The Circle of Life (Environmentalists)

[the egg]

Have you guys ever heard of the water-diamond paradox? It is a true paradox describing how man is willing to pay thousands of dollars on diamonds, which gain him nothing towards his survival, but takes water for granted, when it is his principal source for survival.

Man is in a damned state. In the past century, man has sent 200 million years worth of pollutants into the atmosphere. He consumes now (in America, Canada) 150 gallons of water per person (including municipal use) when he requires only 13 gallons to survive each day. Based on his way of life, man is responsible for the rate of destruction of biodiversity, a rate that exceeds the rate of destruction due to the last ice age. Man's population has exploded to a few BILLION people past his carrying capacity, meaning the Earth is only meant to sustain 4-5 billion LESS people. I believe I have clarified my point sufficiently.

If we should continue taking more from nature than can be replaced, then it's inevitable. We WILL run out of water and resources, such that 10 billion people cannot survive simultaneously! If you look at the populations of other species, none have been able to live this excessively past their carrying capacity, let alone living past it by a margin of a few BILLION. Our population is damning itself! When we're out of water, it will take several decades to replenish sufficiently so we can survive. 10 billion people cannot survive that long. Our human population WILL take a crash.

By reducing our use of resources and our rate of growth, we can either delay this or reduce the catastrophe that is to come. However, I stress it is inevitable. The Earth cannot sustain a population which is so far beyond the carrying capacity. Climatologists are already predicted a drought that is to come, one that will severely tax our population.

I seriously hope, for the sake of myself, of my children, your children, and for our species...I hope that we can get through what is to come. Our society will have to change. While we have lived very comfortably in some parts of the world for a century, it comes with a taxing price. We have not seen this yet, though some people did see a fraction of it during the Dust Bowl Drought in the 1930s.

Whether we do it ourselves or a coming natural disaster forces us to break our lifestyle in desperation, we have got to realize that mankind shares a place with all of the other species on this planet. If we cannot recognize ourselves as part of nature then we will not survive, and by "we" I mean mankind.

I know many of you will not take this post seriously, but I press you to understand that we are living beyond our possibilities. I hope some of you will take charge and do your part to reduce our progress towards this catastrophe. It is unfortunate that man is so resistant to change, as this will require a change of immense proportion.

[Timminz]

We're too successful, as a species. Our population will eventually collapse in on itself, just as any overpopulated species' does.

[the egg]

We're too successful, as a species. Our population will eventually collapse in on itself, just as any overpopulated species' does.

That's pretty much the best summary of my post that you could have made. I can't figure a way that we can possibly avoid or reduce the impact of the coming catastrophe.What I know we CAN do...It is more important to survive our crash. But we will be unable to do that if we continue build the catastrophe by damaging the global ecosystems beyond timely recovery.

[Japs]

Would could nuke most the other countries in the world thus reducing the surplus population. If you dont wana go that far cut the welfare programs, take away food stamps, raise taxes, and reduce the civil services.

[KoolBak]

Your inductive logic is astounding.

And your fears are why I am very well armed; I plan on being a "have" in your worst case scenario.

*THAT should prompt some nasty replies ;o)

[kagetora]

Would could nuke most the other countries in the world thus reducing the surplus population.

And cause nuclear winter, possibly destroy the ozone layer, not to mention extincting more than 90% of species alive today.

[the egg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA

[muy_thaiguy]

Would could nuke most the other countries in the world thus reducing the surplus population.

And cause nuclear winter, possibly destroy the ozone layer, not to mention extincting more than 90% of species alive today.

Like it would be the first mass extinction.

Solution to everything above; blow China up.

[FabledIntegral]

Since when are diamonds useless? They are quite a useful substance from what I'm aware and very valuable for their durability as well as beauty. Are you going to argue that art and music are useless as well? Or are you referring to what is needed for survival as a function rather than an enjoyable lifestyle? Then we could eliminate god knows how many things.

Water is "taken for granted," only in areas where it's plentiful. Dumb "paradox" if you ask me.

[Japs]

Would could nuke most the other countries in the world thus reducing the surplus population.

And cause nuclear winter, possibly destroy the ozone layer, not to mention extincting more than 90% of species alive today.

Hey I never said it would look pretty and nuclear winter wouldnt happen outright

[the egg]

Since when are diamonds useless? They are quite a useful substance from what I'm aware and very valuable for their durability as well as beauty. Are you going to argue that art and music are useless as well? Or are you referring to what is needed for survival as a function rather than an enjoyable lifestyle? Then we could eliminate god knows how many things.

Water is "taken for granted," only in areas where it's plentiful. Dumb "paradox" if you ask me.

In terms of our survival, diamonds are useless. We don't need them. Yet we treat them with such care and preciousness. Water on the other hand we take for granted.

Very interesting...I like the poll. 70% so far say we should continue on our present path and let nature run its course. Very interesting!

[kagetora]

Would could nuke most the other countries in the world thus reducing the surplus population.

And cause nuclear winter, possibly destroy the ozone layer, not to mention extincting more than 90% of species alive today.

Like it would be the first mass extinction.

Solution to everything above; blow China up.

But unlike the previous mass extinctions, this would have the possibility to destroy literally all life on earth.

That could screw over the economy, causing world-wide anarchy.

[Neoteny]

A slight exaggeration, but still a serious point. Particularly when a large portion of the life is sentient, and "innocent," so to speak.

[Frigidus]

That could screw over the economy, causing world-wide anarchy.

I fell off my bed laughing at this. Very nice.

[Pedronicus]

1 child per couple is the only answer

[MeDeFe]

1 child per couple is the only answer

Can we eat the excess babies?

[Neoteny]

Well, what else would we do with them?

You can only make so many couches and lamps.

[spurgistan]

Since when are diamonds useless? They are quite a useful substance from what I'm aware and very valuable for their durability as well as beauty. Are you going to argue that art and music are useless as well? Or are you referring to what is needed for survival as a function rather than an enjoyable lifestyle? Then we could eliminate god knows how many things.

Water is "taken for granted," only in areas where it's plentiful. Dumb "paradox" if you ask me.

Diamonds get much of their value from the deft marketing of the De Beers Corporation, but that's another story. We should probably live better.

[jbrettlip]

Bird Flu will "save" us by knocking out 20-30% of the Far East's population and THAT will stop the surplus of people. (Plus it will hit worldwide to a lesser extent.) No pollution, just dead people.

[spurgistan]

This thread-fail was caused by people assuming that the resource depletion dilemma stems from too many people, not that a certain subset of people (hi, basically everybody here) uses them too damn much. Hell, you can get rid of 30 million Botswanans, but you'll only lower energy demands / pollution so much. And be a psychopath.

[jbrettlip]

Well less food to feed 30 mill equals more fish in the ocean, less fuel burned transporting food, less land needed to grow food, less materials for buildings etc. Yes, it would be better if 30 mill Americans, Europeans, Chinese or Indians dissapeared, but 30 mill is still 30 mill.

[HapSmo19]

Bird Flu will "save" us by knocking out 20-30% of the Far East's population and THAT will stop the surplus of people. (Plus it will hit worldwide to a lesser extent.) No pollution, just dead people.

Does the technology exists to render them down into a clean-burning fuel source?
Let's save the planet with "Pressed-Ho Logs".

[PLAYER57832]

Water Paradox, Tragedy of the Commons, Silent Spring ... and even a few actualy scientific papers. Yep, been there, done that.

The problem is that so much of what is put out there as "environmental" is really plain hype, if not actually ANTI real environmentalism.

Let's look at timber as a prime example. First, yes, we have been cutting at a completely unsustainable rate since WWII. It makes NO sense at all to use pulp to make paper. Waste and scrap wood, yes, but to grind up prime logs (as WAS done throughout the 80's, 90's and even some into this century). There are other resources that have far, far shorter turnover rates, with far less environmental impact (hemp really is one). That said, we cannot simply replace our timber uses. Using wood for houses, for furniture ...even for many chemicals IS not only practical, it is (or can be) fully environmentally sound. Further, folks who argue "buy only dead timber" show that they simply don't understand how forest work. If you are gathering firewood for a small fire or some craft projects, etc.. sure, taking downed wood IS better (& safer) than cutting down a whole tree. BUT, for wildlife... downed and dead wood are often MORE of a benefit than green, standing timber. It depends on species, other factors ... I am NOT saying green trees are not required, just that taking dead trees is not the answer. The REAL answer is sustainable harvest done in an ecological fashion. That is, you leave reasonable buffers along streams, cliffs etc. You refrain from cutting where soils are highly unstable (too steep, for example) OR where soils are of very poor quality (so that it is unlikely to grow a new forest readily) AND you use caution in other areas. In some places, you cut in the winter, when snow will buffer the effects of logging equipment, etc and stay out of the woods in the spring when soils are saturated and that same piece of equipment will leave deep gauges in the soil. In some places, you refrain in the summer, because fire danger is high and soils are too dry and crumbly in places. ETC. In other words, you need science, intelligence, observation and planning. You cannot simply sit in a board room and say "I want x board feet out so we can make our stocks hit Y".

Similarly, there is the whole "I am an environmentalist, so I gotta be a vegetarien and not use fur". There are a lot of reasons for going vegetarien. AND, most people DO eat far too much meat. That said, many ignore the reasons humans came to eat meat like beef and sheep and goat initially. The plain fact is that they can eat grasses and similar materials that we humans cannot process. You put out cattle, bring them back and poof you have high protein source to supply your family and neighbors. As long as the animals are not too many for the land, as long as disease and such are kept under control, and, they don't wind up pushing out native wild animals, this is an intelligent, good system. Of course, we "break" it by over grazing, stuffing cattle into feed lots and feeding them not grass, but grain, other animal by-products (though no longer that in the US), and even things like cement (true!).

I find few things more ironic than the "local yuppie environmentalist" (of whom I know more than a few.. though not currently my neighbors) goes out in their Patagonia sweater, buys a chunk of land near the wilderness and then proceeds to build their house .. eco friendly, perhaps, but .. not as "ecofriendly" as simply leaving the land along. Then, more often than not, they turn around and start complaining about the smells and such of the nearby farms....

Bottom line is that living on earth is not free. We can reduce our impact, but "no impact" is an illusion. There ARE many things that we can do to cooexist better with the world around us, for OUR benefit, not "just" some nice animals. The animals are just indicators. The problems are for US.

I have used timber as an example because I know it well, but the same thing applies to just about any natural resource entity.

Then you have mining. Mining means you are taking something that we cannot readily replace. It may be taking a natural resource like fish or timber in a completely unsustainable manner or it may be taking minerals out of the ground. If we cannot readily replace it ... its mining. In many cases, mining might make sense. Old growth timber, for example is just plain not replaceable. Early on, that's all there was. You cut, you cut virgin timber. Nothing wrong with that per se. In fact, it wasn't until early in this century that we even got wise to the idea that trees could be regrown (thanks largely to one Gifford Pinchot). Anyway, but now we have reached a point where there really isn't much old growth timber left. So, now its best to leave most of what little is left (still a few places to log, but not many) as a kind of natural museum or biological reserve/storehouse. (to quote Aldo Leopold, the first rule of tinkering is to keep all the parts).

Anyway, minerals certainly have to be mined. BUT, when you mine, you need to make sure you don't cause more damage than you get in benefit from those minerals. That means that YOU and not someone else, needs to be responsible for the damage you cause ... be it because you are running trucks at 70 MPH next to someone's formerly peaceful house (along with all the dust and debris), are polluting someone else's drinking supply or simply causing someone else's house to cave in. The person mining needs to be held accountable for PREVENTING and then FIXING any damage. Except, in this country ... that is just not happening.

So, to sum up, if there are 3 peridiums, it is think about the whole picture, not just the sound bytes. Use things in a way that can be sustained whenever possible and use caution when they are not (mining). Third clean up your own messes!

Anyway, that's my take on this whole paradox.

[jbrettlip]

Player, have you read Collapse-why some civilizations survive (I think is the full title.)? I am not at home, but think the author's first name is Jared. I will edit this Friday with the author name. Anyway, this is EXACTLY what the whole book is about. You might enjoy it, and it also talks about some of the new mining and forestry techniques that are evolving througout the world and the US.

[spurgistan]

Jared Diamond. I read Guns, Germs and Steel, kinda the same thing, only it talks about why certain civilizations flourished and others didn't.