Author Topic: Episode #700  (Read 25517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5132
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2018, 10:17:44 PM »
As I have said before, the problem is not that there are too many people. The problem is that the globe's resources are unevenly distributed, and there are people in power who have a vested interest in remaining that way. We could easily feed the global population today - no-one needs to starve. With the application of technology we already have, we could sustain a much higher population. The problem is that there is no political will to do this.

Total BS, IMHO.



You're welcome to do your own research.

I have.  I trust the work of eminent biologists and ecologists. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9753
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2018, 10:22:42 PM »
As I have said before, the problem is not that there are too many people. The problem is that the globe's resources are unevenly distributed, and there are people in power who have a vested interest in remaining that way. We could easily feed the global population today - no-one needs to starve. With the application of technology we already have, we could sustain a much higher population. The problem is that there is no political will to do this.

Total BS, IMHO.



You're welcome to do your own research.

I have.  I trust the work of eminent biologists and ecologists.

You're going to show this work, I presume?
Self-described nerd.

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5132
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2018, 03:24:07 AM »
Here are two scientists (and some of their publications) that have helped form my opinion. 

Wilson:

Character displacement". Systematic Zoology. 5 (2): 49–64. 1956. doi:10.2307/2411924. JSTOR 2411924., coauthored with William Brown Jr.; paper honored in 1986 as a Science Citation Classic, i.e., as one of the most frequently cited scientific papers of all time.[65]
The Theory of Island Biogeography, 1967, Princeton University Press (2001 reprint), ISBN 0-691-08836-5, with Robert H. MacArthur
The Insect Societies, 1971, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-45490-1
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 1975, Harvard University Press, (Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition, 2000 ISBN 0-674-00089-7)
On Human Nature, 1979, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01638-6, winner of the 1979 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction.
Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process, 1981, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-34475-8
Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of Mind, 1983, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-71445-8
Biophilia, 1984, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-07441-6
Success and Dominance in Ecosystems: The Case of the Social Insects, 1990, Inter-Research, ISSN 0932-2205
The Ants, 1990, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-04075-9, Winner of the 1991 Pulitzer Prize, with Bert Hölldobler
The Diversity of Life, 1992, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-21298-3, The Diversity of Life: Special Edition, ISBN 0-674-21299-1
The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1993, Shearwater Books, ISBN 1-55963-148-1, with Stephen R. Kellert
Journey to the Ants: A Story of Scientific Exploration, 1994, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-48525-4, with Bert Hölldobler
Naturalist, 1994, Shearwater Books, ISBN 1-55963-288-7
In Search of Nature, 1996, Shearwater Books, ISBN 1-55963-215-1, with Laura Simonds Southworth
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, 1998, Knopf, ISBN 0-679-45077-7
The Future of Life, 2002, Knopf, ISBN 0-679-45078-5
Pheidole in the New World: A Dominant, Hyperdiverse Ant Genus, 2003, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-00293-8
From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books. 2005, W. W. Norton.
The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, September 2006, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-06217-5
Nature Revealed: Selected Writings 1949–2006, ISBN 0-8018-8329-6
The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies, 2009, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-06704-0, with Bert Hölldobler
Anthill: A Novel, April 2010, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-07119-1
Kingdom of Ants: Jose Celestino Mutis and the Dawn of Natural History in the New World, 2010, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, with José María Gómez Durán
The Leafcutter Ants: Civilization by Instinct, 2011, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-33868-3, with Bert Hölldobler
The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York, ISBN 0871403633
Letters to a Young Scientist, 2014, Liveright, ISBN 0871403854
A Window on Eternity: A Biologist's Walk Through Gorongosa National Park, 2014, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 1476747415
The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014, Liveright, ISBN 0871401002
Half-Earth, 2016, Liveright, ISBN 978-1-63149-082-8
The Origins of Creativity, 2017, Liveright, ISBN 978-1-63149-318-8

Lovelock:

Lovelock, James (2014). A Rough Ride to the Future. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0241004760.
Lovelock, James (2009). The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-1-84614-185-0.
Lovelock, James (2006). The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity. Santa Barbara (California): Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9914-4.
Lovelock, James (2005). Gaia: Medicine for an Ailing Planet. Gaia Books. ISBN 1-85675-231-3.
Lovelock, James (2001) [Gaia Books 1991]. Gaia: The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0-19-521674-1.
Lovelock, James (2000) [1979]. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286218-9.
Lovelock, James (2000). Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860429-7. (Lovelock's autobiography)
Lovelock, James (1995) [1988]. Ages of Gaia. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-393-31239-9.
Lovelock, James (1991). Scientists on Gaia. Cambridge, Mass., USA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-19310-8.
Lovelock, James; Michael Allaby (1984). The Greening of Mars. Warner Books. ISBN 0-446-32967-3.
Lovelock, James; Michael Allaby (1983). Great Extinction. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-18011-X.
Lovelock, James; Sidney Epton (6 Feb 1975). "The Quest for Gaia". New Scientist. 65 (935): 304. Retrieved 10 April 2014.

Then there is Leaky, Ehrlich, Flannery and Malthus. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10057
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2018, 10:27:10 AM »
Going vegan would definitely be a way to get off of using animals for meat production. But if we can produce the same product in a significantly more efficient way, that will make it a lot easier to make the switch.

We are unlikely to commercialize affordable synthetic meat in a time frame that would allow re-forestation soon enough to prevent a climate disaster. Note that unless the synthetic meat is widely perceived as indistinguishable from the real thing and costs the same or less than meat from animals, people will not switch.

Further, it will still require energy to produce, so unless we switch our energy production away from fossil fuels, synthetic meat will actually increase carbon production.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5132
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2018, 12:12:23 PM »
Going vegan would definitely be a way to get off of using animals for meat production. But if we can produce the same product in a significantly more efficient way, that will make it a lot easier to make the switch.

We are unlikely to commercialize affordable synthetic meat in a time frame that would allow re-forestation soon enough to prevent a climate disaster. Note that unless the synthetic meat is widely perceived as indistinguishable from the real thing and costs the same or less than meat from animals, people will not switch.

Further, it will still require energy to produce, so unless we switch our energy production away from fossil fuels, synthetic meat will actually increase carbon production.

Well managed pastures for large herbivores are carbon sinks as well as a sustainable source of protein. 

No synthetic protein source will work as well in our human bodies as what humans have (eaten) for two and a half million years.  Reductionist thinking in nutrition is not optimal.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3291
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2018, 03:20:26 PM »
We are unlikely to commercialize affordable synthetic meat in a time frame that would allow re-forestation soon enough to prevent a climate disaster. Note that unless the synthetic meat is widely perceived as indistinguishable from the real thing and costs the same or less than meat from animals, people will not switch.

I agree that it's unlikely. We can't rely on any one solution. The media keeps celebrating how much renewable energy some countries have or install, vehicles keep getting more efficient, etc. But the things we're doing now aren't even keeping up with the increase in consumption, and emissions are higher than they've ever been.

Quote
Further, it will still require energy to produce, so unless we switch our energy production away from fossil fuels, synthetic meat will actually increase carbon production.

It doesn't matter that some of the energy comes from fossil fuels, that's a separate issue. If the total energy needed to produce the meat is less than what it takes to manage all the land to produce the meat in bovine, or if it allows us to use more land for carbon sequestration, then it's an improvement.

But we have to be able to use such advances to reduce land use, instead of to increase our consumption further.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 03:23:17 PM by 2397 »

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9753
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2018, 06:37:44 PM »
Here are two scientists (and some of their publications) that have helped form my opinion.

Thanks, but I was hoping you might, you know, actually make some arguments rather than just pasting a wall of citations that you claim support your premise.
Self-described nerd.

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5132
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2018, 09:28:48 PM »
Here are two scientists (and some of their publications) that have helped form my opinion.

Thanks, but I was hoping you might, you know, actually make some arguments rather than just pasting a wall of citations that you claim support your premise.

Still a citation (below) but estimates are (in Britain) that soil fertility will be exhausted in a few decades.  This is probably a global phenomenon and means that the amount of food from soil will diminish in step with it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/uk-30-40-years-away-eradication-soil-fertility-warns-michael-gove

There ya go... argument one, backed by soil scientists.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9753
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2018, 09:42:52 PM »
Here are two scientists (and some of their publications) that have helped form my opinion.

Thanks, but I was hoping you might, you know, actually make some arguments rather than just pasting a wall of citations that you claim support your premise.

Still a citation (below) but estimates are (in Britain) that soil fertility will be exhausted in a few decades.  This is probably a global phenomenon and means that the amount of food from soil will diminish in step with it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/uk-30-40-years-away-eradication-soil-fertility-warns-michael-gove

There ya go... argument one, backed by soil scientists.

Cool, thanks for that, but that's hardly irreversible. It's a problem that can be completely solved by the application of appropriate technology - technology that we have today, mind you - and changes to farming practices.
Self-described nerd.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2018, 09:20:27 AM »
My wife thinks we should put sterilization chemicals in the water supply and only distribute the antidote to people who pass a basic parenting test.  Of course this is more of a thought experiment since we couldn't actually do any of that, but her point is that people should be sterile until proven responsible enough to have a child.  She works in education and sees some horrendous parents.

I'm turning into a real misanthrope, because this sounds appealing. Besides, such a drug is merely hypothetical currently.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 09:07:15 PM by stands2reason »

Online Billzbub

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4489
  • I know you know I know
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2018, 04:58:54 PM »
My wife thinks we should put sterilization chemicals in the water supply and only distribute the antidote to people who pass a basic parenting test.  Of course this is more of a thought experiment since we couldn't actually do any of that, but her point is that people should be sterile until proven responsible enough to have a child.  She works in education and sees some horrendous parents.
— And who the fvck are you to tell other people how or when to procreate? Power junkies, control freaks, wannabe tyrants, that's who you are. You could blend in perfectly with the communist ruling caste of the Chinese regime.

Well, this is partially accurate.  I think that in real life, my wife's idea would be terrible because there would be way to much possibility that the controllers of the antidote would abuse the power and become actual tyrants as you say.  This sentiment is more of an expression of disgust that terrible people with no parenting skills can have multiple children that they neglect and abuse.  It would be great if there was some way to prevent people from getting pregnant unless they want children and will take basic care of them.  Ideally, nobody would be telling anyone when to procreate.  They would just be telling them that to procreate, they should want kids and put in a tiny bit of effort in learning how to care for them once they have them.  Anyone would be free to do so regardless of any factors other than desire to have kids and knowledge to take care of them.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10057
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2018, 07:08:16 PM »
The human race is a cancer. It’s not that people are bad or evil (with notable individual exceptions). It’s just that we reproduce out of control, which is the definition of cancer. My solution would be to sterilize everybody and allow the world return to the Eden it was before we came along.

The worst possible outcome would be if we metastasized to other worlds and stars. Fortunately I don’t believe that this is a technological possibility, no matter what the Star Trek fans say.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9753
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2018, 07:17:16 PM »
Self-described nerd.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13344
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2018, 07:17:47 PM »
The human race is a cancer. It’s not that people are bad or evil (with notable individual exceptions). It’s just that we reproduce out of control, which is the definition of cancer. My solution would be to sterilize everybody and allow the world return to the Eden it was before we came along.

The worst possible outcome would be if we metastasized to other worlds and stars. Fortunately I don’t believe that this is a technological possibility, no matter what the Star Trek fans say.

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

--Max Ehrmann
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2018, 07:55:48 PM »
The human race is a cancer. It’s not that people are bad or evil (with notable individual exceptions). It’s just that we reproduce out of control, which is the definition of cancer. My solution would be to sterilize everybody and allow the world return to the Eden it was before we came along.

The worst possible outcome would be if we metastasized to other worlds and stars. Fortunately I don’t believe that this is a technological possibility, no matter what the Star Trek fans say.

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

--Max Ehrmann

The next sentence reads ‘Therefore be at peace with God.’  There’s no God, so the poem’s nonsense.  Like the trees and the stars we also can go extinct too.  There are no rights in the universe.  It’s indifferent.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück