this also correct?

bernabby said:

No. You are reading too much into my responses. From my perspective, man is born of sin. But, again, that is another topic.

I don't think I'm reading anything into your responses. I'm doing my absolute best to strictly interpret your words. You're arguing that mankind is earth's responsible and good Steward because population is burgeoning. That assumes mankind is basically good. If mankind is basically sinful, then he can't naturally be good and responsible. Can't be both ways.

With your head you may have the Christian belief of man's sinfulness, but with your heart, you really seem to believe all these sinful mortals are taking great care of God's creation!
Ian's Soundclick Page

"Hammers don't build houses. People build houses.

A hammer is just a tool. But it's a powerful tool" - me

#82 User is offline   transmissiondown Icon

  • Active Muse
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 02-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salty lakes
  • Interests:Long walks down memory lane!
    Speed dialing the Police.
    Trying to write the best lyric possible
    just to put bad music to it.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

View Posttransmissiondown, on 16 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

I don't want to stand still. I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world. Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now. If we can go to the moon why can't we develop ways to capture water from floods, rain, snow melts etc instead of sending it into the oceans? Don't sell the human mind and the desire for success short. We will, one day, have a full Ogallala underground lake and then some.

Bernabby, Cuyahoga River.

I'm not sure I understand your point?????
I would suggest you google the "river that caught fire" that is what entrepreneurship did for it.

#83 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

Quote

As far as Mr. Pickens plans to corner the water market I think Jackie set the record straight on that accusation. As for my opinion, you should not be quick to condemn based on liberal internet misinformation.


he didn't sell the water for the good of his health,
he sold it back to the local authority because he couldn't sell it on at huge profits to people further away.

Pickens acquired the water rights for an undisclosed price earlier this decade through his Dallas-based Mesa Water with hopes of selling it to thirsty cities elsewhere in the state. He couldn't find a buyer and decided in April to sell to the nearby supplier.

There is a word for that sort of thing - greed.

If he could trap oxygen and sell it at a profit he probably would.

I'm not sure why I'm even talking to you about this, you just seem to see some type of different, alternative world to the one I live in and believe things that I find baffling to say the least....it pisses me off most some of the time but on the other hand you are your own man, which is cool.


#84 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:24 PM

Quote

If I had kids I'd like to be able to leave them a planet that wasn't a suffering ecological meltdown, but too many people just want to keep things the way they are and not change their attitudes. Which means that any kids I might have less of a chance of flourishing...


Jackie, me friend. Has ye found an example of an ecological meltdown yet?

#85 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:31 PM

View PostSimple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I want to unleash the entrepreneurship of business people to continue their drive to make this a better world.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the main drive behind many (most?) business people was to make as much money as possible, or are you suggesting that most business folks care at least as much about altruism as they do about the financial bottom line?

Quote

Water is a stable resource - there will never be less than what there is now.

Fresh, non-polluted water is not a stable resource. In fact, fresh, non-polluted water currently makes up only 0.003% of all the water on Earth, and this figure is reducing all the time due to the increasing effects of agriculture and industry. Here is supposedly "clean, green" New Zealand, we have some of the most polluted rivers in the world, largely due to a massive agricultural shift towards intensive beef farming in recent years. A river I used to love swimming during the school holidays as a kid is now so polluted than I would hesitate to even wade in it, let alone consider putting my head under the water. It literally sticks. And why? Because farmers and the corporations they supply to care more about their profits than they do about their effects on our environment.


Do you know what .003% of 300 million trillion gallons of water is? I don't have a calculator with that many zeroes. A wild guess is that it is equivalent to the size of an ocean. Further, all that water gets recycled. Isn't that another wonder of nature?

#86 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:45 PM

View PostSimple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

My argument is stricttly one of logic. Let's leave religious references out of this discussion because I always get in trouble. Let me give an example. If you work at a job and continually get promotions do you believe you are being a good steward and expect more promotions? Similarly, mankind must be good stewards because there are more people today than yesterday and more tomorrow than today. Converesely, if you were not doing a good job you would be fired. The same could be said if mankind was not a good steward because there would be fewer people every day. It's all logic and nothing to do with morals or religion.

This represents a form of "logic" to which I have previously been unaccustomed, but I think I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

I can get this. It's like saying that because a cancerous growth continues to expand in mass, it must be a good steward of the body it inhabits.

Well, your logic is a good example of supporting my position that if we were bad stewards (the cancerous growth) we would be self-destructing and our population would be declining. You start with the premise of a destructive force that leads to a good conclusion so your example is flawed. A more appropriate example is: as good stewards we destroy the cancer so that it does not spread.

#87 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:46 PM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Quote

If I had kids I'd like to be able to leave them a planet that wasn't a suffering ecological meltdown, but too many people just want to keep things the way they are and not change their attitudes. Which means that any kids I might have less of a chance of flourishing...


Jackie, me friend. Has ye found an example of an ecological meltdown yet?


I did indeed ....I even got you a special Californian one.

The study examined air pollution exposure based on 2005 air quality levels and projected there could be between 130,000 and 360,000 premature deaths among adults in coming years.




#88 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Quote

If I had kids I'd like to be able to leave them a planet that wasn't a suffering ecological meltdown, but too many people just want to keep things the way they are and not change their attitudes. Which means that any kids I might have less of a chance of flourishing...


Jackie, me friend. Has ye found an example of an ecological meltdown yet?


I did indeed ....I even got you a special Californian one.

The study examined air pollution exposure based on 2005 air quality levels and projected there could be between 130,000 and 360,000 premature deaths among adults in coming years.



Come on Jackie, "could be?" That's like saying cooking corned beef and cabbage "could be" the cause for mental illnesses effecting between 130,000 and 360,000 Irishmen in the coming years. Ok, let's agree to the hyperbole in your statement and move on.

#89 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:15 PM

Quote

Come on Jackie, "could be?" That's like saying cooking corned beef and cabbage "could be" the cause for mental illnesses effecting between 130,000 and 360,000 Irishmen in the coming years. Ok, let's agree to the hyperbole in your statement and move on.


it's not my statement....what about this one? It's not a 'could be'....

the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.

what do you make of that?


#90 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:15 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:


I'm not sure why I'm even talking to you about this, you just seem to see some type of different, alternative world to the one I live in and believe things that I find baffling to say the least....it pisses me off most some of the time but on the other hand you are your own man, which is cool.


Might I suggest considering the advice given here under "Causes and treatment", Dave?

#91 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:25 PM

Quote

Might I suggest considering the advice given here under "Causes and treatment", Dave?


advice considered :)
It's hard isn't it?...sometimes when I'm on something like an internet forum I think that I'm just typing into a computer and that it's just me and the computer.
But there are real people on the other side, like you and Bernabby and everyone else here....people from Texax, climate deniers, eco warrriors, capitalist, all sorts who are all perfectly entitled to their beliefs and opinions ....and we're all full of contradictions and willful ignorance....so sorry if I become all yappy , it's probably me dealing with my own sh*t at times and taking it out on the world....

by the way, my opinion of Texas and Texans has mainly been influenced by The Muppets :)

#92 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:57 AM

View PostJackie Chan said:

It's hard isn't it?...sometimes when I'm on something like an internet forum I think that I'm just typing into a computer and that it's just me and the computer.
But there are real people on the other side, like you and Bernabby and everyone else here....people from Texax, climate deniers, eco warrriors, capitalist, all sorts who are all perfectly entitled to their beliefs and opinions ....and we're all full of contradictions and willful ignorance....so sorry if I become all yappy , it's probably me dealing with my own sh*t at times and taking it out on the world....

I don't think you have anything to apologise for, Dave. As far as I've seen, you treat others with respect, even in disagreement.

I can't speak for others, but I have always been aware of the realness of those who I have interacted with online, and I have met some very interesting people with a lot of very interesting ideas and opinions over the years and in a variety of "virtual" contexts. Perhaps one of the more ironic of these involved a woman from Florida I met in an early form of video conferencing back in 2001. This woman had views that, in a great many respects, were very similar to Bernabby's (which, incidentally, are far from the most uninformed I have encountered online). The thing is that, although this woman and I disagreed vehemently about a huge number of issues, and discussed and argued these with quite some passion on both sides, we actually got on quite well as human beings.... as friends.

The real twist in this story came about late one night (my time) when she was repeating that she had no need to question the "news" she heard on Fox, or any Republican politician, because she knew she could trust them implicitly, and I was suggesting that there were dangers in such a degree of unquestioning belief in ANY particular political or religious ideology, because it could far too easily lead to fanaticism and extremism. And it was in that moment that she happened to catch the breaking news on the TV behind her that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Centre.

The rest of the night (it was night for me) was spent attempting to comfort this woman while watching the news unfold on our own TV. The irony of our earlier conversation never occurred to her, of course, and I wasn't about to bring it up.

Yes, there are a great many people in this world who understand little beyond the beliefs and preconceptions with which they were raised and with which they have been indoctrinated by their respective societies ever since. It has always been thus. We don't need to get online to see this; we only need to consider examples amongst our friends and families or local communities. More to the point, we only need to begin to examine and consider our own intransigences, our own preconceptions, our own dogmatic and non-negotiable positions in order to gain a slightly more empathic perspective. ;)

So yeah... as you say... we're all (or most of us) real people online. And we are all full of contradictions and wilful ignorance in our own ways. :)




#93 User is offline   Ian Ferrin Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,666
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:26 AM

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

View PostSimple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

...I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

I can get this. It's like saying that because a cancerous growth continues to expand in mass, it must be a good steward of the body it inhabits.

Well, your logic is a good example of supporting my position that if we were bad stewards (the cancerous growth) we would be self-destructing and our population would be declining.

bernabby - we're talking in multimillenia timescales. Cancers GROW in the early stages. Your argument only holds if we're in the late stages.

Simon's made a pretty darn good illustration. I thought my illustrations were good, but not this good.

View PostSimple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

...I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

He's explicitly stated this is exactly what he believes. He clarified it. And the cancer analogy is good because if human growth and exploitation is a cancer, it would keep growing till resources start diminishing. I think bernabby would even argue we're nowhere near that point yet.

Peace,

Ian
Ian's Soundclick Page

"Hammers don't build houses. People build houses.

A hammer is just a tool. But it's a powerful tool" - me

#94 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:32 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

Come on Jackie, "could be?" That's like saying cooking corned beef and cabbage "could be" the cause for mental illnesses effecting between 130,000 and 360,000 Irishmen in the coming years. Ok, let's agree to the hyperbole in your statement and move on.


it's not my statement....what about this one? It's not a 'could be'....

the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.

what do you make of that?

Comparing traffic fatalities to respiratory illness equals ecological meltdown? Really, come on Jackie you can't be this desperate. What has one to do with the other. If anything, you can make a stronger case for public transportation due to such a high number of traffic fatalities. None of these claims by this Fullerton study footnoted such statistics. These respiratory related deaths, for the most part, were smoking or asthma related and just because they breathed were conveniently tossed into this particulate pollution pot. Just another study where a desired outcome was the objective and the data manipulated to get this outcome. I would have thought you would have cited the Fukushima incident as a possible ecological meltdown. Your desperation to find an ecological meltdown example has crossed into ludicrous.

#95 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:37 PM

Quote

I would have thought you would have cited the Fukushima incident as a possible ecological meltdown. Your desperation to find an ecological meltdown example has crossed into ludicrous.


I saw this photo exhibition a few years ago based on a 'It's a Hard Rain Gonna Fall' by Bob Dylan.....the photos are quite powerful

#96 User is offline   Jackie Chan's Wee Gran Icon

  • A Muse's Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:17 AM

Quote

So yeah... as you say... we're all (or most of us) real people online. And we are all full of contradictions and wilful ignorance in our own ways. :)


I sort of like being called out on stuff or challenged by people online - even if I completely disagree or wonder how people can believe what they believe.

Quote

I don't think the world is overpopulated. There is a lot of wilderness and desert out there. The people who talk about overpopulation are the ones living in cities.


do you or would you live in a desert?


#97 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:11 AM

View PostJim Colyer, on 20 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I don't think the world is overpopulated. There is a lot of wilderness and desert out there. The people who talk about overpopulation are the ones living in cities.
I honestly can't tell whether you're being serious or ironic. Scary! Posted ImagePosted Image

View PostJackie Chan said:

I sort of like being called out on stuff or challenged by people online - even if I completely disagree or wonder how people can believe what they believe.


Me too, Dave. I've learnt a huge amount about a lot of things over the years through being involved in discussing all kinds of topics. It's led me into a great deal of research and consideration than I mightn't otherwise have ever bothered doing, and it's given me an insight into certain cultures and ways of thinking that I might once have simply dismissed or ignored. I also find it interesting to observe my own thinking and feelings in relation to some of the ideas I encounter, and to reflect on my own responses to them. :)

#98 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:43 PM

View PostIan Ferrin, on 18 April 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

View Postbernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

View PostSimple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

...I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

I can get this. It's like saying that because a cancerous growth continues to expand in mass, it must be a good steward of the body it inhabits.

Well, your logic is a good example of supporting my position that if we were bad stewards (the cancerous growth) we would be self-destructing and our population would be declining.

bernabby - we're talking in multimillenia timescales. Cancers GROW in the early stages. Your argument only holds if we're in the late stages.

Quote

I think you miss the point. Cancer destroys that's the bottom line. If you begin the comparison with the premise of a destructive force (man being a bad steward as the cancer) then the bottom line will be fewer people and ultimate armageddon). The reality is that our world keeps growing in population so man must be good stewards.


Simon's made a pretty darn good illustration. I thought my illustrations were good, but not this good.

Quote

Yes, he made a good case for me.


View PostSimple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

...I might be glimpsing what you are trying to say here. You're saying that because the overall mass of humanity is growing, we must be good stewards of this planet.

He's explicitly stated this is exactly what he believes. He clarified it. And the cancer analogy is good because if human growth and exploitation is a cancer, it would keep growing till resources start diminishing. I think bernabby would even argue we're nowhere near that point yet.

Quote

Unfortunately for you and Simon,humans and resources are not diminishing so his cancer analogy makes no sense.

Peace,

Ian


You and Simon feel that man is an untreatable cancer. Using that analogy, I believe that there have been some cancers, Stalin, Bin Laden, Hitler etc that were permanently sent into remission by the good stewardship of man. You folks feel the inanimate global warming will be the cancer of all cancers but man has a history of coming up with the cures.

#99 Guest_bernabby_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:48 PM

View PostJackie Chan said:

Quote

So yeah... as you say... we're all (or most of us) real people online. And we are all full of contradictions and wilful ignorance in our own ways. :)


I sort of like being called out on stuff or challenged by people online - even if I completely disagree or wonder how people can believe what they believe.

Quote

I don't think the world is overpopulated. There is a lot of wilderness and desert out there. The people who talk about overpopulation are the ones living in cities.


do you or would you live in a desert?

I do. Southern California was once a dessert. It has been transformed into an oasis thanks to the ingenuity of man piping water into this arid land.

#100 User is offline   Simple Simon Icon

  • Distant Uncle Muse
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4,334
  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life.

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:55 AM

View Postbernabby, on 21 April 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

I believe that there have been some cancers, Stalin, Bin Laden, Hitler etc that were permanently sent into remission by the good stewardship of man.

Oh my dear Bernabby. I really do wish it was that simple. I think there was a time when I almost thought it was. I'm not honestly not sure that it has done me or anyone else any good coming to understand otherwise.

Que sera, sera.

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users