Stanford biologists call for humanity to 'scale itself back'

Jun 11, 2012 By Max McClure
Biology Professors Gretchen Daily and Paul Ehrlich. Credit: L.A. Cicero

(Phys.org) -- "In biophysical terms, humanity has never been moving faster nor further from sustainability than it is now."

It's a dire message, but that's the point. The quote comes from a paper by Stanford biology Professors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily, with the Nature Conservancy's Peter Kareiva, published in Nature's new Rio+20 issue.

The successor to the United Nations' 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in , Rio+20 begins on June 20. With it comes a major opportunity for the world's nations to take stock of where we are in our collective headlong rush toward global bust.

And what does the science say?

The cultural changes necessary to reduce have begun to take hold, but the world's population is still projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050. Very little progress has been made in reducing , and the developed world's in particular will need to be drastically scaled back. Loss of biodiversity threatens to worsen the situation for and alike. And translating these findings into policy may be the greatest challenge researchers face.

"Just telling the people what the science says hasn't brought about the changes we need," Ehrlich said.

Population pressure

Humans are already above the planet's carrying capacity – the population size Earth can sustainably support. The scene in 40 years is, predictably, even grimmer.

"Even with people going hungry and living in ways that Americans aren't used to, we'd need another half an Earth to maintain just today's population indefinitely," according to Ehrlich.

There are, however, encouraging increases in gender equity, particularly in access of girls and women to education, jobs, credit, health care and family planning. Through these social changes, average fertility rates in developing countries have fallen from six to three births per woman over the past 40 years.

"Intimate personal decisions and cultural traditions have changed at the speed of light," said Daily.

Addressing the existing unmet demand for contraception among women in the developing world remains a promising way to reduce fertility rates. Estimates suggest that simply making contraception available could prevent over 20 million births annually, while also reducing maternal mortality and the need for unsafe abortions.

Educating women in the developing world could bring about an even greater change. The authors point to a paper in Science that predicted a global education effort would reduce the Earth's 2050 population by 1 billion.

Such a campaign would also further improve gender equity – an issue with a special relationship to . Growing evidence suggests women in the developing world are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation (e.g., of water and fuel supplies, and of land productivity), and that women worldwide are more invested in environmental causes. Controlling for other factors, the political status of women in a country is directly correlated to its success in reducing dangerous emissions.

The consumption bomb

The question of consumption has proven a much more intractable, and more urgent, issue.

"If we don't get off the fossil fuel standard," said Ehrlich, "it hardly matters how many people there are."

Although the developing world contains approximately 80 percent of the world's population, the developed world's environmental impact is much larger. Based on energy consumption, the average impact of an inhabitant of a developed country is 2 to 14 times that of a person in the developing world.

This global inequity is itself cause for concern, the authors say. Unequal wealth distribution may create "flashpoints for ecological and human disaster" – developing nations that will have the fewest resources to deal with climate stress and other environmental pressures.

Global life support

Although biodiversity is often thought of as merely an indicator of ecosystem health, it's also a critical component of an ecosystem's ability to support human well-being. In a second paper in this issue of Nature – a consensus statement by a large number of prominent environmental scientists – Daily points out that biodiversity loss may be as important a driver of ecological change as global warming.

Economic prosperity is dependent on what Daily calls "natural capital." Earth's lands, water and biodiversity provide a host of life-support benefits: "Food and energy, water and climate security, jobs, recreation and inspiration."

Some governments now acknowledge the economic value of these ecosystem services. China is implementing a new system of reserves, to span 25 percent of its land area, in which the government will invest in conservation efforts such as reforestation. In return, the reserves will improve flood and sandstorm control, hydropower production efficiency, water quality for irrigation and drinking supply, and climate stability.

In Latin America, water funds have become a popular way to invest in natural capital. Downstream water users – hydropower and bottling companies, agribusinesses and urban residents – pay upstream communities to secure water supplies.

"This involves shifting farming practices, restoring forests and forgoing some types of development in order to improve water quality, dry-season flow and security from flooding," said Daily.

The Natural Capital Project, an international partnership with a research engine at Stanford, is supporting these policies. With a software system called InVEST, users in China and Latin America can identify which conservation actions in which places will yield the highest return-on-investment for society.

More "boundary institutions," which translate environmental science into policy, are also beginning to form. April saw the founding of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – an agency that applies ecological findings on an international level. But the researchers say the field's profile is still too low for comfort.

"We need to scale back destructive human impacts – but in terms of good ideas and models of success, we need to scale up," said Daily.

"And it's not incremental over the next 40 years," added Ehrlich. "It's right now that we need to move."

Explore further: Pacific leaders say climate will claim entire nations

More information: www.nature.com/nature/journal/… ull/nature11148.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

One in seven suffer malnourishment: UN food agency

May 30, 2012

One in seven people suffer from malnourishment, the head of the UN's food agency said Wednesday in a report released ahead of a summit on sustainable development to be held in Rio de Janeiro June 20-22.

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

9 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sigh
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
Addressing the existing unmet demand for contraception among women in the developing world remains a promising way to reduce fertility rates. Estimates suggest that simply making contraception available could prevent over 20 million births annually, while also reducing maternal mortality and the need for unsafe abortions.

So you'd think that programmes to make contraception available to those who want it but can't afford it would be popular with libertarians (increased choice) and social conservatives (fewer abortions). But when I searched for information on the Optimum Population Trust, which aims to meet existing unmet demand for contraception, I found accusations of genocide, like this: http://larouchepa...de/12763

Sometimes contraception itself is seen as genocide, sometimes it is seen as the thin end of the wedge, preparing for the killing of a large proportion of the world's existing population. What motivates such conspiracy theories?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2012
Will he volunteer to scale himself back?
No? He is still alive?
What a selfish hypocrite.

There must be a 'doom' conference coming up or just completed since we are now seeing all these articles.
krundoloss
2.9 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
It seems to me that the planet is telling us "Look, you can do this the easy way or the hard way, but this is not going to work". I think that the easy way just will not work for us humans. We wont stop using fossil fuels, or burning rainforests, or having lots of babies, etc. We will not change our habits. That's the easy way to do it. The Hard Way is going to be where we continue to be greedy, we run low on resources and fight war after war for them, grinding down our population until its sustainable again. In either scenario, guess what? The Rich people come out on top, everyone else is cattle to the ones in power. But don't worry about Earth, she will continue on. We are definitely headed for a bunch of big problems. Train your kids for the Armageddon!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2012
"Belief in the infallibility of the latest scientific consensus may be useful in the process of learning about science when we are children, but the history of science teaches us that the scientific consensus of today is no more immune to future scientific revolutions than the scientific consensus of the past. To label as anti-science anyone who is skeptical of the current scientific consensus may be a clever political stunt, but it betrays a hopelessly naïve idea of the nature of science. The real enemy of science is not the skeptic, but the true believer."
http://www.americ...n-brain/
Sigh
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
Will he volunteer to scale himself back?
No? He is still alive?
What a selfish hypocrite.

I keep hearing that argument from opponents of population control. But population depends on the balance between birth rate, and death rate. The whole point of reducing the birth rate (ideally by reducing the rate of conception, to avoid abortion) is so that you can avoid increasing the death rate. A critique that relies on saying "you are a hypocrite if you don't increase the death rate by killing yourself" clearly misses the point.

That is obvious enough that someone of your intelligence must be able to see it. So why do you offer a critique that is so flawed?
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
"In biophysical terms, humanity has never been moving faster nor further from sustainability than it is now."
It's all about ignorance of cold fusion research. This keeps us in fossil fuel era with all consequences for life environment.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2012
The whole point of reducing the birth rate...

No, the whole point of reducing the birth rate is to have fewer, or NO humans on the planet. That is the objective of Ehrlich and his minions since the 'Limits to Growth' were published.

Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.
You are the master of your destiny. You can influence, direct and control your own environment. You can make your life what you want it to be. Napolean Hill.

Why are people like Erhlich, especially its seems biologists, so pessimistic about the human capacity to create?

Socialists like Erhlich, Buffet, etc. preach and make pronouncements but don't follow their own advice. Seems to weaken their argument.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
The whole point of reducing the birth rate...

No, the whole point of reducing the birth rate is to have fewer, or NO humans on the planet.

You are evading the issue. You criticised the man for not increasing the death rate through suicide when his aim is to AVOID increasing the death rate. How do you justify your accusation of hypocrisy based on Ehrlich still being alive?
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2012
what about those birth control chip implants?

Maybe they should force countries like india a 1 child policy as well. Pay people for castrating themselves or something.

atleast do SOMETHING.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 11, 2012
"Very little progress has been made in reducing consumption, and the developed world's lifestyle in particular will need to be drastically scaled back"

-Well lets see we have had a very healthy economic collapse in conjunction with technologies which are replacing human workers at unprecedented rates. Further collapse is imminent in many western countries.

Meanwhile, in religion-dominated regions, endemic violence is being used to selectively remove the most contentious and undomesticable segments, care of Agents such as the Taliban, al quaida, lords resistance army, and Rakhine Buddhists.

Meanwhile, abortion and pregnancy prevention programs continue to grow, with upwards of half of all pregnancies being terminated in some countries.
http://www.johnst...4pd.html

I would have to conclude that a great deal is being done. But it is probably not yet enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (21) Jun 11, 2012
No, the whole point of reducing the birth rate is to have fewer, or NO humans on the planet.
I have to ask you ryggy, why does more mean better to you? Why should there be MORE just because it is possible that there be more? Because your god (and every god) promises to support however many babies you all can pump out just so long as you (and all other believers) remain true to your respective gods?

Why should civilization be in the business of shipping whole populations around to accomodate religionist overpopulation, or to provide those who choose to remain in their 'homelands' with sustenance because your gods ALL consistantly fail to deliver?

We shouldnt. And we should resist with all sincerity and all necessary FORCE, all attempts by these rabid religions to FORCE us to, or to take from us what they can no longer provide for themselves; which they have ALWAYS done, because that is what they are DESIGNED to do.

This is what you call property rights isnt it?
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Maybe they should force countries like india a 1 child policy as well. Pay people for castrating themselves or something.

There was a campaign some decades back paying men to get a vasectomy. Turned out to be less effective in the long run than female education. So even if you have no interest in the ethical issues in forcing population control, the voluntary approach seems to work better. See also http://www.ted.co...ing.html

atleast do SOMETHING.

YOU can do two things that will make an impact. Donate to charities that give education and economic and political power to women. And donate to the charity that provides contraception to those who want it but can't afford it: http://www.popoffsets.com/ You don't have to wait for governments and you don't have to force anyone. Should be wildly popular among libertarians for increased choice, conservatives for fewer abortions, greens for the environmental benefits, and the left for poverty reduction.
Tewk
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2012
Otto's ghost, you appear to have lost your mind..better have that looked at.
But I really tire at the cowardice behind all this. We all know what these "unsustainable" "tipping point of no return" people want at bottom,
They want mass human death ! Quit with all the BS. 1 billion humans should be running around and even those must be kept track of and kept from causing trouble.
Tell us what you want...loud and clear ! "I want 6 billion humans dead !"
And quite frankly those on board with all this, you do realize that you're just going to have to do it. The 6 billion are probably not going to endorse the idea. You're going to have to develop a "Twelve Monkey" bio weapon and release it.And ah....make sure a vaccine works for the Chosen survivors...hehehe...he...
Caliban
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
No, the whole point of reducing the birth rate is to have fewer, or NO humans on the planet.


I have to ask you ryggy, why does more mean better to you? Why should there be MORE just because it is possible that there be more? Because your god [......]

This is what you call property rights isnt it?


An excellent query, GhostyO.

Unfortunately, it is doomed to be a merely rhetorical one, since our dear Herr Swenson will refuse to make any meaningful answer, as always.

However, I can answer the question for him.

"more means better" for Swenson, because his god is MAMMON, and MAMMON demands the LARGEST POSSIBLE population to feed the insatiable appetite for wealth --wealth wealth that mammonites claim by divine right-- that can only be generated by consuming the labor of an ever-increasing population to produce it.

MAMMON'N'friends love labor -the more the better- and will do anything to get more of it! But they detest working, themselves, as it is anathema to them.

Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
No, the whole point of reducing the birth rate is to have fewer, or NO humans on the planet.
I have to ask you ryggy, why does more mean better to you? Why should there be MORE just because it is possible that there be more? Because your god (and every god) promises to support however many babies you all can pump out just so long as you (and all other believers) remain true to your respective gods?

This is what you call property rights isnt it?


Good Question, GhosyO.

However, Herr Swenson will decline to answer it, so I suppose I'll step into the rhetorical breach.

Swenson wants an ever-growing population because he worships the only real god, who is MAMMON -and all other gods are false fronts created to funnel the labor of the superstitious into Ol' MAMM's wealth-mill. The less superstitious serve without the trappings of religion.

CONTD
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
CONTD

MAMMON'n'frenz require the maximum possible amount of labor to convert into wealth/power, and therefore resist --forcefully if need be-- any attempts to limit human reproduction, as this tends to reduce the amount of available labor, and slow the pace of conversion of raw labor to wealth.

Yes, MAMMON'n'frenz love them some labor, and will go to great lengths to get more of it, and by whatever means availble(it is, afterall, already theirs --by divine right, don't you know!)--and provided, of course, that they not have to actually stoop to labor themselves.

And Ol' MAMMY has grown fat, indeed, of late. Imagine the discomfiture of MAMMY --much less His passionate devotees-- having to subsist upon the wealth that the labor of a mere few millions of people would provide...why -His sides would cave in!

More to the point, though, his devotees might have to do on much reduced means, or even the unthinkable, unimaginable --and actually do a real day's work.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2012
his aim is to AVOID increasing the death rate.

"In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich had mentioned sex selection as a potentially effective tool for reducing population, "
"Ehrlich also defended the principle behind mass forced sterilization, "
http://www.lifesi...ion-mass
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2012
"In his 1977 book Ecoscience, Holdren explicitly advocated forced abortion. Holdrens co-author was Paul Ehrlich, famous for his spectacularly inaccurate predictions about how overpopulation would destroy the environment."
http://moderneuge...ehrlich/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2012
"Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954). "
"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)"
"With a values system like this, it should come as little surprise that Holdren is frequently mistaken about his alleged field of specialization, environmental science -- often tremendously so. As with Ehrlich, he has been predicting global catastrophes since the 1970s,"
http://archive.fr...ID=34198
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2012
"In October 1980 the Ehrlich group bet $1,000 on five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- in quantities that each cost $200 in the current market. A futures contract was drawn up obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich, Harte and Holdren these same quantities of the metals 10 years later, but at 1980 prices. If the 1990 combined prices turned out to be higher than $1,000, Simon would pay them the difference in cash. If prices fell, they would pay him. The contract was signed, and Ehrlich and Simon went on attacking each other throughout the 1980's. During that decade the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the greatest increase in history, and the store of metals buried in the earth's crust did not get any larger."
"Each of the five metals chosen by Ehrlich's group, when adjusted for inflation since 1980, had declined in price. "
http://www.nytime...wanted=7
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2012
"Simon was not surprised to hear about Ehrlich's reaction. "Paul Ehrlich has never been able to learn from past experience," he said, then launched into the Cornucopian line on the greenhouse crisis -- how, even in the unlikely event that doomsayers are right about global warming, humanity will find some way to avert climate change or adapt, and everyone will emerge the better for it. But Simon did not get far into his argument before another cheery thought occurred to him. He stopped and smiled.

"So Ehrlich is talking about a population crash," he said. "That sounds like an even better way to make money. I'll give him heavy odds on that one." "
http://www.nytime...wanted=7

The date of this story was DEC 1990, over 20 years ago.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2012
"Simon was not surprised to hear about Ehrlich's reaction. "Paul Ehrlich has never been able to learn from past experience," he said, then launched into the Cornucopian line on the greenhouse crisis -- how, even in the unlikely event that doomsayers are right about global warming, humanity will find some way to avert climate change or adapt, and everyone will emerge the better for it. But Simon did not get far into his argument before another cheery thought occurred to him. He stopped and smiled.

"So Ehrlich is talking about a population crash," he said. "That sounds like an even better way to make money. I'll give him heavy odds on that one." "
http://www.nytime...wanted=7

The date of this story was DEC 1990, over 20 years ago.
rwinners
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Ok, no numbers concerning population were mentioned. But "another half earth" implies that world population should be reduced by about 1/3rd.

Good luck to us. The earth will survive us so don't worry to much about it.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
We all know what these "unsustainable" "tipping point of no return" people want at bottom,
They want mass human death !

ryggesogn2 has posted twice since I asked him to justify his accusation of hypocrisy, and evaded the point. Then you come along and make much the same claim with neither argument nor evidence to support it. I was going to donate some money to populationoffsets anyway. To honour the impressive incoherence of your contributions, I'll add £100 to my donation. When the best arguments by its opponents are that poor, it increases my confidence that the charity is doing something good.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (68) Jun 11, 2012
Very little progress has been made in reducing consumption, and the developed world's lifestyle in particular will need to be drastically scaled back.


Then why is there not such "progress"? Answer; such far leftist "solutions" of social engineering and redistribution of wealth, are counter to human nature. There is less chance of controlling human behavior than of controlling the global thermostat.

Only, naive dolts and fraudulent disinterested "intellectuals" continue to put forth such worthless non-sense, when it's abundantly clear that there is no chance of such massive oppression of humanity. There is no force on earth that could achieve such evil.

Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet. If we cannot evolve solutions while maintaing human freedom and dignity, then we should gladly go down with the ship, than submit to such social engineering experiments designed by the leftist political Mengele's .
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (69) Jun 11, 2012
Very little progress has been made in reducing consumption, and the developed world's lifestyle in particular will need to be drastically scaled back.


Then why is there not such "progress"? Answer; such far leftist "solutions" of social engineering and redistribution of wealth, are counter to human nature. There is less chance of controlling human behavior than of controlling the global thermostat.

Only, naive dolts and fraudulent disinterested "intellectuals" continue to put forth such worthless non-sense, when it's abundantly clear that there is no chance of such massive oppression of humanity. There is no force on earth that could achieve such evil.

Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet. If we cannot evolve solutions while maintaing human freedom and dignity, then we should gladly go down with the ship, than submit to such social engineering experiments designed by the political Mengeles.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2012
It is well documented the wealthy, prosperous societies have fewer children. Some countries like Japan are worried their population is declining too much.
Why don't socialists want to follow this path?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (69) Jun 11, 2012
The alarmist are getting desperate because their socialist movement is failing, and the green industry is going no where. This causes more and more 'Fredo Corleone's' to expose the true agenda and nature of the far left progressives.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2012
his aim is to AVOID increasing the death rate.

"In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich had mentioned sex selection as a potentially effective tool for reducing population, "
"Ehrlich also defended the principle behind mass forced sterilization, "
http://www.lifesi...ion-mass
Your religions make these conditions unavoidable. Their reproductive aggression makes abortion necessary. Without religion abortion would be rare because most people would understand the concept of living within their means.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 11, 2012
It is well documented the wealthy, prosperous societies have fewer children. Some countries like Japan are worried their population is declining too much.
Why don't socialists want to follow this path?
It is well documented as well that wealthy prosperous societies are less prone to religionist superstition and as such, more cognizant of living within their means and planning for the future.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2012
Tard Boy is right, all these stinking biologists don't know anything about biology.

"There must be a 'doom' conference coming up" - RyggTard
lewando
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke: "just enough of me--way too much of you"

StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Ehrlich? really?
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2012
"Humans are already above the planet's carrying capacity the population size Earth can sustainably support."
So who decides this arbitrary CC figure and on what basis? I seem to remember Ehrlich predicting the extinction of humanity by 2000. Do people actually pay this clown"
And yet the Human population growth rate has been declining since 1962. This piece is propaganda
http://en.wikiped...2050.svg
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2012
Some of Ehrlich's previous predictions
On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[21] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."http://en.wikiped..._Ehrlich
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (66) Jun 12, 2012
Tard Boy is right, all these stinking biologists don't know anything about biology.

"There must be a 'doom' conference coming up" - RyggTard


Well it appears that the guy is a fraud, a crank, or a socialist using alarmist propaganda to push for his naive idealology. He must be dense as well to beleive that there is any possibility of 'scaling back humanity'. Anyone who still thinks that controlling human behavior and massive redistribution of wealth will ever happen, is a useless dolt.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2012
Only, naive dolts and fraudulent disinterested "intellectuals" continue to put forth such worthless non-sense, when it's abundantly clear that there is no chance of such massive oppression of humanity. There is no force on earth that could achieve such evil.

All they're asking is to live within one's means. Same principle as fiscal conservatism. It is equally natural that people desire the benefits of state spending without paying for them through taxes. When fiscal conservatives say that is not sustainable, should I call that evil oppression?

we should gladly go down with the ship, than submit to such social engineering experiments designed by the leftist political Mengele's .

Godwin's Law and hyperbole? Or are you seriously claiming moral equivalence between people who want natural resources to be available for future generations and Mengele? Honestly?
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
What Nou and Rygg repeatedly fail to comprehend is the futility of their arguments. Rygg's is steadfast political/economic resistance citing poor methods of government and rights of the individual (which always cracks me up because without government and authority, whomever wants YOUR stuff can take just take it unless you are willing to die to protect it) and Nou is constantly citing the socio/economic reasons that sustainable energy wont work and the impossible nature of getting humanity to willingly change. You two just don't get the reality of the equation - - accelerated depletion of finite resources increasing environmental stress = a mandatory adjustment in human behaviour.
We can voluntarily scale back now and choose the best way to do it, or we can be forced, due to the fact that we just ran out. Which way is better for us? They aren't trying to control human behaviour Nou, they are just suggesting we control ourselves and act in a rational manner given the circumstances
Moebius
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
Like it or not, the ideas of freedom and democracy are not conducive to the long term survival of a species as ignorant as ours. Tolerance is a BS philosophy. It's nice to be free but stupid people abuse freedom and democracy nurtures stupidity. Just look at the ignorant comments that fill forums by people who aren't smart, knowledgeable or educated yet they have to voice their opinion. Our society is a failure and it is on an almost unchangeable course, hence the word revolution.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
All they're asking is to live within one's means. Same principle as fiscal conservatism. It is equally natural that people desire the benefits of state spending without paying for them through taxes. When fiscal conservatives say that is not sustainable, should I call that evil oppression?


If government debt caused a negative effect upon the welfare state, then we would have a mechanism that regulates itself, and your analogy would work. But as is, is does not. Natural resources have value and their depletion will causes prices to rise, and behavior to change.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
We can voluntarily scale back now and choose the best way to do it, or we can be forced, due to the fact that we just ran out. Which way is better for us?


Yes, free market capitalist know that we will be forced to evolve innovation and technological advancement. In fact that is the mechanism (that we run low on resources), that is relied upon!!

Which way is better, is that which leaves freedom of choice and liberty intact, i.e. NOT socialism and social engineering.

They aren't trying to control human behaviour Nou, they are just suggesting we control ourselves and act in a rational manner given the circumstances


False. They desire a fundamental change in free societies. They explicitly state the free western societies life styles are unfair. The far left progressives want control over human behavior. If you do not recognize this you are only addressing half the issue.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
Like it or not, the ideas of freedom and democracy are not conducive to the long term survival of a species as ignorant as ours. Tolerance is a BS philosophy. It's nice to be free but stupid people abuse freedom and democracy nurtures stupidity. Just look at the ignorant comments that fill forums by people who aren't smart, knowledgeable or educated yet they have to voice their opinion. Our society is a failure and it is on an almost unchangeable course, hence the word revolution.


Your speculation may be right or wrong. What is certain is that man is currently acting in accord with his nature. I think this is a beautiful mechanism for progress, as it has created and adapted an incredible progress in standards of life .

What is certain is that anti-freedom and anti-democratic forces are counter to human nature and oppressive to human dignity. Such forces will be fought and defeated, so it is pointless to propose them as possible solutions. That has been my point.

rubberman
1.9 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2012
"Your speculation may be right or wrong. What is certain is that man is currently acting in accord with his nature. I think this is a beautiful mechanism for progress, as it has created and adapted an incredible progress in standards of life ."

There are things that can be universally attributed to human nature such as the survival instinct, desire for companionship and adaptibility, which have led us to the point where some societies have achieved a very high standard of living. However human nature differs greatly between populations of different geographies. Tribal cultures are far more in tune with their environment and it's their nature to co-exist with it, not change it or damage it. The majority of people that live with the highest levels of technological sophistication are ignorant to most aspects of nature. Humanity has far too many glaring examples of a giant "WOOPS, we never considered THAT would happen" and had to fix it. This time we can see the "WOOPS" on the horizon.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
then we should gladly go down with the ship, than submit to such social engineering experiments designed by the leftist political Mengele's .

I think there is something I missed on first reading, because it's just too strange. Are you saying you would prefer civilisation to go down or humanity to die out rather than that people live in a manner of which you don't approve? If that is what you mean, you've got quite some nerve to equate your opponents with Mengele.

Natural resources have value and their depletion will causes prices to rise, and behavior to change.

Have you yet looked up what ecosystem services are? Your argument depends on the absence of externalities, and the kind of market we have typically treats ecosystem services as externalities. You never explained how to avoid that, you just repeat the mantra above. You don't seem to realise that it's not an answer.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012

....Are you saying you would prefer civilisation to go down or humanity to die out rather than that people live in a manner of which you don't approve?


I would rather see humans adapt to changing circumstances as they become realities rather than based upon speculation, which I believe will occur naturally within the framework of freedom, along with rational regulations that are compatible with existing free market systems.

Oppressing human instincts and controlling human behavior and dictating what is "fair" for all across the global irrespective of individual abilities and circumstance , is akin to a socialist Mengele conducting unnatural experiments upon humanity.

Please read Moebius post above carefully. This encapsulates the "progressive" far lefts mentality. Such a world is not worth saving. An example is the post war east / west germany contrast, where daily people risked their lives for freedom.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
Natural resources have value and their depletion will causes prices to rise, and behavior to change.


Have you yet looked up what ecosystem services are? Your argument depends on the absence of externalities, and the kind of market we have typically treats ecosystem services as externalities. You never explained how to avoid that, you just repeat the mantra above. You don't seem to realise that it's not an answer.


I'll take your word for it that "ecosystem services" would be "externalities" as considered by the free market. My point above is that it doesn't matter, as long as a monetarily valued natural resource is effected by a damaged "ecosystem services" so that supply decreases,... because price will go up, reducing demand.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2012
Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet.
Untrue. Rather, we are as natural as cattle or the house cat. Humans have been artificially selected for based on cultural norms involving tribal-based behaviors which are commonly unnatural.
kaasinees
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet.
Untrue. Rather, we are as natural as cattle or the house cat. Humans have been artificially selected for based on cultural norms involving tribal-based behaviors which are commonly unnatural.


We are not metaphysical, so we are natural, anyhow the same things you describe happen in fungus and bacterial cultures.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (65) Jun 12, 2012
There are things that can be universally attributed to human nature such as the survival instinct, desire for companionship and adaptibility, which have led us to the point where some societies have achieved a very high standard of living.

Yes, I Agree.

However human nature differs greatly between populations of different geographies. Tribal cultures are far more in tune with their environment and it's their nature to co-exist with it, not change it or damage it.

It's because their culture is less sophisticated for whatever reason. Every human has the same nature as does every animal, individualistic egoism, which is why the 'white man' managed to 'buy' huge tracks of land from the Indian tribes by trading shinny trinkets, and is why whenever a superior culture dominates a less sophisticated culture, the less sophisticated culture becomes assimilated. Where are the American Indians,... in the Casinos not out in nature.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (65) Jun 12, 2012
The majority of people that live with the highest levels of technological sophistication are ignorant to most aspects of nature. Humanity has far too many glaring examples of a giant "WOOPS, we never considered THAT would happen" and had to fix it. This time we can see the "WOOPS" on the horizon.


I agree, and we are going to do things to minimize it while at the same time maintaining our existing freedoms and free market system.

Massive control and oppression over human nature is not happening right now, is it? Why? What force is gong to force the USA/Canada give up its wealth and freedoms to be equally distributed amongst the rest of humanity? There isn't any.

There are all kinds of statistically valid "problems" in any given society that could be solved if only it was possibly and worth it to control humans.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 12, 2012
Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet.
Untrue. Rather, we are as natural as cattle or the house cat. Humans have been artificially selected for based on cultural norms involving tribal-based behaviors which are commonly unnatural.


We are not metaphysical, so we are natural, anyhow the same things you describe happen in fungus and bacterial cultures.
?? The metaphysical does not exist except in the overactive imaginations of closet religionists, which means you are saying that EVERYTHING is natural, which is just not true.

There are many good reasons for making a distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial'. Domesticated animals are not natural. Humans are not natural for many of the same reasons.
kaasinees
1.1 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2012
There are instances where animals co evolve or domesticate each other, so they are not natural? Just as all other animals we have evolved from something, just because we domesticated does not mean we are not natural are the animals we domesticated are not natural. There is no such thing as unnatural which is different term from artifical.
Sigh
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2012
Like it or not, the ideas of freedom and democracy are not conducive to the long term survival of a species as ignorant as ours.

Ignorance, when not deliberate, is curable. The treatment is called education.

Tolerance is a BS philosophy.

Would you change your mind if it was you who needs to ask for tolerance?

It's nice to be free

A bit more than that. To many people, it is a moral value. And there is empirical evidence that it increases well-being.

but stupid people abuse freedom and democracy nurtures stupidity. Just look at the ignorant comments that fill forums by people who aren't smart, knowledgeable or educated yet they have to voice their opinion.

Do you like irony? I recognise your name because I bookmarked this thread http://phys.org/n...re.html, so I could document your comment as a textbook example of wishful thinking. Prenatal learning is empirically well supported. It being inconvenient doesn't make it untrue.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
My point above is that it doesn't matter, as long as a monetarily valued natural resource is effected by a damaged "ecosystem services" so that supply decreases,... because price will go up, reducing demand.

That would work only if the degree of resource extraction is what causes the damage. But take the ozone layer. The damage was not cause by extracting ozone, it was caused by the inevitable escape of CFCs. What price rise would you have expected to protect the ozone layer without the Montreal Protocol?

The damage to the ozone layer is the externality that CFC manufacturers and users imposed on everyone else. The degradation of CFCs is the service sun and atmosphere provide. It not being biological, it's not exactly an ecosystem service, but the common and crucial feature is that it is a process with limited capacity that is not being priced and therefore treated as a common good. No resource is priced according to how much you damage the system. Your premise is false.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 12, 2012
There are instances where animals co evolve or domesticate each other, so they are not natural? Just as all other animals we have evolved from something, just because we domesticated does not mean we are not natural are the animals we domesticated are not natural. There is no such thing as unnatural which is different term from artifical.
'Natural: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.'

'Unnatural: In violation of a natural law.'

'Artificial: Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural: "artificial light".

-Like I say the distinction is useful and universally accepted. You can try to redefine these words but I guarantee you you will not get anywhere. It is usually best to look up words and accept their commonly-accepted definitions rather than to try to reconfigure them yourself.

Nature would never create a chihuahua or pig which glows in the dark. Only humans would do this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 12, 2012
"Ode to a Skyscraper"

"Born from the rubble that lies there Nurtured through snow and through rain

By men whose only companions Are derrick and shovel and crane

Center for great institutions Place where conglomerates grow

Yet home for the little cigar shop With the candies all in a row

Seven seven seven they will call you Towards heaven, heaven, heaven you will soar

Only God can make a tree, I will grant you But only man can make a 40th floor."

-Unger, Felix
SatanLover
1 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2012
We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.
But I just posted the common defs o steamy one. Did you not read them? Please post your common def and enlighten us earthbounders. Or STFU.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 12, 2012
We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.
Saaaay... you refer to a previous post of yours in this thread but I see beelzebub has not posted before... which means you are noumenon. Not very skilled with sockpuppetry are you?
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (65) Jun 12, 2012
My point above is that it doesn't matter, as long as a monetarily valued natural resource is effected by a damaged "ecosystem services" so that supply decreases,... because price will go up, reducing demand.


That would work only if the degree of resource extraction is what causes the damage. But take the ozone layer. The damage was not cause by extracting ozone, it was caused by the inevitable escape of CFCs. What price rise would you have expected to protect the ozone layer without the Montreal Protocol?


I will have to concede you that well argued point, as I see no way out of it at present.

I actually have no problem with government imposing Rational clean air policies and even funding CO2 capture tech and especially fusion,.. as in part I view energy as national security issue.

I reject the notion that socialism is required or even a possibility. Whether you understand it or not, the far left own the AGW issue and see opportunities to impose their idealology.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (65) Jun 12, 2012
We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.
Saaaay... you refer to a previous post of yours in this thread but I see beelzebub has not posted before... which means you are noumenon. Not very skilled with sockpuppetry are you?


Very wrong. The satin puppet has been troll rating me for some time. Looks like Kassinees is SatinLover, both of whom has been troll rating me. I'll have to do something about that.
Caliban
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012

....Are you saying you would prefer civilisation to go down or humanity to die out rather than that people live in a manner of which you don't approve?


I would rather see humans adapt to changing circumstances as they become realities rather than based upon speculation, which I believe will occur naturally within the framework of freedom, along with rational regulations that are compatible with existing free market systems.


Much as the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "adapted to changing circumstances", no doubt.

And this, nonoUNme, is exactly the problem --the destructive potential of you and your groupthinkbuddies' mushroom cloud of willful ignorance dooms us all, for the simple reason that you absolutely refuse, personally, to make any sacrifices in lifestyle to ensure the safe and sustainable survival of humanity(and hence, the rest of the biosphere) here on Earth.

SatanLover
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2012
We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.
But I just posted the common defs o steamy one. Did you not read them? Please post your common def and enlighten us earthbounders. Or STFU.

We are part of nature, thus we are natural. You can cherry pick the "not human" definition all you like, but that is not the common definition of it. That is why i said there is a difference between unnatural and artificial.


http://www.merria.../natural

Notice how your cherry picked definition is less common?

"Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "'

http://en.wikiped...i/Nature

Enough said.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (66) Jun 12, 2012
@Taliban

I reject the premise that humanity is in immenient danger to the level of hysteria that is hyped. I reject the premise that asking humanity to reduce it's life style voluntarily, will ever amount to anything. I reject the premise that social engineering and redistribution of wealth is an acceptable reaction or is necessary as the only recourse.

Even you can verify for yourself, humanity is NOT in fact reacting with anything approaching the same level of hysteria as the leftist alarmists have hyped the issue. You can also verify for yourself, that the UN has failed to establish a rational global agreement to reduce emissions. The green industry has failed in being artificially injected into the market, so no windmills and electric cars to a meaningful level. We still use as much oil today as we have in the past, and there is absolutely zero force that can artificially reduce that use and dampen economies to achieve reduction.

I live in reality, you, idealistic fantasyland.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
@ GhostOfOtto

Definition of NATURE (merriam-webster)
1 the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence; disposition, temperament
2 a creative and controlling force in the universe ; an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual
3 a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
4 the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function used in phrases like the call of nature
5 a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6 the external world in its entirety
7 humankind's original or natural condition; a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
8 the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (67) Jun 12, 2012
Humans are as natural as any other living thing that has ever existed on this planet.

Untrue. Rather, we are as natural as cattle or the house cat. Humans have been artificially selected for based on cultural norms involving tribal-based behaviors which are commonly unnatural.


Huh?

'Natural: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.'

'Unnatural: In violation of a natural law.'

'Artificial: Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural: "artificial light".


Your definitions above are RELATIVE to humans, which is to say logically exclusive.

The context in which I made the association in which you responded to above, requires an all inclusive definition.

Humans are a product of nature and all actions taken by humans are thus natural.

Artificial things made by humans are so only relative to humans, while the act of creating is purely natural to humans.

QED.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2012
Much as the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "adapted to changing circumstances", no doubt.


They adapted quite well to making war material for their military's rape of Nanking, attacks on its neighbors, the slave labor of POWs, ...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2012
Satan the Deceiver-
From your own reference:

"It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wildernesswild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic."

-I have often said that Satan is only a sockpuppet. So is Jesus for that matter, by definition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2012
Your definitions above are RELATIVE to humans, which is to say logically exclusive.
Huh?
The context in which I made the association in which you responded to above, requires an all inclusive definition.
-And I just posted the all inclusive definition.
Humans are a product of nature and all actions taken by humans are thus natural.
-Well in light of the universally-accepted definition of the word, you are quite wrong aren't you? Humans are a product of human culture and unique human interaction which by def is not natural. Domestication by def is not natural.

See this is where you philos get into trouble. You take universally-accepted terms and try to fluff them up with all sorts of meaningless intellectual crap until nobody knows what you are talking about. At that point you can claim that we are incapable of understanding because we don't know what you know.

A standard parlor trick. You sure you're not the Satan sockpuppet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2012
And by the way nou you know full well that your mirriam Webster def of the 'nature' of things does not apply:

"1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b : disposition, temperament"

-Our 'nature' - our essence, disposition, or temperment, is by definition unnatural. Human nature is unnatural. By definition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jun 13, 2012
For example, the natural world operates according to laws which are inherently falsifiable. Human history has no such constraints, and in this it is unique:

"Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict future events have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it does not exist, yet an event that satisfies the law does not prove the general case."
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (63) Jun 13, 2012
Human nature is unnatural. By definition.


Quoted for posterity.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (65) Jun 13, 2012
So I guess chickens are not natural because their decision making is not governed by falsifiable laws?

Humans evolved from micro-organisms and so are a product of nature,... this includes any manifestation or result of human consciousness operating on the planet in whatever manner it does,... just as consequences of a tiger evolving to destroy other natural life, is still considered natural given it's instincts.

By your logic ant hills wouldn't be natural because such a form of sand wouldn't occur if ants didn't exist. Well, they do exist, so inclusively ant hills are natural.

This is what I mean by inclusive vrs exclusive,.. By your liberal tree-hugger logic, you first have to imagine humans don't exist, in order to determine that any effect they caused wouldn't have occurred in the resulting state of nature.

That is faulty logic, because in fact humans DO exist, and one must consider them along with everything else, as if from an alien scientists perspective. :)

QED.
AtlasT
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2012
The calling for humanity to scale itself back is similar naivety like to call for PhysOrg readers to post only on topic comments for not to flood the storage space (and subsequential energy and material cost) at PhysOrg servers. Nobody probably realizes, that the saving may start with such a details.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 13, 2012
So I guess chickens are not natural because their decision making is not governed by falsifiable laws?
No their shape is not governed by falsifiable laws. A dogs behavior is not governed by falsifiable laws because dogs are Designed to disregard it's natural tendencies.

Religion is certainly not natural and is unprecedented in nature. Evidence suggests it is a flaw in our structure which has nevertheless been selected for because of the advantages it presents to tribal cohesion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 13, 2012
By your logic ant hills wouldn't be natural because such a form of sand wouldn't occur if ants didn't exist. Well, they do exist, so inclusively ant hills are natural.
Ant hills aren't made by people. Ant farms are. There is nothing natural about ant farms.
By your liberal tree-hugger logic, you first have to imagine humans don't exist, in order to determine thblah
Well as I am not a liberal tree-hugger your logic is faulty.
is similar naivety like to call for PhysOrg readers to post only on topic comments for not to flood
-Blah?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (67) Jun 13, 2012
I already said "QED", you can't continue debating after that.

Ant hills aren't made by people. Ant farms are. There is nothing natural about ant farms.


Your definition of what is natural then, is only so, relative to people. Relative to an ant, ant hills are not natural by your logic.

You have to consider the planet and everything on it, from the perceptive of some far advanced alien life studying earth. They would view 'earth people' as we view ants. They would view any action taken by humans, and any resulting effect on the rest of nature, as natural given humans nature.

The far left progressives wish to propagandize the notion that humans are likened to a parasite on the otherwise pure earth. This way they can propose to cure the earth by controlling this supposed infection.

You are a victim of indoctrination of a whole generation, in preparation of accepting socialism.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (68) Jun 13, 2012
A dogs behavior is not governed by falsifiable laws because dogs are Designed to disregard it's natural tendencies.


Humans are by far, not the only animals to have 'domesticated' other animals. This is the basis of symbiotic relationships which is a natural occurrence.

Religion is certainly not natural and is unprecedented in nature. Evidence suggests it is a flaw in our structure which has nevertheless been selected for ...


Religion is an idea, not a flaw in some evolved structure. In fact belief in god manifests itself in many parts of the world simultaneously and independently.

This tells me that it must result from some intrinsic natural mechanism of human thought,... i.e,.. it is entirely intrinsic to human nature to assimilate experience into single synthesis for coherent understanding.

That religion is wrong is a matter of accuracy,.. it follows the same natural mechanism as science, just not the proper methodology.

QED.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 13, 2012
Your definition of what is natural then, is only so, relative to people. Relative to an ant, ant hills are not natural by your logic.
Absolutely not. You are equating ants with people. We are only antlike in some respects. For instance we are domesticated whereas ants are not.

And it is not my def but the standard def. Yours is non-standard and not well-defined. Name something that is not natural but which still exists? Note this excludes the soul or anything metaphysical.
Religion is an idea, not a flaw in some evolved structure. In fact belief in god manifests itself in many parts of the world simultaneously and independently.

This tells me that it must result from some intrinsic natural mechanism of human thought,...
-And here is at least one expert who disagrees with you:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-Religion can very well be a pathological flaw and wholly fixable. A caustic meme.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2012
Humans are by far, not the only animals to have 'domesticated' other animals.
-Wrong again.

"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, is changed at the genetic level, accentuating traits that benefit humans...In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."

-And I think this def can be properly extended to include fellow humans as well. Per your buddy Nietzsche and others, including all the culling and breeding described in the old testament.
http://fractalont...peoples/

-What is QED? Is that latin for 'I surrender you are obviously right'?
Sigh
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
I will have to concede you that well argued point, as I see no way out of it at present.

Thank you for the intellectual honesty. It is too rare, especially on the net.

I actually have no problem with government imposing Rational clean air policies and even funding CO2 capture tech and especially fusion

It seems we agree on a point of principle. I see markets as a fine system of distributed information gathering and exchange. I do think there are cases where they either inherently can't work or where human psychology messes them up. Then there is a case for intervention. Funding basic research is one such intervention. Sometimes regulation is another.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2012
Whether you understand it or not, the far left own the AGW issue and see opportunities to impose their idealology

True for the authoritarian left. The authoritarian/libertarian dimension is separate from the right/left dimension. A crisis is always an opportunity for authoritarians to grab more power, whether they are on the left or the right.

I don't see anything about the moral values of the left that would make warming more a cause for the left than the right. I suspect much of that is accident. I read that in the Soviet Union environmentalism was seen as a capitalist plot to cripple socialist economies. Environmentalism tends to involve opposing the polluters, who tend to be private companies in much of the world. In Cuba, where polluters are likely state owned, environmentalism might be more congenial to political conservatives. Less cognitive dissonance. And so environmental concerns get mixed up with others and suffer for it.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (67) Jun 13, 2012
And it is not my def but the standard def. Yours is non-standard and not well-defined.


Obviously the standard definition you put forth is from the perspective of People for common use, relative to People.

We're talking about the scope of Nature, which requires you to step out of yourself, to include yourself.

Name something that is not natural but which still exists? Note this excludes the soul or anything metaphysical.


TheGhostofOtto1923, and whatever it is you're inflicted with.
rubberman
3 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2012
I gotta go with Ghost on this one. If you ask any person in any language what the opposite of the word natural is, they will say that it is artificial, only humans produce objects that are artificial. There are no natural processes that produce plastic, or simultaneously combine metals into alloys and shape them to satisfy a purpose. If everything humans did was considered by humanity to be natural, the word artificial wouldn't exist.
How do you distinguish between a real hand and prosthesis....one is artificial, the other is natural.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (64) Jun 13, 2012
Of course if you ask any person that, while leaving off the context, they are going to default to the human-exclusive definition, because they are not considering the entire earth system as a whole.

When considering the Entire Earth System As A Whole, and all species that have evolved in that system, one should include human activity and its effects as natural, unless you're Tom Cruze.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (24) Jun 13, 2012
Obviously the standard definition you put forth is from the perspective of People for common use, relative to People
Well you are welcome to provide references from dogs or wolves or a ficus, as to what they think those words might mean.

I think you are confusing philosophy with reality again. You are attempting to establish an -ism, which is really only a personal opinion to one degree or another depending on the amount of effort you put into it.

Seriously, have you got any references at all from people who have actually put some effort into an -ism similar to yours? You know, something you philos like to refer to as a 'school'?

Maybe it is actually called the 'Entire Earth System As A Whole' school. Hey - 'Globalism' -? 'Global Inclusivism' -? 'Inclusive Organic Globalism' 'IOG' Yeah that sounds sufficiently obtuse.

Unless you got some refs on a par with the sort of validation I typically post, you can QED yourself.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2012
moral values of the left

What is 'the left'?
A more accurate description is needed. Socialist is most accurate. Socialists do not support individual property rights, do not believe individual rights are inherent but are granted by the govt., and believe the state owns all property.
Caliban
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2012
@Taliban

I reject the premise that humanity is in immenient danger to the level of hysteria that is hyped. I reject the premise that asking humanity to reduce [...]style voluntarily, will ever amount to anything. I reject the premise that social engineering and redistribution of wealth is an acceptable reaction or is necessary as the only recourse.


nonoUNme,

You're just a rejectin' mofo, then aren't you? And this in no way surprises, as your rejection is grounded in the undeveloped psyche of a two-year-old that understands "no" and "mine" as the only possible dispositions of possessions.

The rest of your rant is mere noisemaking, and perfectly illustrates you and your groupthinkbuddies' approach: to delude yourselves, and through constant, strenuous repetion -enough others, into accepting those delusions as "truth" so as to prevent corrective action.

And this base, unevolved, infantile selfishness is the illness at the heart of your NeoCon/Randite perversion of reality.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2012
Obviously the standard definition you put forth is from the perspective of People for common use, relative to People
Well you are welcome to provide references from dogs or wolves or a ficus, as to what they think those words might mean.

I think you are confusing philosophy with reality again. You are attempting to establish an -ism, which is really only a personal opinion to one degree or another depending on the amount of effort you put into it.

Seriously, have you got any references at all from people who have actually put some effort into an -ism similar to yours? You know, something you philos like to refer to as a 'school'?

Maybe it is actually called the 'Entire Earth System As A Whole' school. Hey - 'Globalism' -? 'Global Inclusivism' -? 'Inclusive Organic Globalism' 'IOG' Yeah that sounds sufficiently obtuse.

Unless you got some refs on a par with the sort of validation I typically post, you can QED yourself.
- GhostofCrappo

-- says the mentally ill turd.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2012
Yuppers...the mentally disturbed TheGhostofOtto1923 fat ugly porker is found to have a bad case of DID or MPD. That's why he fights with himself in the form of dick_wolf and has multiple sock puppets so that he can hide while they verbally abuse other posters and try to wreck their trains of thought.
GhostofCrappo and his alternate personality, CardacianNeverid rule the internet...so he thinks.
http://www.psycho...disorder

Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder, is a condition wherein a person's identity is fragmented into two or more distinct personalities. Sufferers of this rare condition are usually victims of severe abuse.

PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2012
Some of TheGhostofOtto1923's sock puppets are TheGhostofOtto1932, CardacianNeverid, FrankHerbert, bewertow, dick-wolf, otto1932, otto1923, otto1882, otto_groupie_troll and many more.

DID is a disorder characterized by identity fragmentation rather than a proliferation of separate personalities. The disturbance is not due to the direct psychological effects of a substance or of a general medical condition, yet as this once rarely reported disorder has become more common, the diagnosis has become controversial. (Only because it can mimic other disorders.)
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2012
Humans are by far, not the only animals to have 'domesticated' other animals.
-Wrong again.

"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, is changed at the genetic level, accentuating traits that benefit humans...In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."
- GhostofCrappola

And of course, the fat, ugly porker GhostofCrapper, who believes himself to have sole proprietary rights to knowledge of the universe can't even remember that the lowly ant has domesticated the aphid for their own use, milking it like the cow that theGhostofCrapheap resembles.
He thinks to himself, "wow, I am so smart".
ROFLOL

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2012
But humans are by far the only animal to have domesticated itself.

"Humans are by far, not the only animals to have 'domesticated' other animals." - NumenTard

The domestication of man continues.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2012
Ahhh sweet Vendicar...it's not called "domesticated". it's called "self-disciplined". It's like when you were potty trained. You weren't being domesticated. You learnt self discipline. Please...don't get like GhostTard. He suffers from multiple personalities.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2012
btw, I've read your stuff....you're a pretty smart guy, Vendicar
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2012
The ants and their aphids....don't forget them. Check your plants under the leaves.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2012
well well well..did I say something wrong? or is there a bias against a woman making comments here? Did I walk into the men's bathroom by accident? LOL
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
I read the title of the article and I have to agree; Humanity has to scale back. Alas, it won't and we can all prepare for a Soylent Green future. Go get-em Gostman.

PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2012
Oh what the hell, howhot. There's some people here who believe in war and people getting killed and babies' brains sucked out of their skulls and something called "Empire". Why should you be so worried about a movie plot?
Sigh
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2012
moral values of the left

What is 'the left'?
A more accurate description is needed.

If that is a genuine, not a rhetorical question, download the podcast here http://commonsens.../?p=9077 and find out about some of the empirical research.

Socialists do not support individual property rights, do not believe individual rights are inherent but are granted by the govt., and believe the state owns all property.

That you like the world to be that simple doesn't make it so.

Even wikipedia gives you several entries with further references. Try http://en.wikiped...arianism
http://en.wikiped...ocialism
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2012
That you like the world to be that simple doesn't make it so.

Then how can you categorize billions of people with one word?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2012
That you like the world to be that simple doesn't make it so.

Then how can you categorize billions of people with one word?
Uh like this?
Socialists do not support individual property rights, do not believe individual rights are inherent but are granted by the govt., and believe the state owns all property.
-But you were just looking for attention werent you ryggy?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2012
Socialism describes the actions and philosophy of socialists in absolute terminology.

'Left' only describes a location which is relative to 'right'.

SatanLover
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2012
Agenda21
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (23) Jun 14, 2012
Agenda21
Ever notice how apples browser name, Safari, in the right font, looks a lot like 'Satan'? It does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 14, 2012
Your definition of what is natural then, is only so, relative to people. Relative to an ant, ant hills are not natural by your logic
And THIS is distinctly unnatural as well:
http://www.youtub...04QBpBMA

-On so many levels-
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2012
Agenda21
Ever notice how apples browser name, Safari, in the right font, looks a lot like 'Satan'? It does.

That is because satan designed safari.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 15, 2012
Agenda21
Ever notice how apples browser name, Safari, in the right font, looks a lot like 'Satan'? It does.

That is because satan designed safari.
Uh huh. Just like the Internet is the Beast. Here is an alternate on the VI VI VI explanation:
http://www.av1611...666.html

-Except that since neither your buddy nor Jehovah exist, it is only People who do these things. Perhaps a sense of humor.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2012
Similarly we can characterize Libertarian/Randites with just one word. "Vermin"

"Socialism describes the actions and philosophy of socialists in absolute terminology." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2012
It is after all, why God cast us out of paradise.

"The far left progressives wish to propagandize the notion that humans are likened to a parasite on the otherwise pure earth. " - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2012
The only information markets distribute is cost.

How many dollars of love do you have for your wife, children, mother or father?

Markets strip away information. They are the antithesis of information.

Corporations seek to provide their customers with as much misleading information as possible.

There is nothing more dishonest than an unregulated market.

"I see markets as a fine system of distributed information gathering and exchange." - sigh
ludwigpants
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2012
It is after all, why God cast us out of paradise.

"The far left progressives wish to propagandize the notion that humans are likened to a parasite on the otherwise pure earth. " - NumenTard


Neither of us believe in that god, so your sarcasm is pointless. The earth is your god and environmentalism, your religion.
ludwigpants
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2012
"The free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - Barach Obama, VD's own hero.

Vendicar, denies the factual greatness of the free market, but childishly derides those who question hysterical AGW cataclysmic speculation, by generalizing them as deniers. No integrity or credibility.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2012
The only information markets distribute is cost.

In the UK there is a saying that the Conservatives know the cost of everything and the value of nothing (which is why they tried to sell off the forests), while Labour know the value of everything and the cost of nothing. Ironically, that latter problem is shared by people who treat natural resources as inexhaustible. When resources are finite, you must know costs.

How many dollars of love do you have for your wife, children, mother or father?

Listen to the 26th May edition of the Forum: http://www.bbc.co...es/forum

Corporations seek to provide their customers with as much misleading information as possible.

True, but game-theoretical analysis in ecology shows that when a signal is no longer believed, it is only cost for the sender. It is in the senders' collective interest to maintain some standards. See www.asa.org.uk

Still, the free market model assumption of complete information does not apply.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2012
Socialism describes the actions and philosophy of socialists in absolute terminology.

I rather think it's you who is so keen on absolute terminology. Did you check those links? The left is notorious for not uniting around an agreed set of beliefs. Do you imagine socialism would be the one monolithic exception? That the new president of France has exactly the same opinions as Fidel Castro?

Instead, I have the impression that when people disagree with you on one thing that you find important, you like to imagine they disagree with you on everything important, which makes them both wrong and evil in your eyes. It makes your model of the world much simpler, but a long way from accurate. Things are more complicated than that.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (64) Jun 16, 2012
@Sigh,

The environmental moverment is about globalization of government, social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and generally anti-capitalistic idealology. This is not a feigned conspiracy, it is freely admitted by top AGW theorists in the UN.

http://newsbuster...e-policy

Also, it is historically well defined, and if you understand the nature of "progressive liberalism" and absolute government control of human behavior (social engineering), you will see that mentality deeply rooted in hysteria in the constant stream of evironmental "studies" published here and elsewhere.

It is entirely possible to be concerned about AGW and at the same time reject socialism and anti-free market rhetoric.

In fact, the entire notion that "we" must "do something NOW" to "fix" this, and the characterization of overblown hysterical immergency, is the language that political charletons speak.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (64) Jun 16, 2012
Your definition of what is natural then, is only so, relative to people. Relative to an ant, ant hills are not natural by your logic
And THIS is distinctly unnatural as well:
http://www.youtub...04QBpBMA

-On so many levels-

.
Human nature is unnatural. By definition. - GhostOfOtto1923


Liberal mush logic has a sort of tragic beauty.

Sense you watch star-trek, maybe you can comprehend this anology. Imagine an alien race as advanced beyond humans as humans are beyond ants,... as they study the planet earth, they will view the entire earth/human-activity as a natural earth system.

Therefore humans should do like wise,... but this goes against the environmentalist fraud that humans are parasitic to there new god the earth.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2012
That the new president of France has exactly the same opinions as Fidel Castro?

They both believe the state should control the lives of their subjects.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2012
free market model assumption of complete information

What assumption is this?

The value of limited govt and free markets is this combination minimizes the damage caused by the inevitable failure of the participants in the market and the govt because NO ONE has complete information.
The excuse I always hear from socialists for its failure is their dictator was flawed.
The socialists who elected Obama are now finally admitting to themselves Obama is not perfect.
Sigh
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
That the new president of France has exactly the same opinions as Fidel Castro?

They both believe the state should control the lives of their subjects.
That would only be an adequate answer if you believed that control is an all or none affair. That would again simplify things enormously. Anyway, you want control yourself.

free market model assumption of complete information

What assumption is this?

In discussions of the merits of economic system, I occasionally come across the claim that the free market has been mathematically proven to be optimal for some purpose. I read that the proof depends on everyone having accurate information about everything that is relevant.

The value of limited govt and free markets is this combination minimizes the damage caused by the inevitable failure of the participants in the market and the govt because NO ONE has complete information.

I only say that is then an empirical claim and subject to empirical tests.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2012
That would only be an adequate answer if you believed that control is an all or none affair.

What it means is socialists do NOT support the axiom that all men are created equal and are endowed with inherent, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.
This inevitably leads to state control, not defense, of life, liberty and property.
Sigh
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
What it means is socialists do NOT support the axiom that all men are created equal and are endowed with inherent, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

That last bit sounds nice, but do try to answer the question. Do you seriously believe that all people whop call themselves socialists have exactly the same opinions?

Do you actually know anything about the politics of the left besides your few simple talking points?

Do you understand that these rights you call inalienable conflict with each other? My liberty not to be a slave interferes with your liberty to own me as a slave. If you build a house where it blocks my view it reduces my enjoyment of my property, if I can stop you from building a house it interferes with your right to use your land as you see fit.

Your consistent evasions and sloganeering don't convince me that you have a coherent framework. You shouldn't expect people to agree to something incoherent.
Sigh
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
This inevitably leads to state control, not defense, of life, liberty and property.

You claim protection of property rights protects the environment and you told me the ozone layer would be protected because you own land and anything above it to the edge of space. Further
Trouble is our court system is not designed to protect private property. In the US one must prove damages not just violation of your property.
Change the law so that if your property is violated for any reason, you demand it must be stopped OR compensated for by the violator.
Two points: 1) Under that scheme, I can stop anything with emissions, because the molecules will sooner or later reach my airspace. This would impede commerce more than any regulation.

2) The enforcement of these laws is a government intervention. I think the scale of the interventions needed to put your scheme into practice would be somewhere between Cuba and North Korea. I don't think you would protect either liberty or property.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2012
Under that scheme, I can stop anything with emissions, because the molecules will sooner or later reach my airspace. This would impede commerce more than any regulation.

Yep.
But if YOU want to have the product from those emissions you will have to decide what you value more.
Such laws would open opportunities for direct compensation to you. For example, some people who live near noisy airports have had offers to either move OR there houses have been sound proofed.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2012
Under that scheme, I can stop anything with emissions, because the molecules will sooner or later reach my airspace. This would impede commerce more than any regulation.

Yep.
But if YOU want to have the product from those emissions you will have to decide what you value more.
Such laws would open opportunities for direct compensation to you. For example, some people who live near noisy airports have had offers to either move OR there houses have been sound proofed.
"Instead of adopting stringent or
absolutist environmental policies for their own sake, this Article asserts
that the government should focus on forcing polluters to compensate
pollution victims for the property or health damage which results from
such pollution."
"Letting the Free Market Distribute Environmental
Resources, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 5"
Which is preferred, lobbyists from all sides bribing politicians or direct compensation/fixing the problem?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2012
This would impede commerce more than any regulation.

This has led to situations like Love Canal, Rocky Flats, MTBE pollution, Cuyahoga fires, TCE water pollution, .....

Which is more important, solving the problem or creating a larger govt program?
Enron promoted the Kyoto protocol, bribing politicians on all sides around the world pushing its agenda. How effective has the top down regulatory model solved perceived problems?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2012

My liberty not to be a slave interferes with your liberty to own me as a slave.

I guess you don't understand the concept of inherent, unalienable and inherent AND unalienable.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2012
""For each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels, such a dried animal dung, indoors and from breathing polluted air outdoors.""
http://www.ocregi...bal.html

Stopping economic growth and prosperity is one way to kill off millions of people in the third world.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
This is not a feigned conspiracy, it is freely admitted by top AGW theorists in the UN.
http://newsbuster...e-policy

Even the excerpt doesn't justify that conclusion, and the original makes that a little clearer.

Edenhofer states that developing countries need an incentive not to follow the carbon-intensive development path. That is the explicitly stated motive, not redistribution per se. He seems to think of a cap and trade scheme, he says whatever it is needs to be based on per-capita emissions. If you trade on that basis, you inevitably get incentive and redistribution.

Edenhofer mentions that India and China ask for historical emissions to be taken into account. I think they can make a case for that being fair, but Edenhofer doesn't want it. Edenhofer's preferred scheme would reduce redistribution.

The author of the article you referenced jumped to conclusions. No conspiracy.
Sigh
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
My liberty not to be a slave interferes with your liberty to own me as a slave.

I guess you don't understand the concept of inherent, unalienable and inherent AND unalienable.

I understand that whenever I ask you about inconsistencies in your ideas, you evade the issue, like you just did here. If it is so simple, explain, or even just provide a reference.
Sigh
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
Under that scheme, I can stop anything with emissions, because the molecules will sooner or later reach my airspace. This would impede commerce more than any regulation.

Yep.

I expected a claim that the free market never impedes commerce. Thanks for the surprise.
But if YOU want to have the product from those emissions you will have to decide what you value more.

I am not the only one affected. If I am wealthy, I can buy something else, but deny others a product I object to.

I'll read your reference, see whether that tells me what I want to know.

Which is preferred, lobbyists from all sides bribing politicians or direct compensation/fixing the problem

The lobbying has a poor record of doing anything but line some people's pockets. Whether compensation could fix problems is what I want to know.