The Glade 4.0

This, by the way, is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.

Here we have a scenario with far higher CO2 levels than we will meet for the next thousand years, and a resultant change in temperature that's four times greater than what they expect us to see in the next century as a "worst case scenario."

And the results? "Lush forests covered the tundra."

The vast majorty of Earth's land is in the north, from Northern Canada to Siberia. Right now our viable farmland is in comparatively tiny areas, and much of it is NOT viable through the winter.

40 meter sea levels rising? Yeah, actually, that would suck, if it happened quickly. But the overall effect painted in this link is NOT negative. It's not a doomsday scenario. It's not even necessarily bad. In several ways, it's even good. It is, however, different. It's change. And yet this is with a scenario far worse than the most alarmist scientists are predicting.

Everything changes. We need to stop assuming that change, no matter the cause, is automatically something we need to be careful to avoid.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

"Screw the Grandkids, I'm cold now"? (Drew Carey)

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This is not true. United States agricultural technology can grow crops in Siberia. As a matter of fact, United States food production techniques could feed the entire world from Siberia.

Also, the most fertile land on the planet is currently being farmed with pointed sticks thanks to progressive liberal politics. Next time you see a liberal, ask them why they hate starving children in Africa.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this one. "Government regulation" has existed since civilization began.

If you don't tell people they can't hunt whales, soon there will be no whales. As long as it's still profitable to hunt them when they're at their extinction threshold, they're going extinct. Who is going to stop it? If you don't hunt them now, someone else will.

Xequecal:

Civilization precedes government. I'm not sure who or what is responsible for the appalling causal faults in your understanding of political economy, social structures, and societal origination, but civilization precedes government. That said, human beings are animals. Your politics and world view seem wildly divorced from this fact: human beings are animals. We are a part of Nature. Our species and our civilizations and our societies and our communities and our families and our herds and our tribes and our clans and our groups exist to improve the specie's chances of survival. Contrary to all the philosophical, new age, bullshit social politics, human beings are still fundamentally driven by unconscious, hardwired biological imperatives.

Have we made certain animals extinct? Yes. Have we accelerated extinction rates in a global sense? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because liberals also have a woefully insufficient understanding of how much we don't know; haven't known; and won't ever know. But we need regulations from uninformed nitwits whose entire occupation is convincing other uninformed nitwits they are more competent running some larger group of uniformed nitwits' lives to prevent us from what? Killing animals? The laws of unintended consequences?

Of course, the greatest irony of all this: if your politics were right, humanity would have already extinguished itself.

_________________

your willful denial of man's impact on the environment is obvious Khross. This is, as you put it, "Ostrich-type Luddism" and seems motivated by your own greed and refusal to accept guilt for any part you may play. Are you perhaps a heavy investor in chemical companies, Oil drilling, etc?

TheRiov:

You really need to get off this pop-psychology kick of yours, particularly when you start with an observably false statement. I don't willfully deny man's impact on anything; I deny the veracity of certain claims about man's impact, as the empirical evidence disproves your politically driven environment agenda. If you were interested in science and real information, you'd understand that stating our vast ignorance as a species is pointing out our vast ignorance as a species. You presume to knowledge that humanity does not possess; in fact, that presumption is the entire problem with the HIGCC debate. It's based on a presumption of correctness, not any actual understanding of the facts or information available.

But, that said, you will need to show me a willful denial, as opposed to a reasoned understanding of humanity's limits relative to these issues right now.

And, you'll need to show me why humanity hasn't gone extinct or destroyed all life on the planet, yet. As I said, our continued existence disproves the environmental politics agenda.

As for my investments, I love how you're trying to figure out my motivation; apparently the truth isn't a motivation in your world, and neither is a reasoned understanding of your own limits or that of your species. But this all ties in to the problem with the debate in general: you're presuming knowledge because you don't like the readily apparent facts.

_________________

That's poor logic, and has nothing to do with what he said. Khross is quite accurately pointing out that the people writing "green" laws have no understanding of the science behind any of this, and are writing knee jerk idiocy with consequences they can't even begin to understand.

Everything impacts the environment. Everything. A wind-farm impacts the environment. A house impacts the environment. Plants impact the environment. Animals impact the environment.

People have this misconception that there's a separation there... there's "The Environment," and there is "Human activity." We are part of the environment. We are going to change the environment, even by existing. It's certainly worth considering whether we are changing the environment in ways that will negatively effect our future survivability, yes. But the fact that we are changing the environment in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's an unavoidable fact of existence.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

None of this addresses what I said at all. A law banning the hunting of whales (or any other species) might be stupid or uninformed, this is true. However, in the absence of such laws, as long as it's profitable to kill a species past its extinction threshold, that species is done for. I'm sure you know about the concept of the tragedy of the commons, how do you suggest we avoid this problem without regulations?

How can you make a profit without a product? Businesses, by and large, are not in the practice of intentionally putting themselves out of work.

_________________

Because if you don't kill it for a profit now, someone else will. Not everyone cares about the long term, and once you're close to the point of no return, it only takes one.

Bullshit. And Whales are a perfect example as fishermen have notoriously over-fished areas to the point where if it were not for government intervention there would have been no fish left. A current example is the over-fishing of fresh water eel used in Sushi.

Businesses are remarkably short sighted and constantly make decisions based on the immediate fire of today without regard to the long term consequences.

Yes, the "market" may correct itself over time, but NOT until there is a huge amount of damage done much of which is irreversible.

Aizle and Xequecal:

So far we have the myth of 19th century whaling, while ignoring what happened to obviate the near universal need for whale blubber as society progressed. Of course, we're also ignoring what created said near universal need for whale blubber. More importantly, we don't have enough knowledge or understanding to point to any catastrophic, long term environmental effects. And, fortunately, this isn't San Diego in the 23rd century. You're presuming knowledge our species doesn't have, because it makes you feel good to advocate a policy position. That said, businesses do not make a habit of destroying their resource base. Businesses are entitles that like to perpetuate themselves as much as human beings. But this goes back to my original question ...

Humanity's extinction would have already happened if you were correct. We've had the ability to wipe out all life on this planet for almost a century now. It's still here. Likewise, let's get into the quantitative side of this debate: how much is a huge amount of damage? Why is it irreversible? What is irreversible? Why is the environment status quo so significant that you're willing to suggest that the outcomes of a natural entity living in its natural environment is morally, legally, and consequentially wrong?

Asking people to think rationally about the environment means giving up your political agenda on the subject; it also means getting past myths perpetuated by your government.

As for unagi, that situation is one almost entirely of the environmental lobby's creation; so, forgive me when I say I will be glad I never have to eat another piece of candied eel once they are extinct.

_________________

I've long said: Al Gore hates Black Africans.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Corporations will charge over a cliff happily if it boosts their current quarterly statement.

As far as whaling, honestly, I think cetaceans should be protected as sentient beings. It's not a matter of them being endangered, I'm fine with a law that recognizes their rights much like we recognize humans. Humans should leave them alone.

http://www.cetaceanrights.org/

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Will we follow that with protecting all other sentient species? That's a long list.

May as well join PETA.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There are only a few that pass the self-awareness list, fewer still that demonstrate an obvious intelligence level that rivals the average 5 year old human. (Bottlenose Dolphins, Orcas --and probably other cetaceans too,-- elephants, great apes.) It's not a big list.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Ravens.

_________________

Surprisingly, they don't pass self-awareness tests. However, their close relatives the "European Magpie" does, and is the only non-mammal to do so.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Mmm, no. You're probably thinking of sapience.

Sentience is basically just feeling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Of note:




They're used interchangeably by most sci-fi authors, and incorrectly.


Sentience could basically describe every mammal.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Huh. Thank Buddhism's "Sentient Beings" for that, I guess.

Sapient then. Self-aware, and intelligent.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But... sapience is delicious...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What myth? The moratorium on whaling was implemented in 1986, stocks were still being depleted nearly a century after whales were no longer needed for whale oil, blubber, and ambergris. Simply hunting them for food was still profitable, so people went and did it.

You're absolutely right that most businesses don't make a habit of destroying their resource base. The problem is it only takes ONE business that doesn't care to destroy the base. Someone's going to get in on it for a quick buck. This is especially inevitable when you consider the fact that people can set up a corporation to shield themselves from any liability for their actions, as well as providing anonymity. (People don't like that you killed off a species and aren't buying from you? Shut it down, change the name, repeat with the next species.)

I'm also not sure how you're convinced that this requires all life to go extinct. Killing other people isn't necessarily profitable, other people tend to organize and defend themselves, unlike animals.

Also, I'm not making any value judgments on whether or not species going extinct is "good" or "bad." I'm just pointing out that it's going to happen on a huge scale if nobody steps in and says you're not allowed to kill them.

Xequecal:

On the issue of whales, I imagine you haven't read any of the thousands of journal articles on the subject of fishing, hunting, whaling, and the fact that other factors play a massive role in cetacean decline in our oceans. Over hunting of cetaceans is quite possibly the least of our worries. And some cetacean extinctions may well have been unavoidable with or without whaling. Human beings are animals; we are part of the environment and the natural order of things. And we are absolutely incapable of total understanding of the systems in place which govern the environment. More to the point, tell me again why is the environmental status quo so important to you?

And people still hunt them for food, because whales are massive amounts of food and resources. They're also pretty renewable until landlocked parties start importing things they wouldn't generally need or use. If you want real environmental change and protection, oppose globalism and international mass markets. If you want a health natural symbiosis between human and planet, you must abandon your politics and let the biological imperatives take over.

Of course, the real truth is, human beings are simultaneously the most intelligent species on the planet and the least. Unlike most species, we don't self-regulate and thus cannot achieve environmental homeostasis and ecological harmony with our surroundings. We're too busy trying to prevent people we don't like from doing things we don't understand.

_________________

Species do not achieve homeostasis by themselves. Ecosystems balance themselves out with time but only through adaptation. This is a slow process. The problem is that cultural and technological evolution and adaptation occurs on a time scale which biological evolution and adaptation cannot compete with.