Gaia's right to life: Our purposeful move toward Human extinction

[TheNoNamedOne]

Rats have infested virtually every habitable place on Earth, and yet we consider them a pesk to be culled. But have rats caused widespread ecological destruction on their own accord? Humans, too, have infested virtually every habitable place on Earth, but somehow we are not considered pesks to be culled, although we have wreaked ecological disasters in virtually every place we have moved to. Even the rat's dispersion throughout the world has been our fault.

Perhaps referring to humans as a pesk is overly kind, and the question may be better framed asking if we are a virus or a cancer to Gaia. We would surely look kindly upon any cancer or virus within our body that decided to take its whole host organism into account and self-destruct for the greater purpose of that organism, wouldn't we? Why shouldn't we accept that we are a scourge to the Earth, her ecology, and her other creatures, and self-destruct our species by choosing to go extinct for the benefit of Gaia? We are philosophically reflective enough to do so.

Watch and reflect on the stork baby bomber:
YouTube - The stork is the bird of war

[ja_Patriot]

The Gaia Hypothesis. Why don't you elaborate more? Could be an interesting subject albeit obscure.

That being said, back in the 90's I was acquainted with a colleague who was into the holistic management style and owned a biosphere in NC where he cultivated plants, vegetables and tilapia for food and sustenance. The compound had a team building camp with high ropes over trees and gullies.

His neighbors were also into the thing and pure vegetarians. Although I must say that they gobbled up the steaks on grill on our farewell night pretty fast.

So, Gaia, a word I meet once again in a forum in Okinawa of all places. But man being the "scourge of the earth?" That's not even close to what Gaia is about. Tell us more.

[TheNoNamedOne]

In short, the Gaia hypothesis is that Earth is a living organism. I am not saying that man being the "scourge of the Earth" is part of Gaia, but rather that man could be rightly likened so to a virus or a cancer, and that with man's self-reflective ability to see the parallels, for the benefit of the host, our viral, cancerous, or parasitic selves, should voluntarily work toward our own extinction -- albeit through peaceful means.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are we cancer, destroying the systems of our host body?

YouTube - The Wit And Wisdom of Cancer

[Isaak Brodsky]

Funny video! Clever.

Just wonder', though, if it is part and parcel of neo-Communist efforts to change capitalist societies internally.

Read something recently about population mythologies. Haven't been able to find the most recent source (last year), but the theory was interesting.

Just a paraphrase: What the Cold War couldn't accomplish militarily, the socio-political and ecnomic ideology of Eastern-European during the Soviet years has transmutated into a global effort that seeks to destroy capitalist progress and societies on many levels.

Wondering, here, if increasingly vociferous arguments and calls for population control by any reasonable means aren't part of these larger efforts. Some academics have, nevertheless, been attempting to rebut the supposedly distorted claims made about population problems.

The National Center for Policy Analysis features some interesting points regarding population.

Overpopulation Myths
Is the earth becoming overpopulated? It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources, since food production continues to exceed population growth and non-renewable resources become more plentiful each year as new sources are found.

Even in sheer numbers, though, there is growing evidence that the world's population is heading toward stability.

The growth rate of the world's population appears to have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth was 2.09 percent.
By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent, and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.

By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to 1.5 percent.
What is sometimes meant by overpopulation is overcrowding, or too great a population density. However, population density varies widely. Much of the world's land surface is empty, and many countries with dense populations have a higher standard of living than less crowded countries.

In 1992, the population of Hong Kong City was approximately 247,501 per square mile, while in New York City it was 11,480 per square mile, and in Houston 7,512.

If the entire population of the world were put into the land area of Texas, each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home and the population density of Texas would be about the same as Paris, France.

In 1988, China had a population of 409 people per square mile and gross domestic product per capita of $320, while Hong Kong, with a population density more than 450 times greater, had a per capita GDP of $8,260.
One reason people are crowded together in cities is because it makes possible many more exchanges and greater specialization of labor, thus increasing living standards.

Source: Jim Peron, "Exploding Population Myths," Fraser Forum, October 1995, Fraser Institute, 2nd Floor, 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, B. C., V6E 3M1, (604) 688-0221.

[Isaak Brodsky]

In short, the Gaia hypothesis is that Earth is a living organism. I am not saying that man being the "scourge of the Earth" is part of Gaia, but rather that man could be rightly likened so to a virus or a cancer, and that with man's self-reflective ability to see the parallels, for the benefit of the host, our viral, cancerous, or parasitic selves, should voluntarily work toward our own extinction -- albeit through peaceful means.

The meaning in the man-as-a-virus metaphor still doesn't break down and dissolve into some innocuous analogy. It's still an invective.

The comparison is still present in the minds of those who've ever had to deal with pernicious viruses or other illnesses.

I mean, hey, what sort of metaphor could you use for men and women who always come to rescue of earth, calling for the preservation of our natural resources and places of beauty?? Man-as-antipathogen?

I really appreciate the thought-provoking videos, but what is the alternative to our present situation, dropping viles of Ebola over heavily-populated areas so that we can cull 90% of the world's population?

[TheNoNamedOne]

[FONT="Arial"]Funny video! Clever.

They are, aren't they? Have you watched both of them?

Just wonder', though, if it is part and parcel of neo-Communist efforts to change capitalist societies internally.

You mean like a conspiracist theory? Paranoia without hard evidence?


The National Center for Policy Analysis features some interesting points regarding population.

Overpopulation Myths
Is the earth becoming overpopulated? It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources, since food production continues to exceed population growth and non-renewable resources become more plentiful each year as new sources are found.

The problem here, Ian, is that over-population is not merely a question of food and recourses for our consumption. It is also a question of ecological systems and the habitats which are destroyed by humans, along with a large number of species our species is responsible for having a direct impact, if not main reason, for them becoming extinct.

If ecological systems do not survive, agrigulture as we know it being able to produce as much as we do now, too, will not survive.

[Isaak Brodsky]

... habitats which are destroyed by humans, along with a large number of species our species is responsible for having a direct impact, if not main reason, for them becoming extinct.

If ecological systems do not survive, agrigulture as we know it being able to produce as much as we do now, too, will not survive.

Your first point is, I think, generally right. Men have raped the earth for its resources; however, men have also protected the earth. These points are nothing new.

And, you're right, too, that ecosystems must be sustained were man to continue to subsist. It seems to me that the ecological problems we face, the vast majority, are of our own making.

Famine, for example, is more of a political issue than a meterological one. The roots of our problems today seem to have political antecedents, but mankind in general takes the blame. Political systems, I think, figure more prominently into the inequitable distrubution of not only wealth, but also of access to resources.

What is the altnerative, though, to this present mess? Kill off half the population?? The world's population often takes blame, but I'm also skeptical about this. I think that we perceive that problems such as these are universal yet the sampling of what we observe is much too limited in scope.

If you lived in the northern latitudes in the US in 1976 and 77, especially near the eastern part of the United States, you were led to believe that another ice age was approaching. The snow fall for those two years surpassed any in recorded history. From my limited local perspective (in the north-eastern region of the US), I thought the former but later learned that such was not the case - the earth was not approaching another ice age.

I don't know, really. Just a bit cautious about hanging all of the blame on mankind in terms of sheer numbers. Most issues today seem to have political antecedents.

[ja_Patriot]

Posted by Ian Brody: "...I mean, hey, what sort of metaphor could you use for men and women who always come to rescue of earth, calling for the preservation of our natural resources and places of beauty?? Man-as-antipathogen?

I really appreciate the thought-provoking videos, but what is the alternative to our present situation, dropping viles of Ebola over heavily-populated areas so that we can cull 90% of the world's population?..."

TP, nice side step. But you didn't answer Ian's question.

Should we commence dropping vials of lethal viruses?

Haven't man and the Earth's ecosystems always adapted to changes in the environment? Which extinction of another species has ever caused widespread famine?

Man has survived despite of itself, its imperfections and its own destructiveness in world wars, and will survive, even if it means eating every living animal for food.

Sure, there is a need to practice the conservation of natural resources, energy conservation, clean air and clean water, recycling and a host of other sensible and cost-effective programs.

But advocating ideas based on the premises that "man is the scourge of the earth" isn't even thinking positively and definitely isn't thinking straight.

The Gaia hypothesis may be Utopia, the perfect world, for some dreamers. But it's far from reality. Probably far more far fetched than anthropogenic global warming (which totally disregards the effects of the Earth's power source: the Sun).

Here's an easy one. Can you state some examples of ecosystem failures which resulted in widespread hunger or suffering?

[TheNoNamedOne]

The meaning in the man-as-a-virus metaphor still doesn't break down and dissolve into some innocuous analogy.

Please explain why the analogy (humans as a virus or cancer) is not correct (or cannot be) rather than declare it as so.

I mean, hey, what sort of metaphor could you use for men and women who always come to rescue of earth, calling for the preservation of our natural resources and places of beauty?? Man-as-antipathogen?

Calling for the preservation of our natural recourses has not stopped the degradation of the Earth and the continued plundering of those recourses. Humans being reflective on themselves as a virus or cancer and voluntarily sending the human species into extinction would be analogical to cancers that have gone into remission and have disappeared from the host organism.

I really appreciate the thought-provoking videos, but what is the alternative to our present situation, dropping viles of Ebola over heavily-populated areas so that we can cull 90% of the world's population?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Good question. Simple answer (though admittedly hard to achieve [phylosophically as a thought exercise though easy to grasp]):

Voluntarily stop breeding

[Asshat]

We humans have just as much of a right to be here as any other specis. Should we cease to exist, what happens to the 200 microbes which live in and our bodies? They die out.

There are plenty of examples of famine caused by the changing climate as part of natural phenomina as well-especially in the past 10,000 years. The current drought in much of the African continent for example is a natural effect.

In as much as "man" is a rightful denizen of the planet and self-proclaimed higher specis, it stands to reason then that man must take a proactive role in husbandry and not destruction for profit. The premise that global warming is the single greatest cause of global warming does not excuse man's contribution to it by fossil fuel burning.

Farming is probably the most destructive event man does to the planet and that is related directly to our population. However, I must agree with Ian that eventually population will taper off to where the earth can easily support the human population. Economic imperatives may be a primary factor in this and if so, hopefully remains one.

I would not want to see a situation where human population becomes controlled by the environment completely. That would be a truely heinous situation for us.

[Go-Shay]

Farming is probably the most destructive event man does to the planet and that is related directly to our population.
How did you come to this conclusion?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Even in sheer numbers, though, there is growing evidence that the world's population is heading toward stability.

The growth rate of the world's population appears to have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth was 2.09 percent.
By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent, and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.

By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to 1.5 percent.

A continued increase on a finite planet with finite recourses being exhausted with environmental degradation is not moving towards stability. The squeeze is tightening -- if anything.

Whether the growth rate has peaked in the 70's or anytime is irrelevant. What is relevant is the continued net positive gain, for as long as the growth rate is above zero, there will always be an increase and increases can't go on forever within a finite space.

The problem here is one of momentum. Yes, sure we may be having fewer children per person/couple, BUT there are more of us to create more zygotes. That is why China, a country with one of the lowest birth rates in the world still experiences a natural increase of approx 10 million/yr.

What lessen can we learn from the cutting in half of our fertility rates over these decades but still being stuck with a rising population? The answer is momentum.

Look at Japan and some other countries experiencing a negative growth one may say. Well, that is all fine except that Earth from space is not neatly divided by all these lines we call borders. Economics and politics when a country becomes so impoverished with a low population will entail that immigration and emmigration valves will be released, and parts of excess populations from nearby countries will merely flood in.

[DougP]

I still have this feeling that long after we're gone(the human race that is) the planet will still be here. And regardless of what we do to it it will recover. That's why I don't really buy into the whole "save the planet" slogan. It should read something more like "Keep earth inhabitable for humans"

[TheNoNamedOne]

I still have this feeling that long after we're gone(the human race that is) the planet will still be here. And regardless of what we do to it it will recover. That's why I don't really buy into the whole "save the planet" slogan. It should read something more like "Keep earth inhabitable for humans"

Earth as a rock will always be here. But, then that rock would be the corps of the Earth.

The slogan, "Keep earth inhabitable for humans" is like "Keep the body alive for cancer." One eventually leads to the death of the other. Why not try to cure the host by getting rid of the cancer? A collective concious that phylosophises and which has become self-aware would be able to make the smaller sacrifice for the larger good. We sure do like it when our loved ones' cancer or viral infections self-destructs going into remission.

Perhaps intelligence extinguishes itself, hence our high warfare and degrading of our host's systems? If we could divorce ourselves from the built-in urge to promulgate our species, we could claim ourselves not captive to the most basic part of the animal world -- one in which we alwasy strive to subdue, and not breed anymore leaving the systems of the Earth untouched by our assaults on it.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Please explain why the analogy (humans as a virus or cancer) is not correct (or cannot be) rather than declare it as so.[/INDENT]

The metaphor is a classic over-simplification, in this case, of humanity and human behaviour and neither a fair nor useful way of thinking about the dangers that both pose to the environments they affect. The comparison may be a quick and convenient to think about one minute aspect of man’s character or actions, but the metaphor breaks down after a more thorough examination of cancer’s implications.

For example, while it is true that both organisms are alive, cancers are not sentient. They have no ears, eyes, or know-how to sense the pain they are causing to the host. Cancers are not conscious. Since they are not sentient, they cannot be conscious of their presence on the host and know, of course, that they represent a potential fatality. Cancers lack agency. Since they are neither sentient nor conscious, they can’t possibly decide to plunder another part of the body they’d just ravaged.

You might ask, “How can we say that cancer took her life”?? Well, we can say this only in the figurative sense. This statement is a very common and convenient way of communicating what cancers or other pathogens SEEM to do. Since using metaphors like these to communicate tends to be common in casual conversation, it is also another opportunity for language to defy reality. That is, we come to see the metaphor as representing a literal truth rather than being just a convenient way to represent something we don’t fully understand as laypeople. An oncologist, of course, knows that cancers behave in ways that are entirely contrary to how humans behave.

Since cancers have not agency, neither sentience nor consciousness, they have no empathy. Were cancers able to know what dangers they pose to their hosts, they would likely cease reproducing so that their hosts might go on. It only follows that cancers cannot be, do, or have an incomprehensible range of things that humans can be, do or have.

Good question. Simple answer (though admittedly hard to achieve [phylosophically as a thought exercise though easy to grasp]):

Voluntarily stop breeding

Neither is the answer to environmental problems we face as simple as setting up a program of voluntary abstinence. Who would volunteer for such a program? Who would administer the program? Were there volunteers to stop procreating, thus, feel that their practices were somehow the moral equivalent of, say, not smoking in public and pressure those who do procreate to remove their genitals or be fined??

[DougP]

Earth as a rock will always be here. But, then that rock would be the corps of the Earth.

The slogan, "Keep earth inhabitable for humans" is like "Keep the body alive for cancer." One eventually leads to the death of the other. Why not try to cure the host by getting rid of the cancer? A collective concious that phylosophises and which has become self-aware would be able to make the smaller sacrifice for the larger good. We sure do like it when our loved ones' cancer or viral infections self-destructs going into remission.

Perhaps intelligence extinguishes itself, hence our high warfare and degrading of our host's systems? If we could divorce ourselves from the built-in urge to promulgate our species, we could claim ourselves not captive to the most basic part of the animal world -- one in which we alwasy strive to subdue, and not breed anymore leaving the systems of the Earth untouched by our assaults on it.

I see what you're saying about humans being a cancer. Not arguing that really. I'm just saying the earth has its way of correcting things and balancing things out. Its been through a lot and probably through more treacherous events than what we've thrown at it. After all life did spring up from nothing on this planet I'm sure it can do it again even if we humans are able to use everything up.:thumbup:

Oh and I still don't believe we humans can save this planet. We can try our best to coexist but we can't actually save it. Life as we know it today may not be savable but I don't think of that as a bad thing. This planet has been through many cycles with many extinctions and mass extinctions. We are not the first dominant life form on this planet by far and may not be the last.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Of course, Ian, the analogy and use of cancer as a metaphore for us does not say we are actually cancer cells. It is figurative and I don't think your refutation of it with your points wipes that away.

The comparison may be a quick and convenient to think about one minute aspect of man’s character or actions, but the metaphor breaks down after a more thorough examination of cancer’s implications.

For example, while it is true that both organisms are alive, cancers are not sentient.

Looking at the scarred surface of the Earth and clumps of tumorous settlements from space, how would sentience be relevant to constant invasiveness and rapid growth, both characteristics of cancer, that would be observed? We do not look at cancer from an equal cell to cell level; we look down on them as a world below in which we observe separate from them.

They have no ears, eyes, or know-how to sense the pain they are causing to the host. Cancers are not conscious. Since they are not sentient, they cannot be conscious of their presence on the host and know, of course, that they represent a potential fatality. Cancers lack agency. Since they are neither sentient nor conscious, they can’t possibly decide to plunder another part of the body they’d just ravaged.

And us as a cancer becoming sentient of our cancerous selves and going extinct through remission, would be an evolutionary step in cancer i.e. intelligence sentience extinguishes itself through remission for the benefit of a greater good. Perhaps we are the most evolved of all cancer with this ability. After all, cancers do mutate and change. Perhaps we are the most higly formed mutating cancer, which makes us the most dangerous kind of all Gaia is faced with.

Such things as eyes and ears or noses does nothing to destroy the analogy. Analogies are exercises in mechanics that function in a construct -- not of mere physiology, or else, "how do you like them apples" as a metaphore or an analogy for a situation presented to someone would have no meaning. For surely if someone is talking about getting even with someone and giving them a dose of their own medicine, they surely aren't holding a bunch of nicely riped red apples in front of the other.

An oncologist, of course, knows that cancers behave in ways that are entirely contrary to how humans behave.

Of course cancers do not go to the Saturday matine and listen to Bach music, or have pets they must walk and feed. However, cancers grow at an exponential rate. Huuman population groth in numbers, too, is exponential. Cancers are invasive. Humans, too, are invasive. Like cancer cells, humans will migrate to other near and far places to set up clusters or colonies. And then, soon enough, those colonies, too, will send out their tenticles for newer areas to invade and colonize.

Cancers also create a de-differentiation, where in which infected cells are no longer unique. Human culture, too, as it has become invasive and compact, has been experiencing the same kind of de-differentiation, slowly but surely creating a super monoculture. Just look at Okinawa. Not many traditional houses left.

Cancers, too, are also free from the usual restraints of the host's immune system. Humans no longer are at the mercy of their traditional constraints that kept our ancestors in their original state of nature balanced. Bears, lions, tigers etc... no longer prey on us. High agriculture has freed us from the traditional constraints of nature and we now run wild across the globe. Even inhospibitable environments do not constrain our spread. Cancers are unconstrained.

Since cancers have not agency, neither sentience nor consciousness, they have no empathy. Were cancers able to know what dangers they pose to their hosts, they would likely cease reproducing so that their hosts might go on. It only follows that cancers cannot be, do, or have an incomprehensible range of things that humans can be, do or have.

Excellent point! Have we ceased reproducing despite our biological degradation of Earth's ecological systems? Does our species have a collective concious of agency at the supre level?

[ryukyuboi]

I think this thread is too deep for me.

Would "live and let die" fit in at all with any of the above discussion?

[Isaak Brodsky]

Looking at the scarred surface of the Earth and clumps of tumorous settlements from space, how would sentience be relevant to constant invasiveness and rapid growth, both characteristics of cancer, that would be observed? We do not look at cancer from an equal cell to cell level; we look down on them as a world below in which we observe separate from them.

Given the metaphor you are building an argument for, the characteristics implicitly assigned to cancer are too human to be valid.

The metaphor assumes that people are like a cancer to the earth, yet cancer cannot possibly be compared to humans or human activity in any logically consistent way - apart from the few generalizations you have already pointed out.

Any metaphor that attempts to embody some useful comparison to humanity or human activity will invariably fall apart because of the utter uniqueness of human beings.

Rejecting the uniqueness of humanity does nothing to prop up inherently unstable comparisons. This is one reason why Dawkins' meme metaphor falls apart under further scrutiny.

Anthropomorphising cancer cannot make man a cancerous tumor upon the earth - even though it is a provocative and clever way to see man and to disparge his activities.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think this thread is too deep for me.

Would "live and let die" fit in at all with any of the above discussion?

Almost, Ryukyuboi. More appropriately fitting would be:

Live well and die off

[ryukyuboi]

I will buy that!

[ja_Patriot]

RB,

Actually it's not that deep. TP advocates that man is a malignant tumor he calls "cancer" and should rot itself to extinction. How much he really knows about cancer is about to be revealed.

Ian advocates the contrary with counter-points.

How fast ammo runs out remains to be seen.

But there is a lot of third grade high-sounding balderdash in between:

As posted by TP: "...Excellent point! Have we ceased reproducing despite our biological degradation of Earth's ecological systems? Does our species have a collective concious (sic) of agency at the supre (sic) level?..."

What are you saying, TP?

[kombu_kid]

IMO, I think this all boils down to this: do you have faith in mankind, or do you view him as "the enemy". And I think it's pretty obvious. I mean, just look how far man has come in the past 50 years as far as becoming aware of the planet, and how much of a "footprint" we leave on it. But there will always be those who seem to either have this "self-loathing" component to their membership in the human club, or a total selfishness that they want a Garden of Eden planet for themselves and maybe 10,000 other lucky Earth/Animal worshippers.

I really believe that this is a disease, that is, continuing this march "controlling mankind" and making us believe we're some type of "cancer", almost like a mass guilt trip. Using more resources, contributing to global warming, killing innocent creatures and eating them, driving our motorized contraptions all over pristine natural desert landscape. (dear heavens! when will it stop)

Sorry, I ain't drinkin' the Kool-Aid, bro. Gonna hafta go spout that "the sky is falling" theory to your fellow comrades, who actually believe they're changing anything. I think this ol' earth is doing just fine and could actually support way way more humans. Other than the "human-caused global-warming" myth, what other evidence is there that the earth is in any distress?

Remember, the only thing constant is change.

[ja_Patriot]

Sensible post direct from LAX.

[kombu_kid]

If they want to control the population, maybe they should create a million clones of Reon Kadena, except make them sterile. Kinda like how they get rid of mosquitos.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

But advocating ideas based on the premises that "man is the scourge of the earth" isn't even thinking positively and definitely isn't thinking straight.

Thought exercises and philosophy is not about thinking positively, negatively, or "straight". It is examining things from different perspectives and angles. Though some are well wedded to their comfort zone and cannot think outside of the box. That much is understood.

Here's an easy one. Can you state some examples of ecosystem failures which resulted in widespread hunger or suffering?

One of the best documented cases, of a world isolated from the outside where its residents could not escape, much like we cannot escape Earth, is the case of Easter Island in the South Pacific.

At one time there were thought to be living there 20,000 people in a lush green environment with many species. In fact we know that the island was rich in biodiversity from pollen samples taken from dated sediment deposits. By the time they were discovered, though, in the Early 18th century, their population had crashed to 2,000 people and their environment was quite poor in bio-diversity, to include plant and animal life.

It is directly attributed to the people who destroyed their forests which had a severe domino affect. This case is well known. You seem to not be aware of it or any of its details. Isn't that why you asked your question? Expecting there were not any examples?

There is an easy one for you.

[kombu_kid]

By the time they were discovered, though, in the Early 18th century, their population had crashed to 2,000 people and their environment was quite poor in bio-diversity, to include plant and animal life.

Are you saying that's what caused the population crash from 20,000 to 2000?

But what was the person/sq. ft of that island, compared to the person/sq. ft of the entire earth's land mass? Good Lord, that's not quite an equal comparison there; an island is very isolated. It's like saying someone's overfished a lake to the point of extinction vs. the ocean.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are you saying that's what caused the population crash from 20,000 to 2000?

Archeologists and sociologists have put a pretty good picture together as to what happened. The Rapa Nui culture centered around erecting stone Moai statues. Those could only be erected through using the palm trees on the island. As more and more clans raced against one another to build Moai stone statues and erect them, more and more of the forest was destroyed.

Finally, by the time the forest was destroyed soil erosion was a problem, animals could not nest and survive, the island became barren. The whole social and cultural structure collapsed. No food and then cannibalism. Clans then turned on one another. Their world could not support their numbers. Population crash.

But what was the person/sq. ft of that island, compared to the person/sq. ft of the entire earth's land mass? Good Lord, that's not quite an equal comparison there; an island is very isolated. It's like saying someone's overfished a lake to the point of extinction vs. the ocean.

Funny you should mention fish. It is no secret that many international bodies and scientists have been giving warnings that many ocean fish stocks, too, are near collapse. And some already have. Aren't you aware of the situation in the seas?

We have the terms microcosm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocosm_and_microcosm) and macrocosm for modeling and observation for a reason. What do you think those reasons are for?

Are you saying the concept of microcosms does not exist as models to look at for lessons?

[ja_Patriot]

Thought exercises and philosophy is not about thinking positively, negatively, or "straight". It is examining things from different perspectives and angles. Though some are well wedded to their comfort zone and cannot think outside of the box. That much is understood.

One of the best documented cases, of a world isolated from the outside where its residents could not escape, much like we cannot escape Earth, is the case of Easter Island in the South Pacific.

At one time there were thought to be living there 20,000 people in a lush green environment with many species. In fact we know that the island was rich in biodiversity from pollen samples taken from dated sediment deposits. By the time they were discovered, though, in the Early 18th century, their population had crashed to 2,000 people and their environment was quite poor in bio-diversity, to include plant and animal life.

It is directly attributed to the people who destroyed their forests which had a severe domino affect. This case is well known. You seem to not be aware of it or any of its details. Isn't that why you asked your question? Expecting there were not any examples?

There is an easy one for you.

Here's a link to a very exhaustive write-up on "Rapa Nui" or Easter Island (http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/chile/easter_island.html).

"CONCLUSION (by the author on examining several publications):

“…As a final point, I would argue that Easter Island is a poor example for a morality tale about environmental degradation. Easter Island's tragic experience is not a metaphor for the entire Earth. The extreme isolation of Rapa Nui is an exception even among islands, and does not constitute the ordinary problems of the human environment interface.

Yet in spite of exceptionally challenging conditions, the indigenous population chose to survive - and they did. They tackled the problems of a difficult and challenging environment which both geography and their own actions forced upon them. They successfully adapted to changing circumstances and did not show any signs of terminal decline when they were discovered by Europeans in 1722…”

The author concludes just like he's joined our discussion!!

The society collapsed, but not as you would put it. Good try, TP. And quite an interesting subject, Rapa Nui is.

http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/chile/images/moai-statues-rapa-nui-500.jpg

[Asshat]

Sorry, I ain't drinkin' the Kool-Aid, bro. Gonna hafta go spout that "the sky is falling" theory to your fellow comrades, who actually believe they're changing anything. I think this ol' earth is doing just fine and could actually support way way more humans. Other than the "human-caused global-warming" myth, what other evidence is there that the earth is in any distress?[/I]

Your avatar is a surfer. Are you really a surfer? Island style? If so, I marvel at your comments. Since you are an "Island Style" person, why not charter a boat and go look at some islands? Check out Maijima. It is half way between Okinawa and Tokashiki. Look at the beach. The plastic litter there is beyond belief. This isn't koolaide bro, this is enough pollution to make you sick.

Or, charter a plane and fly over the Pacific NW. Note how the highways are lined with pines, yet the mountains are bare. Examine the salmon fishery there. Commerical fishing is no longer allowed. The timber lobbiests well tell you it is because the Japanese have stolen all those American salmon. The real reason is because rubber-tired skidders have dragged too many fallen pines through the watersheds and the salmon can no longer spawn in them.

I could go on about pesticides and herbacides in water supplies, (you should check out the Neuse River fish kill after the rains) or the destruction of O2 producing forests for grazing land. But to really understand the degree of damage man is doing to the planet one has forget about the politics associated with this subject and go and have a look for themselves.

[Asshat]

Actually it's not that deep. TP advocates that man is a malignant tumor he calls "cancer" and should rot itself to extinction. How much he really knows about cancer is about to be revealed.

Ian advocates the contrary with counter-points.

Ian is still stuck discussing metaphors.

Your comment about someone's knowledge of cancer is very presumptuous and for those who have experienced the devastating effects of cancer, callous.

What does Rush have to say about the environment ja?

[Isaak Brodsky]

Archeologists and sociologists have put a pretty good picture together as to what happened. The Rapa Nui culture centered around erecting stone Moai statues. Those could only be erected through using the palm trees on the island. As more and more clans raced against one another to build Moai stone statues and erect them, more and more of the forest was destroyed.

Finally, by the time the forest was destroyed soil erosion was a problem, animals could not nest and survive, the island became barren. The whole social and cultural structure collapsed. No food and then cannibalism. Clans then turned on one another. Their world could not support their numbers. Population crash.


John Donne's observation that "No man is an island entire of itself..." is only partly true in the case of the Rapa Nui.

His point was that people are not isolated from one another, but that mankind is interconnected and that our keen awareness of morality is a natural consequence of what we witness during times of widespread death and destruction.

Though the Rapa Nui were interconnected on one level (together on their small island), no outsiders had reached these people in time to point to the massive degredation that they had inflicted on their ecosystem. No objective view of the ravaged earth around them could be brought forward to bring these people any closer to understanding what they had done to their environment. Today, this is not the case as one foreign power can easily and objectively check the activities of another power to assure that earth's biosphere remains intact.

On another level, John Donne's other point makes sense regarding the Rapa Nui. Their moral choices weren't guided by their sense of duty to the environment but by a compulsion to please the gods of their island by erecting monuments to them.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Ian is still stuck discussing metaphors.

Yeah, true dat.

Just trying to wrap my mind 'round the idea that humans represent a cancer. I'd agree that it is on one level a really powerful metaphor but that it doesn't represent man's full story.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Your avatar is a surfer. Are you really a surfer? Island style? If so, I marvel at your comments. Since you are an "Island Style" person, why not charter a boat and go look at some islands? Check out Maijima. It is half way between Okinawa and Tokashiki.

i thought that he was still in L.A.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers to The Prosecutor for the fabulously provocative post.

It's really forced me to think about man's place. I'd give it some stars but I'm not entirely sure how.

[ja_Patriot]

Ian is still stuck discussing metaphors.

Your comment about someone's knowledge of cancer is very presumptuous and for those who have experienced the devastating effects of cancer, callous.

What does Rush have to say about the environment ja?

That's all you have?

An innocent, schoolboy-level remark about Ian the scholar's metaphors?

A snide remark about cancer, I guess against TP for bringing it up in topic, and a snip on Limbaugh for mysterious and out-of-topic reasons unknown?

The empty can does make a lot of noise.

Ideas, ideas, ideas. Otherwise stick to the comic book section.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Loooooooooooook ya'll.

If I'm the source of the strife here, I apologize to the both of you. Since all three of us have had some words pass among us, I am seriously sorry.

Sometimes, my responses to these interesting posts on the JU forum are serious, other times tongue-and-cheek.

I don't wanna make any enemies, and I'm sure you don't want to have any hard feelings towards others either.

So, pleeeease refrain from rippin' into each other. I'm sorry for having participated in it too.

Let's stick to rippin' in to TP's rather interesting views.:w00t:

Cheers, ib

[Isaak Brodsky]

On another note, I don't typically agree with Rush (usually never), but I do appreciate the fact that Rush has given the present war in Iraq a name that seems very fitting: to him it is an Oil War.

Three cheers for honesty on that level.

[Asshat]

No apology required Ian. I tend to be very direct in my communication. I do not have a lot of patience with the current politicospeak dujour. Discussing the metaphors within the discussion evokes a meta discussion and bores me.

As far as enemies, I honestly am not concerned with it. I decided long ago to surround myself with people I love, and have nothing to do with those who don't love me. Simple as that.

I apologize to you for dismissing your belief in Christianity. You and I will not engage in theological discussion again.

Unfortunately, I do not attribute the experience of the "scholar" to a level which surpasses my own. Yet another definition of the crumudgeon perhaps. :old:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Oh, sorry for the long delay in getting back to this, Umi. Some good points from this post of yours, but to avoid one long post, I will cut it up with answers stretched out over several posts and some time. Hope you don't mind.

We humans have just as much of a right to be here as any other specis.

I agree. In a unviversal sense, we have no less right than other species to be here. But that goes two ways, we also do not have more of a right to support billions of our species, as if we were a pesk to all the other species, moving them out of their environments for our invasive appetite -- which seems to be the hallmark of us that we are not able to control. After all, we sure do not like invasive pesks when they move into our homes. And if it came to what we would like and appreciate most, rather than having to trap and kill them to remove them, we would wish they would just choose not to come into our dwellings so that we would not have to be bothered with them.

But, we know that animal pesks are products of their passion, not of their reason. On the otherhand, we can reason and choose to not be invasive. But we do not. We reflect and understand the concept of being invasive and the damage that does to the environments we colonize out to, but fail to put any breaks on ourselves that transcends borders and political entitities.

So, I am not suggesting we or anyone give up their right. The universal right is a constant and it remains no matter what. But what is the greater good for the planet and the millions of species? As beings amongst beings, it would be an altruistic act to understand the nature of our invasiveness and simply agree to extinguish ourselves as a species. Of course, the point is of voluntary extinction. The species still retains the right to exist, but voluntarily does not play that card. Let the hand pass without playing it by just holding it.

Our species has shown over and over that in general as a whole we are destructive and not complementery to the earth's systems. Why should this kind of species be given the right to exist at the expense of thousands going extinct because of it?

Another point, every human alive surely does have a right to their life and exist. But, it is not like there are ghostly beings floating in the ether somewhere waiting to pop out here. What is not, is not, and there is a benefit to Gaia to not breed anymore pesks or to send the cancer into remission.

Should we cease to exist, what happens to the 200 microbes which live in and our bodies? They die out.

Yes, that is true. They would die out. 1+200 species compared to millions of others hanging in the balance because of the ativities of that 201 is more than a fair bargain when the scales of balance are looked at from an ecocentric view rather than an anthropocentric view. And as judges, that is what we must do -- or at least we must jump out of skins and divorce ourselves from our anthros, if we are to decide without bias to one's own group, which if we were not to, we would not be a fair judge making our decision without a conflict of interest.

[Asshat]

To simplify your post TP and apply a more "earthy" tome to it, man has no natural enemies. There are very few species on the earth that do not have predators after them. Kings of their food chains.

I do not believe humans posses the ability to make valid determinations on ecocentric issues. For example, look what happened when the mongoose was brought in to deal with the habu, or the toad was brought to Guam to deal with the insects. That should have been a basic decision, yet it was made so wrongly.

If we will not voluntarily become extinct, we must continue untill the earth rids herself of us, or we learn to better co-exsist with her.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I do not believe humans posses the ability to make valid determinations on ecocentric issues. For example, look what happened when the mongoose was brought in to deal with the habu, or the toad was brought to Guam to deal with the insects. That should have been a basic decision, yet it was made so wrongly.

I think those are excellent examples, Umi.

However, Umi, was the mongoose brought here from an ecocentric view for the benefit of the ecosystem here? Or was it brought here from an anthropocentric view here to benefit humans by/with the hope of decreasing the habu population to lead to less fatal bites? I think it is the latter, so, therefore, it really wasn't an ecocentric issue/decision to import the mongoose. Another example of anthropocentric decision that caused even more damage than just having humans being here.

Same with the toad in Guam. Brought to deal with the insects to make the environment more pleasing to anthros. Nothing ecocentric about it. It was eco-planning, that is for sure. But, it was not ecocentric -- important part being "centric".

If we will not voluntarily become extinct, we must continue untill the earth rids herself of us, or we learn to better co-exsist with her.

Earth/nature ridding herself from us (which I don't doubt will eventually occur) is the least attractive of the options between that and us voluntarily doing so. I think we will be a miserable lot of individuals to have to die the nature way through starvation, pestilance, ravaging diseases etc...

On the other hand, if we voluntarily choose to quit breeding and go extinct, we can slowly lower our numbers freeing up more recourses for our own individual and personal use. A couple not burdened with the high costs of childcare, raising, and college education today, retains large amounts of money for investment and spending on things that bring direct pleasure to themselves rather than difusing it to another party(s).

[Asshat]

ah yes, I see the mistake in my examples. Perhaps we do okay in our ecocentric decision making, but no so good in carrying out those decisions. My clear-cutting of PNW for example.

In the end, the earth will not survive. Whether we get hit with a large meteor, our sun goes nova, our galaxy explodes, or a gama bombardment from another star, the earth's years are numbered to more than another 50 million.

We'll have it figured out by then.

[ja_Patriot]

TP posted: "...Of course, the point is of voluntary extinction. The species still retains the right to exist, but voluntarily does not play that card. Let the hand pass without playing it by just holding it.

Our species has shown over and over that in general as a whole we are destructive and not complementery to the earth's systems. Why should this kind of species be given the right to exist at the expense of thousands going extinct because of it?.."


Fine you win. So when will the "voluntary" human extinction commence and in what fashion, do you think? How about a boatload of AR activists at the bottom of the ocean?

Talk is cheap, but now what if Divine Providence has your own family lead by example, either by self-destruction or by an act of God? You've got kids. How about the extinction of the TP family name?

Let it go. Just think of ways humanity can survive with your brilliant but off-target eloquence.

And another thing. All living creatures being equal in your view, would you have your kid(s) dance with wolves?

(All this is figurative, so don't fly off the handle.)

[kombu_kid]

Check out Maijima. It is half way between Okinawa and Tokashiki. Look at the beach. The plastic litter there is beyond belief. This isn't koolaide bro, this is enough pollution to make you sick.

Okay, there's litter. Has anything died because of empty soda bottles and styrofoam? Yes, it's ugly but could be cleaned up pretty quickly if a large group of people were so inclined to do so. Apparently, the Japanese aren't concerned enough to clean up their litter problems--yet.

Examine the salmon fishery there. Commerical fishing is no longer allowed. The timber lobbiests well tell you it is because the Japanese have stolen all those American salmon. The real reason is because rubber-tired skidders have dragged too many fallen pines through the watersheds and the salmon can no longer spawn in them.

Okay, then there's a place where salmon can't spawn. I can still go down to the store and buy salmon and it's not ridiculously priced. How is it that I can still do that, if we are overfishing the planet? I think if it gets to the point where it's very difficult to find salmon, man will find a way to create fish farms or whatever's necessary to continue providing salmon to the public; there is a market for it. I wonder how many species became extinct from the ice age; yet life goes on, and earth is still a beautiful, magnificent place.

the destruction of O2 producing forests for grazing land.

So what's so hard about planting more trees? BTW, I live on 1.3 acres in the desert, which 5 years ago was barren hard dirt. The land now has over 35 trees, plus various dozens of shrubs and a small lawn. An earlier thread I started, I talked about making available to the public cheap, plentiful, fresh water. If a serious effort were put forth on a project like this, Nevada (or Africa) could be transformed, and the concerns about deforestation would be nullified.

Your avatar is a surfer. Are you really a surfer? Island style? If so, I marvel at your comments.

Yes, I've done a bit of surfing in my day. That's why my demeanor about many subjects that come up is more ponderous in nature, (laid back) not calling for the elimination of man (*shakes head, smiling*) While you, and some others I read, seem to running in circles screaming "the sky is falling!! Global warming!! Deforestation!! Pesticides!! Herbacides!! Litter!! And the list goes on......

Man!!......the scourge of the earth!! You really must not have any faith in the future of mankind, and must believe that any damage done is absolutely irreversible.

why not charter a boat and go look at some islands?

I'm in CA right now, but I've been out there over 20-plus years ago. Maybe you could organize a group to go out there and clean up. Maybe get some pointers from here::)

http://www.healthebay.org/volunteer/aab/

[Asshat]

Okay, there's litter. Has anything died because of empty soda bottles and styrofoam?

Yes. It happens very often. It is not exactly front page news anymore when a mamal washes up on a beach strangled with plastic.


Okay, then there's a place where salmon can't spawn. I can still go down to the store and buy salmon and it's not ridiculously priced. How is it that I can still do that, if we are overfishing the planet? I think if it gets to the point where it's very difficult to find salmon, man will find a way to create fish farms or whatever's necessary to continue providing salmon to the public; there is a market for it. I wonder how many species became extinct from the ice age; yet life goes on, and earth is still a beautiful, magnificent place.

I did not say we were overfishing the planet. It is the timber industry who says that....and certain American protectionists. I suppose the average person doesn't know much about the salmon fishery. It is almost gone. The only salmon available to you (in a can I might add) comes from SW Alaska. In that area, commerial licenses are also being taken away. I have visited numerous salmon hatcheries by the way, and as a Boy Scout (no jokes please) got to uh....assist. Without those hatcheries-which are expensive- there would be no fishery at all. And this is just salmon. The rest of the ocean's species are dwindling as well for different reasons.

So what's so hard about planting more trees? BTW, I live on 1.3 acres in the desert, which 5 years ago was barren hard dirt. The land now has over 35 trees, plus various dozens of shrubs and a small lawn. An earlier thread I started, I talked about making available to the public cheap, plentiful, fresh water. If a serious effort were put forth on a project like this, Nevada (or Africa) could be transformed, and the concerns about deforestation would be nullified.

Again, you didn't read my post. The forests are being leveled all over the world to create grazing land for cattle, and farm land for crops. This is a direct effect of population growth.

Yes, I've done a bit of surfing in my day. That's why my demeanor about many subjects that come up is more ponderous in nature, (laid back) not calling for the elimination of man (*shakes head, smiling*) While you, and some others I read, seem to running in circles screaming "the sky is falling!! Global warming!! Deforestation!! Pesticides!! Herbacides!! Litter!! And the list goes on......

I am on or in the ocean nearly every day. I wont give up more than that since this is a public forum on a very small island. I am not an alarmist, but I am witnessing first hand the destruction- the irreversable destruction humans are causing. And like I told someone else here, just because it only hurts a little bit, or because there are natural causes for some of the phenomina I mention (eg red tide) doesn't mean that man isn't causing damage too. And it doesn't make the damage man does ok.

By the way, the island I refer to is only visited by a handfull of people, as it has no natural water source, no inhabitants. That is why it is so easy to see the pollution. The pollution is more plentiful than anything else on the beach and every single bit of it has washed in from the sea, not been deposited by humans. (Unless the goats are drinking from plastic bottles or making zorries.

[Isaak Brodsky]

These were taken from http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606 from a top ten list of what Stossel sees as part of the most prevalent myths now operating in public talk.

******

MYTH #7 — The World Is Getting Too Crowded
We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," and "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead: No more babies.

The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"

There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people

But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge. In fact we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.

But, you might wonder, won't we run out of resources, like food?

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book "Population Bomb," and warned 65 million Americans would starve in a "Great Die Off" in the 1980s. The 1973 movie "Soylent Green" predicted food riots would erupt in the year 2022 but it doesn't look like that will happen.

According to media mogul and philanthropist Ted Turner, population growth is "a time bomb waiting to happen." If it continues, at the current rate, according to Turner, "Eventually you stand around in a desert with nothing to eat." But that too is a myth. We see the pictures of starving masses in populous places, but the starvation is caused by things like civil war and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food.

With more people, we also have more smart ideas. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thanks to improved technology, the United Nations now says the world overproduces food.

About 15,000 babies are born every hour. But they are not a burden, they offer more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, more voices to bring us beautiful music.


MYTH # 3 — We Are Destroying Our Forests
Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity. But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more trees than it cuts.

[Asshat]

Ian, you are so wrong about forests. Your cite doesn't mention the difference between old growth and new plants. Nor does it mention the timber lobby.

I spent most of the late 70's flying over Oregon in light aircraft. In the early 90's I flew in as part of an airshow. I hadn't been in (or over) the area in two decades.

What I saw just blew me away. The highways were clearly marked with a stand of trees on both sides that extended a hundred feet thick. After that, it was bare. The entire central state of Oregon was in that condition.

Ross is comparing a 300 year old douglass fir, with a replanted scraggled pine tree in a place that's been clear cut. His numbers are provided by the Dept. of Ag which mandates logging companies replace the trees. Problem is, no one is watching the logging companies.

[Fonze]

Doesn't the planet have to evolve to it's enviroment, as if those that believe so strongly in evolotion, humans had to evolve to it's enviroment?

Great article Ian and i do believe that america has planted many trees maybe even more than it has cut down. It has had a bad past on that issue but it has made strides forward and will continue though not as fast as alarmist might like.

[okisteve]

Doesn't the planet have to evolve to it's enviroment, as if those that believe so strongly in evolotion, humans had to evolve to it's enviroment?

Great article Ian and i do believe that america has planted many trees maybe even more than it has cut down. It has had a bad past on that issue but it has made strides forward and will continue though not as fast as alarmist might like.

As for humans evolving to fit a new earth environment, let's speculate what that would be like. Longer legs for walking, skinnier so we don't need to eat as much and can live in smaller houses.... Maybe smarter so we don't repeat the same mistakes, but that's a long shot.....

Hopefully you are right about the forests, but as an Oregonian I have to also agree with Uminchu - once the old growth is gone, it's gone forever. Fortunately, timber might be the exploitive indistry that best stands a chance of becoming self-sustaining. The forestry types work fairly well with the big timber companies and have done a lot of reforestation. And natural regrowth is also impressive. I read a report on malaria control in the Mekong region that cited a big problem because their most recent forest cover maps were inaccurate because of all the natural reforestation in areas where there was good rainfall.

[Fonze]

Loooooooooooook ya'll.

If I'm the source of the strife here, I apologize to the both of you. Since all three of us have had some words pass among us, I am seriously sorry.

Sometimes, my responses to these interesting posts on the JU forum are serious, other times tongue-and-cheek.

I don't wanna make any enemies, and I'm sure you don't want to have any hard feelings towards others either.

So, pleeeease refrain from rippin' into each other. I'm sorry for having participated in it too.

Let's stick to rippin' in to TP's rather interesting views.:w00t:

Cheers, ib


Ian i dont think you have to apologize for your post. I think others are so hell bent on their positions that anything that they dont think is accurate they just dont like or ever will.

I might not agree with some of your stuff but think it is very interesting and you are cery informed, kinda like TP.\:-)


I was watching a report yesterday talking about scientist invented a tree with rabbit genes meaning that the trees will grow faster and obsorb waste in the ground like a sponge. I think they wanted to plant them near waste sites. I'll try and find the article.

[Fonze]

I lived in the Reno for abot 9 years and was surrounded by trees so i liked it and saw much replanting. The thing is the trees need many years to mature but i think if it wasn't for the outcry the timber lobby wouldn't have done anything about it.

[ja_Patriot]

Uminchu posted: "...I am on or in the ocean nearly every day. I wont give up more than that since this is a public forum on a very small island. I am not an alarmist, but I am witnessing first hand the destruction- the irreversable (sic) destruction humans are causing. And like I told someone else here, just because it only hurts a little bit, or because there are natural causes for some of the phenomina (sic) I mention (eg red tide) doesn't mean that man isn't causing damage too. And it doesn't make the damage man does ok..."


Could you give an example of an "...irreversible destruction humans are causing..." which you "...witnessed first hand..."?

First hand eyewitness accounts only, please. Something as you say you did see with you own eyes. You couldn't believe it so you took photos. That sort of thing.

Otherwise it's all conjecture and propaganda that you've read or heard about from activists and you really should know better.

You mentioned Oregon? I can assure you that any state in the USA had, has and will have more effective reforestation and conservation of natural resources policies than most if not all other countries. (Including Easter Island, just ask TP.) ;-)

[ja_Patriot]

Loooooooooooook ya'll.

If I'm the source of the strife here, I apologize to the both of you. Since all three of us have had some words pass among us, I am seriously sorry.

Sometimes, my responses to these interesting posts on the JU forum are serious, other times tongue-and-cheek.

I don't wanna make any enemies, and I'm sure you don't want to have any hard feelings towards others either.

So, pleeeease refrain from rippin' into each other. I'm sorry for having participated in it too.

Let's stick to rippin' in to TP's rather interesting views.:w00t:

Cheers, ib


You have some good views, Ian. "Ian, the scholar" was a compliment to you.

Uminchu has some good ideas as well and posts in his own style.

You don't have to be so condescending. It comes across as a little patronizing and even funny.

Ian Brody posted : Loooooooooooook ya'll.

If I'm the source of the strife here, I apologize to the both of you. Since all three of us have had some words pass among us, I am seriously sorry.


Apologies don't have to come in so cheap and there's really nothing to worry about from your end. You're not the cause and effect of anything at all and we're all far above the age of consent, responsible and mature in our own ways.

Cheers.

[Asshat]

Doesn't the planet have to evolve to it's enviroment, as if those that believe so strongly in evolotion, humans had to evolve to it's enviroment?

Great article Ian and i do believe that america has planted many trees maybe even more than it has cut down. It has had a bad past on that issue but it has made strides forward and will continue though not as fast as alarmist might like.

Fonze, I have to wonder.....do you think I am lying about the clear cutting and lack of replacement plantings as part of some alarmist conspiracy?

[Fonze]

Fonze, I have to wonder.....do you think I am lying about the clear cutting and lack of replacement plantings as part of some alarmist conspiracy?

You wonder to much, but you also say you haven't been in 20 years so maybe you might not be as up to date on the stuff going on. Im not saying their was never a problem but it is being adressed now. I just meant it not as bad as alarmist make it seem. if you want to take it as if i was referring to you so be it.

[kombu_kid]

Ross is comparing a 300 year old douglass fir, with a replanted scraggled pine tree in a place that's been clear cut.

I don't think you mentioned "lack of replacement plantings" in your last post.

Also, should we expect that all the natural landscape should remain just as it did say, 100 years ago? As time marches on, things do change. I think we should do our best to reforest what has been clearcut, and I believe there is a much higher level of consciousness now about conservancy.

Every person has a different opinion as to the importance of man, how much he should take from the land for his own desires, etc. I'm not one of those who puts man at the bottom of the totem pole; trying to keep the entire planet into some kind of untouched nature preserve.

I went to Sequoia Nat'l Park last year. There were paved walkways around different areas, meadows, and of course, giant trees. They had signs that read "please stay on walkways so as not to disturb natural growth". It was a meadow full of dead weeds. I just had to laugh....the animals now had more rights than me.

[Fonze]

I think the planet is a stronger force than some give her credit for.

[Asshat]

You wonder to much, but you also say you haven't been in 20 years so maybe you might not be as up to date on the stuff going on. Im not saying their was never a problem but it is being adressed now. I just meant it not as bad as alarmist make it seem. if you want to take it as if i was referring to you so be it.

I don't have a personal thing with you, it but it does seem like you are on my ass.

I just looked at Google Earth at the areas I refered to. Clear cut and the shape files are less than a year old- so it's recent. Replanting is not being addressed. Just talked about.

Edit: Fonze, now I had to change my avatar! Hey, if I give you my 909 credits, can you go to the casino and win some credits for me?

[Asshat]

I went to Sequoia Nat'l Park last year. There were paved walkways around different areas, meadows, and of course, giant trees. They had signs that read "please stay on walkways so as not to disturb natural growth". It was a meadow full of dead weeds. I just had to laugh....the animals now had more rights than me.

I'm not talking about some national park. I am talking about a forest that encompasses thousands of square miles whose watershed is destroyed by logging equipment and errosion.

I'm not making the stuff up as another poster seems to insinuate, nor am I an alarmist. The earth doesn't "bounce back" when the top soil is washed away, or certain species of growth are decimated.

Cut fir, plant pine. Does that seem right to you? If you can't see the difference, or understand the importance of the watershed, I guess we have nothing to discuss...I should probably quit now and realize that in true American fashion this topic is only about politics and not the environment.

You probably have me pictured as some mid thirties pointy head skinny geek green party liberal environmentalist don't you?

[Asshat]

Hopefully you are right about the forests, but as an Oregonian I have to also agree with Uminchu - once the old growth is gone, it's gone forever. Fortunately, timber might be the exploitive indistry that best stands a chance of becoming self-sustaining. The forestry types work fairly well with the big timber companies and have done a lot of reforestation. And natural regrowth is also impressive. I read a report on malaria control in the Mekong region that cited a big problem because their most recent forest cover maps were inaccurate because of all the natural reforestation in areas where there was good rainfall.


I suppose folks who have lived in cities all their lives (or deserts) have no clue what constitutes a forest. I just downloaded a photo off of Google Earth, but I can't post it here. Clear cutting is alive and well, as are the logging roads carved throughout.

I come from a family of loggers and salmon/halibit fishermen by the way. I'm from Boring....logging town in Clackamus Co.

[Fonze]

I don't have a personal thing with you, it but it does seem like you are on my ass.

I just looked at Google Earth at the areas I refered to. Clear cut and the shape files are less than a year old- so it's recent. Replanting is not being addressed. Just talked about.

Edit: Fonze, now I had to change my avatar! Hey, if I give you my 909 credits, can you go to the casino and win some credits for me?

You are the one that assumed i called you something so it seems like you like being the victim.


I can barely win in the arcade im not trying to lose someone else's money. ask dk it seems like he's got better luck than me.

do we get charged for changing avatars?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fine you win. So when will the "voluntary" human extinction commence and in what fashion, do you think? How about a boatload of AR activists at the bottom of the ocean?

Was that last part really necessary?

Anyhow, it has already begun. There are othes who believe that not one more child should be added to the Earth and have decided to not have kids. It begins at the individual level, and stays at the individual level with no government coercion or policy to force it. Just an acknowledgement that the Earth would be better off without us and to simply make the decision to not breed to produce anymore kids.

Talk is cheap, but now what if Divine Providence has your own family lead by example, either by self-destruction or by an act of God?

Talk is indeed cheap. But talk is also a tool for thought exercises and philosophy to think about things and consider different perspectives outside of the traditional view. Whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it. Words from new thoughts can lay dormant for years with much later generations rediscovering them and taking them up for action.

You've got kids. How about the extinction of the TP family name?

No, we have no kids. Years ago we made the decision to not have kids and have no problem with our name dying out. Just a name.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I can barely win in the arcade im not trying to lose someone else's money. ask dk it seems like he's got better luck than me.

do we get charged for changing avatars?

Everyone, Fonze and Uminchu etc... do not start bleeding arcade banter into this thread. Take that somewhere else, please. Thank you.

[Asshat]

You are the one that assumed i called you something so it seems like you like being the victim.

I can barely win in the arcade im not trying to lose someone else's money. ask dk it seems like he's got better luck than me.

do we get charged for changing avatars?

I am the victim! You big mean macho conservatives scare me. <3

Sorry for getting you in trouble about the casino Fonze. Sorry TP! Back to the human extinction and politically based decision making! :thumbup:

[Isaak Brodsky]

I agree with both sides, here, that clear cutting is taking place, that trees are being re-placed too, but those trees are likely unsuitable replacements for the health of the watershed.

As Chomsky has pointed out, and I think rightly so, "...all issues are political issues." Just wonderin' where the politics ends in this issue and where the truth emerges.

Reasonable sources can be drawn on to support both sides, but it seems to me that much of what we have already concluded depends primarily on our politics.

I don't think anyone on this thread is lying about what they have witnessed firsthand. Development does, indeed, cause destruction.

Is anyone aware of any non-partisan NGO that deals only in the raw data of our natural resources such as trees and water?? I would love to see the data on hand there, wherever that place is.

[Fonze]

I am the victim! You big mean macho conservatives scare me. <3

Sorry for getting you in trouble about the casino Fonze. Sorry TP! Back to the human extinction and politically based decision making! :thumbup:

im not as conservative as you think but it's funny coming from a republican that voted for dems to show the other side they were mad. what a joke this congress has been.

[Asshat]

As Chomsky has pointed out, and I think rightly so, "...all issues are political issues." Just wonderin' where the politics ends in this issue and where the truth emerges.

Ian, I am finding this to be a more salient truth these past few years. I do not recall having conversations about the Pacific Northwest's loss of natural resources where I saw arguments falling down party lines.

I am a registered republican and a former US Marine. PNW Logging and fishing is what we did, then farming.

I am getting painted here in a particular way that I do not find flattering, but more, I am disturbed by the villification I receive by the self-proclaimed "right" where my comments are challenged by those who do not possess the knowledge to discuss them past the slogan phase.

Sorry to counter Chomsky, but it is not in my nature to discuss something from a political angle, unless it is politics itself. The lobbies I have railed against today know no specific politik- only their own adgenda for profit.

[Fonze]

uminchu quit being such a sensitive man. you sat there and called me a big macho conservative yet you feel vilified. When some counters your argument you get all pissy. Also this thread isn't just about the northwest it's about the world.

You also have been to the NW in 20 years yet claim to see the same thing of a google map.I lived near lake tahoe, fires would happen and there would be mass groups that would go plant trees. There were even business that plant trees all the time. That valley was a high desert but since people moved in and houses popped up trees were planted were there was none before. No body i think said there wasn't a problem but you make it seem like nothing AT ALL is being done about it.


I dont hear about the fight your taking to the limber lobby. all i hear is a whinnig devil dog.

[Asshat]

I dont hear about the fight your taking to the limber lobby. all i hear is a whinnig devil dog.

hey Fonze. Do you have any idea what Google Earth is? Do you understand the componets enough to make any type of intelligent comment on it's validity the point I made about man's destruction?

Do you have any idea what I and my father did at the State Legislature when the refused to renew our trolling license? The protests, the signature?

You make a lot of assumptions. I have never voted for a democrat in my life either.

Don't tell me about your Lake Tahoe yuppie tree planting party. You wouldn't know a forest if it fell on you.

You can not replant old growth fir with pine, and you can not replenish top soil.

Keep your personnal comments to yourself Fonze, because in the end? You do not know me.

[okisteve]

Ian, I am finding this to be a more salient truth these past few years. I do not recall having conversations about the Pacific Northwest's loss of natural resources where I saw arguments falling down party lines.

That is odd, because I can't remember when it has not been political, or at least falling along social lines that pretty much followed political party lines. Back when clearcutting came into focus in the northwest, it was a jobs and livelihood issue. Not only that, it was pretty damn nasty - spiking old-growth trees to sabotage equipment, etc. on one side, and "I ate a spotted owl for Thanksgiving" stickers on the other. Hatfield was governor of Oregon and while he was a fairly moderate Repub, he never took a real pro-conservation stance. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management didn't come around until relatively recently, probably because their shots were called by conservative federal administrations up until Clinton.

There's still plenty of clearcutting, and it's still ugly as sin. Gonna get worse too with the Canadian dollar so expensive now.

[Asshat]

That is odd, because I can't remember when it has not been political, or at least falling along social lines that pretty much followed political party lines. Back when clearcutting came into focus in the northwest, it was a jobs and livelihood issue. Not only that, it was pretty damn nasty - spiking old-growth trees to sabotage equipment, etc. on one side, and "I ate a spotted owl for Thanksgiving" stickers on the other.

I was living here then, but do recall the spotted owl thing. My comment had to do with me being political, not an issue. Of course my family and friends were loggers, so you know what side of the fence they were on.

There's still plenty of clearcutting, and it's still ugly as sin. Gonna get worse too with the Canadian dollar so expensive now.

It does look ugly, that's for sure. Is the state still funding the hatcheries?

[ja_Patriot]

TP posted :
"...Talk is indeed cheap. But talk is also a tool for thought exercises and philosophy to think about things and consider different perspectives outside of the traditional view.

Whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it. Words from new thoughts can lay dormant for years with much later generations rediscovering them and taking them up for action..."


In a topic which you initiated "Gaia's right to life: Our purposeful move toward Human extinction", thus far you argued so purposely for such an extreme idea as the extinction of the human race in order to save the planet.

Then all of a sudden you claim that "..whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it..."

In short, you're saying that you personally don't believe in your own "idea" and won't necessarily take action for your "idea" to prosper.

You used the word "Philosophy". Well, philosophy is defined as:
- The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
- The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
- A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Perhaps there should be another category in this forum called "Fantasy Land", where anyone can post controversial baloney, just so we know if we're debating ideas or just passing the time in inane banter.

Question: Does this mean that all those ideas about Animal Rights, among others which you so strongly advocate are just foggy reverie which "...can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action ...?"

Here's a request: Next time please just tell us up front whether it's an idea which you believe in and which you will champion both in words and deeds, - or not.

[Fonze]

hey Fonze. Do you have any idea what Google Earth is? Do you understand the componets enough to make any type of intelligent comment on it's validity the point I made about man's destruction?

Do you have any idea what I and my father did at the State Legislature when the refused to renew our trolling license? The protests, the signature?

You make a lot of assumptions. I have never voted for a democrat in my life either.

Don't tell me about your Lake Tahoe yuppie tree planting party. You wouldn't know a forest if it fell on you.

You can not replant old growth fir with pine, and you can not replenish top soil.

Keep your personnal comments to yourself Fonze, because in the end? You do not know me.

I apologize if i made that assumption but it wouldv'e been nice to tell us. You do know this isn't a thread about just oregon though right?

Then you get stupidly angry about comments but your old ass says the above about the yuppie tree planting party and forest falling on me and you feel offended and you say keep my personel comments to myself:rolleyes:.

Just cause your old :old: dont mean i have to follow the respect your elders saying especially when you dont show it. so as you said keep your personel comments to yourself because YOU DONT KNOW ME EITHER.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Trees are but one resource we pillage from the landscape.

What about water rights?

LA has been drinkin' up a good measure of the Colorado for decades.

And, oh yeah, sorry to bring this up again, but the thread is about human beings representing a cancer to the earth.

Do new pines planted where firs used to stand represent a kind of skin regeneration precipitated by an effective chemotherapy regimen - in this case an environmental movement?

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP posted :
"...Talk is indeed cheap. But talk is also a tool for thought exercises and philosophy to think about things and consider different perspectives outside of the traditional view.

Whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it. Words from new thoughts can lay dormant for years with much later generations rediscovering them and taking them up for action..."


In a topic which you initiated "Gaia's right to life: Our purposeful move toward Human extinction", thus far you argued so purposely for such an extreme idea as the extinction of the human race in order to save the planet.

Then all of a sudden you claim that "..whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it..."

In short, you're saying that you personally don't believe in your own "idea" and won't necessarily take action for your "idea" to prosper.

You used the word "Philosophy". Well, philosophy is defined as:
- The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
- The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
- A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Perhaps there should be another category in this forum called "Fantasy Land", where anyone can post controversial baloney, just so we know if we're debating ideas or just passing the time in inane banter.

Question: Does this mean that all those ideas about Animal Rights, among others which you so strongly advocate are just foggy reverie which "...can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action ...?"

Here's a request: Next time please just tell us up front whether it's an idea which you believe in and which you will champion both in words and deeds, - or not.

Ja_patriot, I will come back to address this post soon. But at the moment, I am asking you as a moderator to use the forum quote feature when you quote posts from now. If you look at the top of the dialogue box you are writing in as you create your post reply, you will see something like a comic book bubble for speaking. That is the quote feature. Use that to put the html tags around the portions of a text you are quoting.

So, it will look like this, or even the portion above where I have quoted.

Thanks in advance for cooperating and honoring this request -- TP, moderator

[Isaak Brodsky]

Here’s a mathematical fact serving as support for a theory of global under-population.

Take 6 billion human inhabitants of planet earth and ask them to set up camp in one of Texas’ hundreds of counties.

Shackelford County is roughly 20 miles by 30 miles square, so the area in square feet is (20 miles x 5280 feet/mile) x (30 miles x 5280 feet/mile) = 16,727,040,000 feet squared - or nearly 17 billion square feet.

Six billion people on this planet equates to about 2.7 square/feet per person just in this one county.

Though it would be crowded, Texas features another 253 more counties.

If the entire state of Texas could reasonably accommodate earth’s population, with housing, parks, schools, hospitals and malls to boot, couldn’t or shouldn’t the rest of the planet yield enough resources to sustain the lot of us?

This is more than just some academic exercise.

I think it illustrates how famines and other shortages throughout the world are largely human-produced and, thus, correctable with the right political regime and moral guidance.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ian, the reason why this thought exercise lacks power as an argument to say that we are not overpopulated is because you could never ask 6 billion people to set up camp in Texas. Even if you could ask them all, they would not oblige you.

That is exactly why they as a group species are cancer! They are uncontrollable at the macro level when it comes to coralling them for the good of the whole. Furthermore, the body of an organism does not need to be wall to wall cancer cells before the organism dies from the assault on it. Brain cancer could kill an organism in that locality and yet we would say that the cancer is not over populated if we are looking at mere space left over.

[Isaak Brodsky]

I thought that it was self-apparent that I was not advocating the earth's population move to Texas.

The point is is that such a move, beyond being just some fanciful theory, is actually a good illustration of how few people there actually are across the face of the earth.

The problem is not over-population but the downright immoral mis-management of resources.

Your sticking to the cancer analogy serves to show that you can't see man as no more than a disease - which I don't think fairly embodies all of the wonderfully positive acts that man engages in.

Seems kinda hasty to paint humankind with one broad stroke like that.

[ja_Patriot]

I don't have a personal thing with you, it but it does seem like you are on my ass.

I just looked at Google Earth at the areas I refered to. Clear cut and the shape files are less than a year old- so it's recent. Replanting is not being addressed. Just talked about.

Edit: Fonze, now I had to change my avatar! Hey, if I give you my 909 credits, can you go to the casino and win some credits for me?


Google Earth??

Would you buy real estate in Oregon or London on the basis of a Google Earth map?

Those maps are far from being updated. The bridge to Ashibinaa & Itoman aren't even on that map for Oki. Some buildings in my neighborhood have been around for 2 years and they're still depicted as vacant lots on "satellite".

Fuggedabout what you think you see on Google Earth. Most forestry spots are "blinded" as uninhabited in any event.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I thought that it was self-apparent that I was not advocating the earth's population move to Texas.

Of course. I never said you were advocating such. What I said is that the thought exercise does not wash because of the nature of man and that even if they did all move there, it could still kill the Earth because a cancer can kill in a concentrated area if it is strong and lethal enough.

The point is is that such a move, beyond being just some fanciful theory, is actually a good illustration of how few people there actually are across the face of the earth.

But it completely factors out the nature of humans. That cannot be divorced from man so that only his body in space remains.

The problem is not over-population but the downright immoral mis-management of resources.

I don't think you understand that human population is expanding exponentially while our recourses (good management or not) are increasing mathematically. The latter is not and cannot keep pace indefinitely with exponential growth.

Your sticking to the cancer analogy serves to show that you can't see man as no more than a disease - which I don't think fairly embodies all of the wonderfully positive acts that man engages in.

I admit that as individuals on the micro level, we are not analogous to cancer. That much is clear and I think I have stated that already in other words. However, at the group species level we act just like cancer. It is not a matter of sticking with it so much as a matter you have not shown how we as a group species do not resemble it as such.

Seems kinda hasty to paint humankind with one broad stroke like that.

Then show me how at the macro level looking down from Earth we do not appear as such and do not act as such at the group species level.

[ja_Patriot]

TP posted :
"...Talk is indeed cheap. But talk is also a tool for thought exercises and philosophy to think about things and consider different perspectives outside of the traditional view.

Whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it. Words from new thoughts can lay dormant for years with much later generations rediscovering them and taking them up for action..."


In a topic which you initiated "Gaia's right to life: Our purposeful move toward Human extinction", thus far you argued so purposely for such an extreme idea as the extinction of the human race in order to save the planet.

Then all of a sudden you claim that "..whether that person does what he puts forth as philosophy is irrelevant. The points can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action or lack of it..."

In short, you're saying that you personally don't believe in your own "idea" and won't necessarily take action for your "idea" to prosper.

You used the word "Philosophy". Well, philosophy is defined as:
- The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
- The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
- A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Perhaps there should be another category in this forum called "Fantasy Land", where anyone can post controversial baloney, just so we know if we're debating ideas or just passing the time in inane banter.

Question: Does this mean that all those ideas about Animal Rights, among others which you so strongly advocate are just foggy reverie which "...can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action ...?"

Here's a request: Next time please just tell us up front whether it's an idea which you believe in and which you will champion both in words and deeds, - or not.


What is your answer? You can't side-step this question.

Is this Gaia thing an idea you believe in, in words and deeds or is this some way for you to express controversial baloney?

Regarding your request, you seem to be to only one to have a "problem". So ask dk to change the rules to state that the quote option has to be used in order to quote a person. I always used quotation marks which is accepted common usage.

Just stay on topic. This isn't about forestry or conservation as other posters have turned this into. Convenient for you to go along with their off-topic posts.

But if you really believe in man's extinction for the sake of the planet and other species, "Gaia's right to life" as you call it, should the human extinction commence with yourself and people close to you? Do you even really believe in your own posts?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Regarding your request, you seem to be to only one to have a "problem". So ask dk to change the rules to state that the quote option has to be used in order to quote a person. I always used quotation marks which is accepted common usage.

If a moderator asks you to do something, do it. Look at the rules if you are unaware of that. I do not have to ask dk to change the rules everytime for every little thing that I or others of the team request you to do. Do not bring this point up again in this thread. If you want to discuss it more, do so in the forum feedback area. Thank you. -- TP, moderator

[Isaak Brodsky]

I admit that as individuals on the micro level, we are not analogous to cancer. That much is clear and I think I have stated that already in other words. However, at the group species level we act just like cancer. It is not a matter of sticking with it so much as a matter you have not shown how we as a group species do not resemble it as such.

I see your point. I must have skimmed over your previous clarification somewhere. Yeah, I can definitely see your point here. It's actually an interesting analogy - the cancerous growth moving from one area to another. I'd like to give it some more thought, but I think it's interesting.

[Fonze]

Your kinda of people TP?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312779,00.html

A British woman who had an abortion 10 years ago and was later sterilized did so because she believes pregnancy is bad for the environment, the London Daily Mail reported Sunday.

Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.

Click here to read the full article in the Daily Mail.

Another woman, 31-year-old Sara Irving, also underwent sterilization because she felt "a baby would pollute the planet."

Irving became an environmentalist as a teenager when she realized saving the environment was her top and foremost priority in life, the Mail reported. After going through several boyfriends she finally found her now husband Mark Hudson who shares in her ‘no kid’s policy.’

[kombu_kid]

Maybe they should just self-terminate early.....keep that "carbon footprint" to a minimum.

[Fonze]

Maybe they should just self-terminate early.....keep that "carbon footprint" to a minimum.

no shit dude. I like how people that are so earth always seem to abuse it and find an explanation that basically say that they have to, to survive. Live in the mountains don't ever ever drive or use machinery or else your the problem too.

I see how no one commented on my comment that earth is stronger than some give credit to.

[kombu_kid]

I'm just wondering.....if man only existed on this planet in limited numbers and certain species of animals' populations were running out of control, say elephants, would that be a bad thing? Would the small human population who inhabited the earth have the right to control animals' population by any means possible? They're filthy, and destroy and pollute natural habitat and the pristine wilderness, of course not in the same way man does. How about bark beetles? That is a natural insect that feeds on trees and kills many. Would they have the right to exist and thrive? BTW, how much time do you think the earth has left, TP, before she "succumbs" to cancer and dies?

KK:

I went to Sequoia Nat'l Park last year. There were paved walkways around different areas, meadows, and of course, giant trees. They had signs that read "please stay on walkways so as not to disturb natural growth". It was a meadow full of dead weeds. I just had to laugh....the animals now had more rights than me.

Uminchu:

I'm not talking about some national park. I am talking about a forest that encompasses thousands of square miles whose watershed is destroyed by logging equipment and errosion.

When I was talking about the trip to Sequoia, I was referring to the gradual control of citizens and the loss of rights/freedom. I have even heard that authorities would like to keep tourists in buses at Yellowstone because the vast numbers of people walking around and hiking/climbing are.....wearing out the rocks.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm just throwing out a few thoughts, but are some of the problems due to no real migration being possible? Sure, you can emigrate to some other country if you jump through dozens of hoops and get lucky, but the days of mass migration when there are population issues are long gone. Add to that that life is so incredibly safe in the developed world, the natural mortality rate has been dropped so low that there is no room for the natural birth rate? Sure, it's more dangerous in developing countries, but even places like India have massive and unchecked population growth. Is life too safe now?

[Fonze]

I think you make a good point E. I do believe that humans are feeling very safe.

Are you saying that if we were nomads that we wouldn't do as much damage since we move aroud more often and let the area we used replenish itself? just wondering.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Not exactly. At least, not nomads in the sense of those of the Arabian peninsula. I was thinking more along the lines of mass migrations. US history and several mass migrations (Germans & Irish to America, for example) one of the more recent cases I can think of.

[Fonze]

how if you can does this or did this or will this effect the enviroment or mankind for good or bad?

[ja_Patriot]

If a moderator asks you to do something, do it. Look at the rules if you are unaware of that. I do not have to ask dk to change the rules everytime for every little thing that I or others of the team request you to do. Do not bring this point up again in this thread. If you want to discuss it more, do so in the forum feedback area. Thank you. -- TP, moderator


Done.

Now, do you have an answer to my question or would you like me to repost the reposted question?

Or should this thread be closed for further discussion?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

how if you can does this or did this or will this effect the enviroment or mankind for good or bad?
Well, if an area is over-populated and the resources are under tremendous stress, wouldn't it be good if a bunch of folks could move to some place that is under-populated, with an overabundance of resources?

[Fonze]

did the germans and irish move to america because of this? I see your point though.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think what you are suggesting E is the making it easier for migration -- like cancer wants to migrate to the unaffected parts from the large clumps of infection.

Kinda like soil the nest, leave some to stay in the soiled nest, and move on to the next location to soil the next spot. And then send out more tenticles from there.

[TheLastDon]

eleecurb is not the blackship but he is the blacksheep of Ju forum.

Close this thread DK.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Let's not target anyone personally here. Let's keep this on topic. Thanks TLD. E, please do not respond to TLD's post above. Thanks everyone.

No, this Gaia/Voluntary extinction has a lot of life still in it. I still have Ja's points to address and a few others, and many more points to bring forth.

[Fonze]

TP what about the question or thought that maybe the planet needs to evolve to humans as humans did to earth?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I think what you are suggesting E is the making it easier for migration -- like cancer wants to migrate to the unaffected parts from the large clumps of infection.

Kinda like soil the nest, leave some to stay in the soiled nest, and move on to the next location to soil the next spot. And then send out more tenticles from there.
No, I'm saying that because of borders and nations claiming and defending any and all territory across the earth, man does not have the mobility he evolved with. This creates tremendous stress on some areas, while leaving other areas completely underutilized.

I am with Ian on this one; the cancer analogy falls flat.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am with Ian on this one; the cancer analogy falls flat.

Ok, no problem. Then here are the four characteristics of cancer:


Rapid, uncontrolled growth
Invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissues
De-differentiation
Metastasis to different sites


What about these four, looking at humans as a whole species on Earth, are not analogical to humans and our behaviour on Earth?

[TheLastDon]

Sorry Tp and E, DK closed the other thread.

IMO people seek out the best places to live now. Before people used to go to places for pure survival now it's for the best view or the best weather. Why is California so overpopulated now?

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP what about the question or thought that maybe the planet needs to evolve to humans as humans did to earth?

The smaller organism evolves to the larger -- its environment or its host (particularly if it could also be viewed as parasitic).

If that evolution is symbiotic then balance is achieved for both their benefit. That would require that one does not destroy the other. However, we are assaulting and destroying the ecological systems of the world. We are not in balance and in a symbiotic state with the world.

What would happen if all the microbes on your body reproduced exponentially?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ok, no problem. Then here are the four characteristics of cancer:

Rapid, uncontrolled growth
Invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissues
De-differentiation
Metastasis to different sites
What about these four, looking at humans as a whole species on Earth, are not analogical to humans and our behaviour on Earth?
Cancer arises in the first place from exposure to noxious chemicals and/or some form of radiation. Where did/do people come from? People have the potential for either good or bad. Does cancer have the potential for good?

[kombu_kid]

Invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissues

Is inhabiting the planet constitute "invasion"? And is "normal" defined as "in it's purely natural state"....."untouched by man"? Who has the right to say that any part of the earth, desert, jungle or mountains must remain untouched or undeveloped or uninhabited by man? There are groups right now that say huge portions of the barren desert can't have off road vehicles on them.....in order to protect the Milkvetch flower. Ridiculous.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Cancer arises in the first place from exposure to noxious chemicals and/or some form of radiation. Where did/do people come from?

I wonder what kind of chemicals were floating around in the primordial soup after being bombarded by radiation -- you know, where the first domino was knocked over from that which eventually man crawled out from under.

In any event, I think I have hit on this with Ian twice already; that it isn't that we are/must be cancer as individuals, but that we as a whole species act as a cancer(which is what I mean when I refer to humans as a cancer). What are the characteristics of the human species as a whole (not individually) on this host that we inhabit?

Remember, no one snowflake is the avalanche in and of itself. Each one pleads innocence.

The characteristics of those actions of the human species group are precisely the 4 points I mentioned above which are cancer.

People have the potential for either good or bad. Does cancer have the potential for good?

Yes, individuals do have the potential for good or bad, and cancer has just the latter. That is why I do not say the individual is a cancer, but that the species as a whole acts as a cancer.

IN a holistic view of the world with the evidence we have up until now, what evidence is there that our species has acted in a good way to benefit the Earth so that the Earth and her ecological systems are better off now than it was since we began to spread out and virtually migrate to every nook and cranny? Have we degraded those systems of Earth or have we improved upon them with benefit from us with a positive balance? I am speaking as a whole. How are the scales tipping?

I would like you, or anyone for that matter, to once again look at the 4 characteristics of cancer above and tell me how our species does not mimic those in our relation to Earth as our host. No one has done so yet.

[Mad Hatter]

I really didn't want to get into this thread, but I stand up for the TP challenge.

I want to first say that I agree with TP on this one, at least in the example of humans to cancer. But I like to stir things up, so I'll just throw a couple things out there.

All four of the things that you said TP were pretty much on the money, but I think that there is one over all over site... I think that unlike the cancer... The Earth will correct it's self regardless if we want it to. The human body i don't think can fight back like that... in the matter that the human body can not fight with out alot of medical treatment, but the Earth is going to cure itself all by its self

But I still say that the human race as a whole is alot like cancer. Untill we are just flat out gone... we will always expand.

In time the National Geographic channel will become the History Channel... think about that.

[Asshat]

But I still say that the human race as a whole is alot like cancer. Untill we are just flat out gone... we will always expand.
.

That's what I was getting at in my original post too. The earth will always be a ball of dirt floating in space until it is wiped out by a meteror.

Man has the ability to kill it from within though. Do continue destroying the protective layers of the troposphere which allow increased radiation, to continue to destroy natural watersheds, to continue to add carbon by products to the atmosphere, and to continue to interfere with the food chain by killing and manipulation of living things.

The cancer analogy works for me, but as I said earlier, manking has the right to be here. But mankind also has the responsibility to be a good caretaker too.

Whether or not this is a problem or not is up to the individual. I think it is basicaly a problem. Others do not see a problem with this destruction. In the end, the earth will make the distinction.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Man as a whole has the potential for good. And, the onus is not on man to improve the Earth, but to keep in good condition, to sustain what eons of natural processes have made.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you have any evidence or examples of man coming together as a whole to have ever once acted for the benefit of its host and that a net positive good result(s) has been realized from those examples? Potential is moote if it never comes to be or seems unlikely.

Again, the behaviour of man has mimiced those 4 things above.

[Asshat]

Man as a whole has the potential for good. And, the onus is not on man to improve the Earth, but to keep in good condition, to sustain what eons of natural processes have made.

I agree with that. Hey, were there cockroaches in NYC before man populated it? :)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

You don't find things like art, music, and other forms of culture a positive? Do you view the Earth as a pretty picture to be admired from afar by some alien civilzation, never to be sullied in any way?

[Asshat]

You don't find things like art, music, and other forms of culture a positive? Do you view the Earth as a pretty picture to be admired from afar by some alien civilzation, never to be sullied in any way?

eel, the arts (culture) is not beneficial to the planet, only to mankind. (conservatives debate the importance is minimal)

TP, there have been many laws enacted to protect the environment and species from extinction. What greater example of man coming together than the laws he creates?

We do spend a lot of money, both private and public funding to protect. Yellowstone park for example has a very active wolf, bear and mountain lion program.

The Kyoto accords is another example of man coming together....of course the countries who are ran by the oil companies wont play, but thankfully private industry (those same oil companies) are investing millions- I read BP was investing billions- in alternative fuel sources.

[TheNoNamedOne]

You don't find things like art, music, and other forms of culture a positive?

Oh, yes, I sure do. Love all that. But all that is for man's aesthetic benefit/value -- not the Earth as a whole. The Mona Lisa hanging up in a museum somewhere is not benefitting any of Earth's living ecological systems, save for just our sense of aesthetics (which is not a system), and if it were to be thrown into the trash tomorrow -- only man would feel some emotional loss for it. The Earth wouldn't be degraded anymore in anyway.

Do you view the Earth as a pretty picture to be admired from afar by some alien civilzation, never to be sullied in any way?

Interesting question presupposing another(s) civilizations in the Universe. If those other advanced civilizations observe us, they would find us sullying ourselves. If they found us before man came on the scene and all species lived in the biological carrying capacities of their local ecosystems with pretty regular oscillations as a part of those systems, then perhaps Gaia would be viewed as healthy and unsullied i.e. not having turned on herself.

Now if those aliens had already sullied their world and many other worlds and had a rich knowledge of much of the Universe, then they may want to never see us sullied, and from looking at us and admiring our biodiversity as a pretty picuture may choose to set us aside to not sully -- maybe like creating us as a national park -- like a Yellowstone of the Universe. But, then we would have to zoom out and wonder that even if these aliens had set our small planet aside, have they acted as a cancer to their their galaxy despite their offering of one planet to keep clean.

Could be we are in this house of mirrors with highe and higher intelligence zooming down onto the other. Whether we are all neoplasms would depend on our over-riding behaviour in our environment in which we find ourselves in.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

eel, the arts (culture) is not beneficial to the planet, only to mankind. (conservatives debate the importance is minimal)
Again, I ask why is it necessary to "improve" the Earth?

TP, there have been many laws enacted to protect the environment and species from extinction. What greater example of man coming together than the laws he creates?

We do spend a lot of money, both private and public funding to protect. Yellowstone park for example has a very active wolf, bear and mountain lion program.
Yellowstone was badly damaged by mismanagement. A forestry program that actually worsened forest fires, the extermination of the wolf, followed by shooting elk which had overrun the park. The best intentions often go astray.

The Kyoto accords is another example of man coming together....of course the countries who are ran by the oil companies wont play, but thankfully private industry (those same oil companies) are investing millions- I read BP was investing billions- in alternative fuel sources.
Man repairing damage he caused, or at least window dressing to make it look like repairing.

[Asshat]

Again, I ask why is it necessary to "improve" the Earth?

Shoot man, look above where I quoted you and said I agreed with that statement.

In the other parts you quoted me, I was offering examples of TP's question about what man has done enmasse to fix things.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Gotta leave for a while guys. Great points. I'll try to catch up on them later. And don't worry, Ja, ... I still haven't forgotten your post you wanted me to answer.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I see what you're saying about fixing Uminchu, but I think those sorts of repairs are akin to someone shooting another, and then saying they helped that person by offering first-aid after the fact. I don't see them as improvements, per se, but as band-aid solutions.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

While man as a cancer upon the Earth is an interesting metaphor, there are just too many counter-examples of man being in harmony with Earth, or doing no harm.

Are there any "civilized" peoples living in harmony with nature. I think Bhutan offers a fine example.

[Fonze]

I think how mad hatter put it was good. Maybe even TP but i dont think we are a cancer but more of a virus and the world and universe will keep us in check. I think in the next hundred years humans will have to get on the ball with conserving what we have and utilizing clean sources of energy over older ones.

[Asshat]

Fonze, we can agree on that for sure. I know we argue, but I do enjoy your posts and the direct way of speaking you have. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think how mad hatter put it was good. Maybe even TP but i dont think we are a cancer but more of a virus and the world and universe will keep us in check.

A virus, too, is a good metaphore, Fonze. Actually, after the cancer discussion on our species being that, I was going to offer up the virus model for examination.

[Fonze]

Fonze, we can agree on that for sure. I know we argue, but I do enjoy your posts and the direct way of speaking you have. :)

I enjoy yours too and your wisdom:old: and knowledge and im sure if we meet we will be just fine:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Again, I ask why is it necessary to "improve" the Earth?

I agree, E. It is not necessary for us to have to improve the Earth in order to not be considered a cancer. I think I only mentioned the "improve" because you brought up "potential for good." Of course, if we are being Earth Centric in this discussion (which is what it is i.e. Gaia) then that "potential good" would imply some kind of benefit and not some inert uniformity. Unless you are saying a state of entropy is good. ???

What would be necessary for us to not behave like a cancer would be for us to not do those 4 characteristics of a cancer.


Yellowstone was badly damaged by mismanagement. A forestry program that actually worsened forest fires, the extermination of the wolf, followed by shooting elk which had overrun the park. The best intentions often go astray.

Indeed. We were uncontrolled and couldn't restrain ourselves from even damaging a part of Gaia we had conciously tried not to.

Man repairing damage he caused, or at least window dressing to make it look like repairing.

This reminds me of cancer patients who are sometimes tricked into thinking they are getting well just because they feel better with the plethora of drugs pumped into them. And perhaps a better analogy is just that sometimes cancer slows or starts into remission but then comes roaring back.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

For me, humans are a natural part of the biosphere. They came into being through the natural workings of evolution, and belong here. The rise of man from his primate ancestors was not a symptom of evolution gone wrong or a sign the biosphere was ageing or broken.

Cancer, on the other hand, seems to be a symptom of a system/body that is very old and no longer able to repair itself. That, or a body that has been poisoned and cannot counter it. Humans did not evolve because the Earth was too old to stop our evolution and dispersal over all the continents. Neither was the Earth poisoned by some outside force resulting in man splitting from ape.

So I still don't buy the "humans as cancer" argument, except as a metaphor, in the sense that "human activity in the industrial age bears some superficial resemblance to the spread of cancer in a host". Meh.

[Asshat]

For me, humans are a natural part of the biosphere. They came into being through the natural workings of evolution, and belong here. The rise of man from his primate ancestors was not a symptom of evolution gone wrong or a sign the biosphere was ageing or broken.

eele, remember that religous discussion we had earlier where it was argued that man was put here by God? (essentially that was the disussion)

Anyway, would your definition above change if you thought we came from Adam and Eve and God as opposed to evolving from other life forms?

It's kinda interesting for me to consider....that would mean the Creator put man on the planet knowing full well that His creation would attempt to destroy it. :)

I dunno. I used to zap ants with a magnifying glass too.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Question: Does this mean that all those ideas about Animal Rights, among others which you so strongly advocate are just foggy reverie which "...can stand on their own merit without their progenitor coddling them with his own action ...?"

What is your answer? You can't side-step this question.

Is this Gaia thing an idea you believe in, in words and deeds or is this some way for you to express controversial baloney?

I believe do believe that the human species should voluntarily go extinct for the benefit of a better world without us. I also believe in AR. Yes, both those are controversial. But, anyone who knows me also knows that I try to also live my life accordingly to those beliefs and to add action to those when I can.

But if you really believe in man's extinction for the sake of the planet and other species, "Gaia's right to life" as you call it, should the human extinction commence with yourself and people close to you? Do you even really believe in your own posts?

Of course I believe in my ideas. Though it is true sometimes I play the Devil's Advocate in order to spark debate and phet out people's position and to see how they self examine their own views. I may do that if I am on the fence and want to see what others have to say about it.

As for AR and voluntary human extinction, there is no Devil's Advocacy on my part here. Voluntary human extinction has not started with myself. Others have had the same thought, too. But, yes I do my part, and those of us who love our lives but want human extinction do their part by not breeding. That way we can live but not add to promulgating the human species. Not breeding is the simple and humane way to go about it without coercing anyone with violence or other horrible imposing thing upon others.

Grassroots level at the individual level.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

eele, remember that religous discussion we had earlier where it was argued that man was put here by God? (essentially that was the disussion)

Anyway, would your definition above change if you thought we came from Adam and Eve and God as opposed to evolving from other life forms?

It's kinda interesting for me to consider....that would mean the Creator put man on the planet knowing full well that His creation would attempt to destroy it. :)

Yeah, I remember. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying now. Even one who did buy it would have trouble justifying the "God put a cancer on the Earth in the form of us!" argument...

[TheNoNamedOne]

So I still don't buy the "humans as cancer" argument, except as a metaphor, in the sense that "human activity in the industrial age bears some superficial resemblance to the spread of cancer in a host". Meh.

I think we can partly agree here, E. The only thing I would say is that human activity, even pre-industrial age, mimiced cancer but that the industtrial age was the beginning of its advanced stages. After all, cancer can start out benign, then spread slowly, and then really get active.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yeah, I remember. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying now. Even one who did buy it would have trouble justifying the "God put a cancer on the Earth in the form of us!" argument...

Kinda like "planned breakdown." I think manufactures today actually develope their products to breakdown within a certain time period for their own corporate gains later down the road. Not all, but it is not unheard of.

But, within the Bible paradigm God has already planned an End of Times for man on Earth.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I think we can partly agree here, E. The only thing I would say is that human activity, even pre-industrial age, mimiced cancer but that the industtrial age was the beginning of its advanced stages. After all, cancer can start out benign, then spread slowly, and then really get active.
I'm not a doctor (but I play one on TV). It seems to me a tumor can be/start out as benign, but by definition cancer cannot. Reaching, are we?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'm not a doctor (but I play one on TV). It seems to me a tumor can be/start out as benign, but by definition cancer cannot. Reaching, are we?

For the most part, yes, but not entirely always. Here:

Tumor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer): broadly defined, can be any swelling or mass. However, the vast majority of entities referred to as 'tumors' in common usage are in fact neoplasms. Specifically, a tumor is a solid neoplasm; some neoplasms, such as cancers of the blood, are not solid.
Benign tumor: a tumor (solid neoplasm) that has self-limiting growth and does not invade other tissues nor metastasize. Usually not cancerous.

We are an unusual species, so that "Usually" above is the wiggleroom we have broken out of from the norm.

Edit to add: But this citation leads me to believe we may not nor never were benign. Not 100% sure which is the more accurate description.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I like Wikipedia too, but one does have to be discriminant in using it as a reference.

I'm gonna go with the National Institute of Health (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/benigntumors.html) on this one.

Tumors are abnormal growths in your body. They are made up of extra cells. Normally, old cells die, and new ones take their place. Sometimes, however, this process goes wrong. New cells form even when you don't need them, and old cells don't die when they should. When these extra cells form a mass, it is called a tumor.
Tumors can be either benign or malignant. Benign tumors aren't cancer. Malignant ones are. Benign tumors grow only in one place. They cannot spread or invade other parts of your body. Even so, they can be dangerous if they press on vital organs, such your brain.
Treatment often involves surgery. Benign tumors usually don't grow back.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yeah, I think the same info came out in the wiki quote, just worded more subtly. That is why I added I do not think that the human species is a benign form of cancer. Now I can say with 100% certainty we never were. We have always acted cancerous, but often the cancer is not understood to be cancer until it is advanced -- and that is where your industrial age came in that I think you said you could see the metaphore a few posts up.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Wikipedia also contradicts itself. Had you used the page for benign tumor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_neoplasm) instead of tumor, you'd have gotten:
In some cases, certain "benign" tumors may later give rise to malignant cancers
which is of couse more accurate.
Caveat lector.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

We have always acted cancerous, but often the cancer is not understood to be cancer until it is advanced -- and that is where your industrial age came in that I think you said you could see the metaphore a few posts up.
Used strictly as a metaphor, and not so literally as you appear to take it, yeah, I guess it's alright. But I remain underwhelmed.

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol.

Either way, your reference still is fine for the point of humans behaving at the macro level as cancer -- even if you only accept it from the industrial age on where it seems most obvious. But we are still vectoring out from that time. Haven't cycled back behind it.

[Asshat]

Yeah, I remember. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying now. Even one who did buy it would have trouble justifying the "God put a cancer on the Earth in the form of us!" argument...

It sort of reasons out with some religeons though, because they are taught that God continually tests us. Like in the garden with the apple.

I was watching Jon Stewart the other day, (I'm not much into TV) but he had some book author there who disussed this.

The one thing I remember is he said if man moved out of NYC, the cockroaches would all freeze in the winter. He also said much of what you are saying in that man has a "right" to be here. I agree with that.

Maybe some of us who want to get rich off of natural resourses with no thought of the earth are the heart and soul of the cancer/virus/tumor. Like the OP, and TP's decison to not have kids or be an AR (example) some humans opt to take a different approach.

In the end, maybe it's like any other belief: Who am I to say that what someone else does with the ozone is actually wrong, when I drive a 3.5L SUV every day?

[kombu_kid]

All the intelligent forward thinkers are voluntarily going extinct, while all us dumbsh*t cro-mags are pumpin' out kids like a maddog. There's something funny as hell about that.

Ya'll should live life like the Amish. At least then ya'll would be practicing whatcha preach. Right now, is anyone going without a car or electricity?

[Asshat]

All the intelligent forward thinkers are voluntarily going extinct, while all us dumbsh*t cro-mags are pumpin' out kids like a maddog. There's something funny as hell about that.

I know that was a joke (sort of) but you realize that the premise for that statement lays in the welfare discussions that occur in our country.


Ya'll should live life like the Amish. At least then ya'll would be practicing whatcha preach. Right now, is anyone going without a car or electricity?

I already addressed that above. Maybe a better question is; "What are you doing for the earth?"

Maybe someone us using electricity, but they get half from the sun. There are degrees of whatupedness right? ;)

[Fonze]

Anyway, would your definition above change if you thought we came from Adam and Eve and God as opposed to evolving from other life forms?

It's kinda interesting for me to consider....that would mean the Creator put man on the planet knowing full well that His creation would attempt to destroy it. :)

I think that for those who believe this (me included) That God put us here to figure it out as we are doing it now. I would like to believe that he doesn't want or know that we were going to damage it but in the end we have free wills and are humans .

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here's a link to a very exhaustive write-up on "Rapa Nui" or Easter Island (http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/chile/easter_island.html).

"CONCLUSION (by the author on examining several publications):

[I]“…[B]As a final point, I would argue that Easter Island is a poor example for a morality tale about environmental degradation.

This write-up was written by Benny Peiser. It appears that Mr. Peiser in other writings has not been very honest or accurate in some of his studies. He strikes me as rather new on the scene and in order to make a name for himself takes aim at the more established and respected Jared Diamond and his most widely accepted view of Easter Island.

On Mr. Peiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser) and one of his past tactics:
He did a similar survey with different results. His letters[4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey's results was posted and analyzed[5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and it was discovered that Peiser had used different search terms and parameters, such as his inclusion of articles which had not been peer reviewed, whereas Oreskes's article was explicitly about peer reviewed scientific articles.

As for Jared Diamond who is the leading researcher on Easter Island whose views on it as being a good example of ecocide and a microcosm of an isolated world of collapse, he is lauded far more for his stature than Mr. Peiser:

On Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond#Awards_.26_Honors):
He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. He received the National Medal of Science in 1999.

And see his other rewards and honors here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond#Awards_.26_Honors).

And here is his article on Easter Island (http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/eastersend.html).

[ja_Patriot]

The disposition of your responses already made it quite clear that you don't actually believe in the practical applications of this so-called Gaia Hypothesis, ergo the extinction of man; the demise of your own family.

So you can shout at the top of your lungs against the ocean to your hearts content, it won't change a thing.

Try to initiate discussions on something you believe in fervently.

That's actually going to be tough on you, a self-described "free thinker". It's a lot of fun to throw some raw meat out there and see which slavering carnivores show up to fight over it, isn't it?

But has it ever occurred to you that your style discourages discourse?

We wouldn't know when you'd step in to consider any of our opposing views as "off-thread" for you to muck around and have our time, effort and opinion wasted, would we now?

Quite apart from the obvious cowardice of one having to resort to administrative measures to bury the irrefutable.

Not that it really matters. We'd just stay away.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The disposition of your responses already made it quite clear that you don't actually believe in the practical applications of this so-called Gaia Hypothesis, ergo the extinction of man; the demise of your own family.

The "disposition of my responses"? Anyway, it sure is not practical to believe that man would choose to go extinct anytime soon. Perhaps never.

Still does not change the fact that humans voluntarily choosing to go extinct as a species would be a good thing for the Earth.

But what is the "demise of my own family"? You mean like something horrible will happen to us or them and we will suffer somehow because we do not produce another zygote for the Earth to add to its already 6 billion humans?

So you can shout at the top of your lungs against the ocean to your hearts content, it won't change a thing.

Hmmm... perhaps. But when I get to thinking negatively like you suggest in that goals will never be reached or things won't change, I like to think of this:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead, US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978)

I think I will put more stock in and respect to her words of encouragement than yours of negativity.

Try to initiate discussions on something you believe in fervently.

Why would you think I do not believe fervently in the benefit to the world if humans were to voluntarily go extinct, and that we should choose to do so? Where in this thread have I contradicted myself on that point?

That's actually going to be tough on you, a self-described "free thinker". It's a lot of fun to throw some raw meat out there and see which slavering carnivores show up to fight over it, isn't it?

Raw meat? Slavering carnivores? Are you sure you are in the right thread?

But has it ever occurred to you that your style discourages discourse?

Well, I won't judge myself on whether my style encourages or discourages discourse. You can go into my profile and compare the level of discussion of my threads and those that I enter with other members' and hold your own opinion on it. I seldom find myself lacking other members in my threads. But, hey, they can't all be home runs, now, can they?

Not that it really matters. We'd just stay away.

You are always free to choose to stay away from all my threads, ja_P. Consider that your invitation to do so. But, I don't mind your lacking discipline and coming back to them for future discourse on the topic points.

Don't forget to read the link to Jared Diamond's paper on Easter Island.

Cya around, ja_P.

[DougP]

Good question. Simple answer (though admittedly hard to achieve [phylosophically as a thought exercise though easy to grasp]):

Voluntarily stop breeding

Ok, everyone can blame me for raising this thread from the deep.:)

I just wanted to know what the next plausible step is after a Voluntary refusal to breed does not work. If people are not willing to get on board with that idea and the world's population continues to grow exponentially despite the death toll and others not breeding voluntarily then what? Force people to not breed? Male sterilization(vasectomy) and female sterilization such as tubal ligation or hysterectomies to become mandatory? Perhaps performed at the earliest age possible before the human is mature enough to breed. Could it all come down to an all or nothing to save Gaia?

[okisteve]

There's a lot of evidence that it will happen naturally, either due to famine, or more likely as has happened in Japan and elsewhere, where the cost of raising and educating kids is very high. Even in China, where it is more or less compulsory to have only one child, many people (in the cities) accept that it is necessary and comply voluntarily.

Anyway, when the cost of raising beef gets high enough and nobody can afford to drive through drive-thrus, we'll all be eating MRE tofuburgers and nobody will even feel like screwing anymore, except for Sex Wax.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I just wanted to know what the next plausible step is after a Voluntary refusal to breed does not work. If people are not willing to get on board with that idea and the world's population continues to grow exponentially despite the death toll and others not breeding voluntarily then what?

If the population keeps growing exponentially, or pauses for a while to grow exponentially again, then humans will probably be locked into never ending cycles of population crashes precipitated by starvation or wars.

Force people to not breed? Male sterilization(vasectomy) and female sterilization such as tubal ligation or hysterectomies to become mandatory?

I guess some would support that. I would not.

As a self-aware animal able to ponder our species's harm to the Earth, and keep in mind a harm that has caused more species of animals to go extinct than any other species and one that defiles its environment, we could reason that the altruistic thing to do in terms of Earthlings, would be to voluntarily go extinct -- without forfeiting one's own life -- i.e. the motto for those who support voluntary human extinction... live long and die out.

[Sex Wax]

Thats why i'm getting neutered. I'm gonna do my part, and cut down on the population. No more procreation for me. I already got a small herd.

[Maggie]

In short, the Gaia hypothesis is that Earth is a living organism. I am not saying that man being the "scourge of the Earth" is part of Gaia, but rather that man could be rightly likened so to a virus or a cancer, and that with man's self-reflective ability to see the parallels, for the benefit of the host, our viral, cancerous, or parasitic selves, should voluntarily work toward our own extinction -- albeit through peaceful means.

This is a very interesting thread.

My husband is considering a job in Mozambique, to run a mines program which is using rat's for mines clearance.

I can't remember the name of the breed of rat, but they live up to eight years, and appear, so far, to be an exceptional tool for mines clearance.

It would appear that rat's are clearing up yet more of mans pollution.

Maggie

[Maggie]

I think this thread is too deep for me.

Would "live and let die" fit in at all with any of the above discussion?

Well I'm in the wrong thread. I thought it was about rats. I think I'll just slink off quietly :D

Maggie

[Maggie]

The disposition of your responses already made it quite clear that you don't actually believe in the practical applications of this so-called Gaia Hypothesis, ergo the extinction of man; the demise of your own family.

So you can shout at the top of your lungs against the ocean to your hearts content, it won't change a thing.

Try to initiate discussions on something you believe in fervently.

That's actually going to be tough on you, a self-described "free thinker". It's a lot of fun to throw some raw meat out there and see which slavering carnivores show up to fight over it, isn't it?

But has it ever occurred to you that your style discourages discourse?

We wouldn't know when you'd step in to consider any of our opposing views as "off-thread" for you to muck around and have our time, effort and opinion wasted, would we now?

Quite apart from the obvious cowardice of one having to resort to administrative measures to bury the irrefutable.

Not that it really matters. We'd just stay away.



PETA admit that they are "extreme" in their views but if you look at the characteristics of "extremism" I think you'll find that normal people are far less extreme than PETA. Notice the "name calling" characteristic.

Researcher Laird Wilcox identifies 21 traits of a political extremist in the Hoaxer Project Report:

1. Character assassination
PETA constantly attack our "character" considering us to be
animal abusers, and killers because we eat meat.

2. Name calling and labeling
PETA calls us names on a regular basis. Nazi is the most recent name. Idiot is quite common. Several names I cannot even repeat.

3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations

4. Inadequate proof for assertions
PETA insist upon an imagined animal overpopulation even though all indications are that none exists.

5. Advocacy of double standards
PETA says they want to help animals and care so much about them yet seek to destroy their very existence.

6. View of opponents and critics as essentially evil
PETA views us to be killers of animals and are willing to use
violence against farms, restaurants, and research labs because they consider them to be evil.

7. Manichean (bipolar) world view
8. Advocate some degree of censorship and repression of their opponents and critics

9. Identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are

10. Tendency toward arguments by intimidation
PETA are expert at intimidation. They bring false criminal
charges against us. They do violence. They steal from us. They call us names.

11. Widely use slogans, buzzwords and thought-terminating clichés PETA are well-known for their slogans and buzzwords.

12. Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others
PETA claims we are animal abusers and killers because we eat meat and keep animals in our homes, and they are superior because they don't.

13. Doomsday thinking
Total elimination of human/animal interaction is doomsday thinking in the animal world.

14. Tendency to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly "good" cause
PETA feels they are justified in stealing, arson, and they have even suggested murder and feel they are justified in doing such.

15. Emphasis on emotional response, as opposed to reasoning and logical analysis
We try desperately to get PETA to discuss the issues and use "logical analysis" but they refuse, generally resorting to name calling and spurting slogans and memorized propaganda.

16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance
17. May claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or
divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions
18. Inability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty
19. Groupthink
20. Personalization of hostility
21. Assumption that the system is defective if they don't win. PETA always insist that the "system" as it presently exists is defective. They are out to change things. They cannot accept the world as it presently operates.

The ultimate goal of PETA: "Save animals from humans by not allowing people to own animals, period" They will eliminate all pets from our homes by using mandatory spay and neuter laws. Reject their non-ownership language "guardian" and "adopt". Insist upon "buy" and "sell" to stress OWNERSHIP! Your rejection of their language will speak strongly to keep our pets.


Maggie:dead:

[commando]

IS NATURE ONE MEAN MOTHER? (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/06/1924384.aspx)In a new book titled "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," British biologist James Lovelock says humanity is "Earth's infection."

"Individuals occasionally suffer a disease called polycythaemia, an overpopulation of red blood cells. By analogy, Gaia's illness could be called polyanthroponemia, where humans overpopulate until they do more harm than good," Lovelock writes. He says the cure won't come until the human tribe is trimmed back from its current 6.8 billion to, say, 1 billion people.

Now University of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward has proposed an alternate theory that suggests Earth is set up to kill off life when it spreads too widely. Humans wouldn't be the first victims of this periodic biocide. The dinosaurs may have been killed off by an asteroid, he says, but during the planet's other mass extinctions, millions of species were done in by good old Mom.

[0341isa]

As lame as I thik the whole concept even is, you do realize this exists right?

A bunch of jackoffs have, for some time now, been promoting "VEHM" the voluntary human extinction movement. Basically, asking people to pledge not to reproduce, based on all the stuff mentioned here. Google it if youve never heard of it. As silly as I might think it is personally I am not mad. I mean, first I hear these guys' opinon on the world, then I realize they have agreed not to reproduce? Umm OK. Thanks.

[0341isa]

I think this thread is too deep for me.

Would "live and let die" fit in at all with any of the above discussion?

Ok tough guy. here's my open challenge:


"When you were young, and your heart was an open book,

You used to say Live and let live,

---you know you did --you know you did --you know you did..."

Open to all comers, can you finish it the line and/or name the source?

We'll accept Film Name or Song and artist.

No GOOGLING!