Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

Information

Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

Eco-Logical is a group for anyone who cares about clean air, drinkable water, a sustainable economy, and environmental justice.

Location: The Irreplaceable Earth
Members: 334
Latest Activity: Oct 2

Welcome to Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

 

Note: Sylvain Duford, the group's creator, has left A|N. I am acting as moderator of the group in his place. Please contact me if you have any questions. - Dallas the Phallus.

Discussion Forum

Frack under the Ohio River

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Randall Smith Oct 2. 2 Replies

Methane, more scary than we thought

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Oct 1. 31 Replies

Carbon Hot Spots

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 29. 0 Replies

Rethinking the economics of CO2 emissions

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 19. 0 Replies

Canada's Northwest Territories burning six times more forest than usual

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 4. 2 Replies

Climate variability snuffing out

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Sep 1. 0 Replies

Global surface cooling caused by Atlantic warming

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 25. 1 Reply

Antarctica melting twice as fast

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 23. 3 Replies

Methane Bomb

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 21. 1 Reply

Abnormal Arctic

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 17. 6 Replies

Antarctic process melts Arctic

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jul 31. 1 Reply

Mass Extinction of Ocean Species soon to be Inevitable

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 26. 12 Replies

signs of climate tipping points

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 23. 25 Replies

Scorched Earth Coming

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 11. 6 Replies

How to save our future

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 9. 2 Replies

Good news

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jul 7. 27 Replies

Systemic Pesticides Underestimated

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 2. 1 Reply

Countries at most risk from Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jun 22. 22 Replies

Sour oceans = more toxic phytoplankton

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jun 19. 0 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists to add comments!

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

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

 

Members (333)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service