Comment

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on November 12, 2012 at 11:38am

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 14, 2012 at 1:03am

"Climate Instability: Who's in Control and Why Does it Matter?"

"Harvard Thinks Green 2"

 

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 13, 2012 at 3:14pm

What Climate Change Just Might Ruin

Thanks to Ruth Anthony-Gardner

"According to a 2011 U.S. Interior Department report, "annual flows in three prominent river basins - the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin - could decline by as much [as] 8 percent to 14 percent over the next four decades," reported the Associated Press. Expected changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to alter river flows 'with increased flooding possible in the winter due to early snowmelt and water shortages in the summer due to reductions in spring and summer runoffs.' 

"Mike Connor, commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, said, "Impacts to water are on the leading edge of global climate change." 

"Earlier this year, the Bureau of Reclamationasked the public to suggest ideas for meeting future water demand around the Colorado River basin."

Comment by TNT666 on October 12, 2012 at 12:39am

As our technology increases, so goes our "carrying capacity", which is why the word sustainable is no longer useful... carrying capacity is entirely dependent on economics and technology. It's why so many people are going vegetarian... the argument being... we'll need to feed more people so we need to become vegetarian! (along with a few other arguments of course). Spaniards are building vertical gardens, also increasing the Iberian peninsula's "carrying capacity". It is a value which is impossible to pinpoint. I come back to the number of humans must be in proportion to the numbers of large animals... any other standard is movable, flexible, cheatable.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 11, 2012 at 11:42pm

TNT666, when I use the word "sustainable" I mean human beings living within the carrying capacity of our planet. No particular economic theory implied.
I do agree with your sentiment that thinking breeding is a "right" is as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves".

Comment by TNT666 on October 11, 2012 at 11:11pm

IMO the rational biological approach is best. Discounting large animal populations past their tipping point such as lions/tigers/rhinos/polar bears who's numbers are too small, we can still look at other large animal populations, certain whales, moose, deer. Looking at those other lifeforms populations truly puts our own ridiculous population into perspective.

1-Our governments/corporations subside population growth through baby programs and marriage incentives. Eliminating those two would put a good starting dent.

2-The next hurdle is harder to overcome: getting away from religious morals, which look onto breeding as the morally righteous thing to do. Most atheists on these sites are recent deconverts and still pursue religious values, even though they don't believe in gods. If convincing atheists of this is a challenge, it's 10-fold harder going after faithers.
3- items 1 and 2 can only I reckon accomplish less than 30% of the breeding changes the planet needs. Whence enough people understand that us outnumbering all other large animals is ridiculous, then we need to enshrine it into culture, to make breeding extremely unpopular, and to have the sense that breeding is a "right" is simply ridiculous, as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves. Once the "morality" of breeding has reached a tipping point, then we can legislate that away completely, and ensure that healthcare providers are freely doling out sterilisation, and encouraging it at all age groups. I wish for a day when only a very small percentage of the population partake of breeding, hopefully under some sort of lottery system that would ensure an reasonable level of fairness.

Comment by Chris G on October 11, 2012 at 10:17pm

Ning's AN kills me. It's sooooo slowwww! I would probably have to wait about an hour before the editor boxes appear.

I understand your point about "sustainability" being hijacked by economists. Anthropologists should decide which groups have fewer children for immigration policy that reduces population.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 9:49pm

@ TNT666 the word "sustainable" IS an incorrect word for what we need to do. You wrote "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology."

What would state that which we need? Living in balance with nature, perhaps? Or human numbers in balance with other large mammals on the planet? 

Now we get into the question, how do we decide the proper numbers of humans the Earth will support, and how do get populations down to that number? Pandemic? Wars? Enforced sterilization? 
We are kind of like rats, are we not? And just as voracious. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 9:41pm

TNT666, thanks for alerting me that I had posted the same material twice. Correction made. 

Comment by TNT666 on October 11, 2012 at 7:17pm

Chris, in the past couple of decades, the word "sustainable" has come to mean very little. It's not a biological concept but an economic one, it is usually loaded growth dogma bias. My opinion goes with the rest of true environmentalists on this one, "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology. It is for this reason I hope that environmentalists everywhere can work on a number which depends not on sustainability but which places all the emphasis on the population sizes of other large mammals on the planet, a strictly biological perspective. This is what I bring to the table when I meet with other environmentalists locally... but there's still a lot of anthropocentrism (sorry for the "morphism" misspell in my previous comment :) in the environmental movement, it's the largest challenge I find out in the field.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 49
• Next ›
• Page