November 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm #5652
You’re starting to sound like Jared bloody Diamond!November 13, 2012 at 4:35 pm #5655November 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm #5663
🙂November 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm #5672
Annie : Yeah, and you’re doing your damndest to assist them!
Have another look at what you’ve just written!
You’re just trying to be provocative. I know what I write, I don’t need to read it again. It’s not opinion or propaganda if it is empirical science, that is, stuff that can actually be measured by anybody, regardless of their political views or prejudices.
Species are becoming extinct because their habitat is being destroyed by humans, who want more of the Earth’s surface and resources for themselves. That’s not controversial or an opinion, anybody can check it out.
The whole biosphere, which we ALL depend upon, is the sum of all the ecosystems. The forests, the coral reefs, the rivers, the mountain ranges, the whole lot, is what makes for a viable biosphere. We’ve already wrecked most of it. We are wrecking the remainder as fast as we can.
That means, the biosphere collapses. No forests and no phytoplankton, means no oxygen. That means THE END.
I know you don’t like that, who does ? but no amount of eco-socialism or any other -ism, can reverse that. The deed is already done. The ocean will continue to acidify, temperatures will continue to rise, for decades, even if we stopped all emissions now. Nobody is doing anything effective to stop emissions. They are rising.
We’d need to end industrial civilisation now, and nobody is even contemplating that, except a fringe of Deep Greens who don’t have the power to do it. If we end industrial civilisation now, a hell of a lot of people die. So, it’s not a politically viable option. Even more significant, a hell of a lot of people lose all their investments in the oil, gas, coal, transport, manufacturing, agriculture, etc, etc, industries. That’s also not politically possible, is it.
So, we muddle along for a few years until a hell of a lot more people die, and a few years after that, there’s nobody left, because global warming takes us way up into areas where most of the planet is uninhabitable.
You want to change that outcome ? Nobody knows how to do it, and most don’t even WANT to do anything…
It’s no good you ranting at me about the System, unless you can explain how it can be changed in any effective way. That is, a way that preserves the biosphere. Which you can’t, can you.November 13, 2012 at 9:40 pm #5673
Nope, I don’t know how to stop it. But like Rose of Sharon, I won’t be turning my back and walking away either… it’s the humane thing to do.
And it’s no good ranting at me about it being anthropocentric, innate greed that caused it either.November 14, 2012 at 1:18 am #5675
I have never suggested that you, or anyone, should turn your back.
And I wasn’t invoking Jared Diamond or sociobiology or evolutionary psychology either.
I was simple saying that all living things need a place to be.
Not just to accommodate their own physical presence, but additionally, to provide for whatever their needs are.
This is so simple and blindingly obvious, perhaps that’s why you don’t get it, and argue about it.
I mean, how many humans can you fit into YOUR house ? 5, 50, 500 ?
and if you were feeding yourself, from hunting and gathering, or from permaculture, how much land area would you need for growing stuff to feed your family ?
As it is, you buy stuff from shops which has been produced from land stolen from other people, and other creatures, overseas. So they are denied life so that you can have your needs met.
That’s what I’m talking about. Simple, basic space, for shelter, food, water, etc.
The same applies to all the other living things, from tigers and elephants down to mice and moles.
If there isn’t a place for them to exist, they vanish. And that’s what humans have done. Taken away the environments, the ecosystems, from almost everything else.November 14, 2012 at 11:56 am #5677
The problem, ulvfugl, is that I’m not looking at it from a micro, individual level. I’m looking at it from a macro, social level. That’s what I mean by not walking away. And as you keep banging on about it being too late, the sooner we get campaigning for a system change, the better. That way, more social cooperation means more social support for EVERYONE – particularly the people from the third world whose carbon footprint is minuscule compared to yours.November 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm #5678
“No matter how small your garden, always ensure you leave at least three to four acres for trees”.
Mrs Beeton, “Book of Household Management”.November 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm #5679
Anti-austerity strikes and protests across Europe – live
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/14/eurozone-crisis-general-strikes-protest-day-of-actionNovember 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm #5680
The problem, ulvfugl, is that I’m not looking at it from a micro, individual level. I’m looking at it from a macro, social level. That’s what I mean by not walking away. And as you keep banging on about it being too late, the sooner we get campaigning for a system change, the better. That way, more social cooperation means more social support for EVERYONE – particularly the people from the third world whose carbon footprint is minuscule compared to yours.
Yes, well, the problem of people looking at stuff from different perspectives arises all the time.
The criticisms I’ve read that you pointed to, re Diamond, E.O.Wilson, etc, are very much part of that problem.
Anthropologists look at peoples and their cultures, which is a completely different perspective to biologists, seeing humans as just another animal species, and trying to understand human behaviour in the same sort of ways that they understand animal behaviour.
You think that some sort of social reform will solve the problems. I’m not against social reform.
But IMO, that’s a very limited and narrow and anthropocentric view.
If you stand back and look at the Earth as a whole, as a system, with its 4,500 million year history, and as the biosphere as a living entity, then you see that it is only the biosphere that permits us, as biological creatures, to exist at all.
We can’t kill off the biosphere completely, and make Earth like Mars or the Moon, because there’ll always be life forms, like bacteria, which are so tough they can survive anything, and they will, eventually, evolve again. But we can kill off most other larger life forms, and that is what we are doing. I doubt that we will kill off all if the larger life forms. Probably jelly fish, cockroaches, even rats, will survive, and in few million years the planet will be as densely populated with organisms as it was when we found it.
But we will have caused our own extinction.
Its the biosphere, or Gaia if you prefer, that actually matters. Not humans. Humans only matter to themselves. Without the biosphere, they’d never have happened. It is/was their mother, so to speak.
We’ve wrecked it. We can’t fix it. It’ll do whatever it will do, but without us.
No amount of idealistic utopian social reform can change this. The human population has over-shot the carrying capacity. Only a huge drop in numbers could change it, and humans don’t welcome that, on a voluntary basis. So, it will happen anyway, but on an involuntary basis.November 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm #5681
Well, I’m off to Edinburgh to show my solidarity with the people of Europe… pity they didn’t listen to us in the 80’s.
Have a nice day.November 15, 2012 at 2:11 am #5697November 15, 2012 at 2:17 am #5698November 15, 2012 at 5:17 am #5705
Latin American rural groups urge united action against capital
Peasant communities, indigenous peoples and afro-descendants are today the greatest bastion of rebellion and resistance across the world. Against the looting by capital and empire! For land and sovereignty of our peoples! No socialism without feminism!November 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm #5724November 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm #5726
Just worked out how to post my own pictures without them being too big – d’uh!November 15, 2012 at 2:37 pm #5727November 15, 2012 at 2:49 pm #5729
Should Chiapas farmers pay for California’s emissions?
To peasants in the Lacandon jungle, the pending carbon offset agreement has all the hallmarks of a land grab. REDD continues the colonial assault on indigenous communities and lifestyles
“We are not responsible for climate change—it’s the big industries that are,” said Abelardo, a young man from the Tseltal Mayan village of Amador Hernández in the Lacandon jungle of Chiapas. “So why should we be held responsible, and even punished for it?”
Abelardo was one of dozens of villagers who had traveled to the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas to protest an international policy meeting on climate change and forest conservation. At a high-end conference center, representatives from the state of California and from states and provinces around the world were working out mechanisms intended to mitigate climate change by protecting tropical forests. The group was called the Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF), and California’s interest was in using forest preservation in Chiapas as a carbon offset—a means for meeting climate change goals under the state’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act.
Such an agreement among subnational governments is unprecedented, and California officials view it as an important way for the world’s eighth largest economy to help the developing world. But judging from the reaction on the streets of San Cristóbal, Mexican peasants see it differently. The lush, mountainous state of Chiapas has a long history of human rights abuses, and the Mexican government has forcibly evicted indigenous families from their lands in the name of environmental protection. To indigenous peasants in the Lacandon jungle, the pending agreement has all the hallmarks of a land grab.
And such culture clashes over land and forests may become more common: As scientists, economists, and governments worldwide struggle to find solutions to runaway climate change, they are investing in one-size-fits-all financial strategies for emissions reductions in developing countries. These policies tend to ignore local needs, land tenure issues, small-scale economies, cultural practices, and histories. Communities in developing countries are raising concerns that, in some instances, these alleged cures may be worse than the disease.November 15, 2012 at 5:43 pm #5730
Typical lying slimy Tory creep…November 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm #5756
From Portugal to Greece, activists and workers furious with the new conditions of austerity governments are imposing on their societies took to the streets in what was dubbed the continent’s first ever united General Strike. (Photographs)November 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm #5757November 20, 2012 at 2:35 am #5788November 20, 2012 at 2:41 am #5789November 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm #5791
Has the present government gone all thon environment/social way? You just couldn’t make it up!
“Look at Rutland, which is similarly wealthy to Wokingham. Yet levels of life satisfaction are much higher. Rutland is built near lakes. So we think environment does make a difference to happiness. It seems that if you can see a tree you are happier,” said Halpern, who leads the government’s Behavioural Insights Team.
People consistently report that what determines happiness includes physical and mental health, the strength of family and community ties, autonomy and a sense of control over one’s life, and leisure time.
So it’s not ALL down to economics… hmm, but wait… go beyond the spin! Numpties!!!!November 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm #5792
A lesson for Norway… from:
“Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.” Alanis Obomsawin
One of biggest political shocks of the past decade has been the transformation of Canada. Under the influence of the tar barons of Alberta, it has mutated from a country dominated by liberal, pacific, outward-looking values to a thuggish petro-state, ripping up both international treaties and the fabric of its own nation.
Prepare to be shocked again. Another country, whose green and humanitarian principles were just as well-established as Canada’s, is undergoing a similar transformation. Again, it is not the people of the nation who have changed – in both cases they remain, as far as I can tell, as delightful as ever – but the dominant political class and its destruction of both national values and international image.
I am talking about Norway.November 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm #5811
As the climate warms, scientists expect an increase in droughts around the world, causing all sorts of problems for water supplies, agriculture, and energy production. Forests will be affected too, naturally, but a new study released Wednesday in Nature shows just how widespread the effects could be.November 27, 2012 at 8:34 pm #5859
one way to save some trees/pollution–use hemp. better quality paper than wood and better building products (carbon negative).December 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm #5949
Another survey of the sad and alarming situation regarding the trees by Gail from Wit’s EndDecember 7, 2012 at 12:55 am #5976December 7, 2012 at 1:36 am #5977WitsEndParticipant
First of all, 100-300 year old trees are barely middle-aged. They are not “old”, they are only old compared to people. Second, YOUNG TREES are dying just as fast. AAuughhh. I wrote Laurance ages ago after his last study and he said, yeah, I should have probably included ozone as a stress. Where is it now? Not even on the list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.