The Holocene extinciton period
-
You mean Pounds, not Euros. Also...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I don't even have to shave
Not out of puberty yet then?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
comb my hair
Bald?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
or take a shower
Is that why you are friendless?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
or act very sociable.
We noticed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I don't even have to shave, comb my hair, or take a shower, or act very sociable. In fact when I look rugged, and haven't taken a shower in a couple days and not wearing deodorant, and act serious girls seem to like me more (though some really don't).
You are confusing 'Girls' with 'Chimps' or 'Fleas'
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
So you think humans are a filthy virus that needs to be eliminated? Start with yourself.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
So you think humans are a filthy virus that needs to be eliminated?
Smith certainly thought so. And see, the irony of it is that Smith turned out to be much more like a virus than man ever was.
-
The Holocene Extinction Event has been going on a lot longer than Wikipedia says. The megafauna extinctions were certainly not caused by man, as there was not enough people around to destroy all the individuals, and even if there were more people at the time, they lacked helicopters and satellite tracking to be able to get to the very last individuals. So the arguement fails on two points, firstly that wikipedia is not considered research, and secondly the basic fallacy of your point is shown by the fact that the extinctions happened a long time before man could be responsible. Please study some rudimentary Evolutionary Biology and Paleontology before making basic schoolboy howlers.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
The megafauna extinctions were certainly not caused by man, as there was not enough people around to destroy all the individuals, and even if there were more people at the time, they lacked helicopters and satellite tracking to be able to get to the very last individuals.
It wasn't a singular event. All people had to do was kill enough to reduce the survival rate below the replacement rate. Then over time, the population decline accelerates until extinction occurs. Megafauna doesn't have a high birth rate so it doesn't take much pressure to have an effect.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
the fact that Homo Sapiens has been around for only about 50,000 years lets us hope that we shall exist for a long time yet
That's assuming we don't breed ourselves hungry (aka the Malthusian catastrophe), bomb ourselves extinct, or pollute the world beyond salvage. Other species haven't been as reckless wrecking their own habitats. There's also the chance of a meteor, comet, or asteroid slamming into the Earth, but there isn't a lot we can do about those. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI[^]
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
That is such absoloute crap. Ever seen a colony of sea birds on a rock/cliff? Its uterly covered in bird shit. The ground so turned over by centuries of nest digging that barely a single plant grows. Whats going through the mind of a bear when it rips apart a bees nest for the honey? Does it take every other hive to ensure its got a good future supply? Its only natural predation and the scarcity of their prey that keeps numbers in check.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.
More crap, and by the way YOU are a human too. The only species that CARES for the environemnt is humans! Whens the last time you saw a dog trying to save an endangered species? Instinctive balance! Where do you get this bolocks? Balanc in nature is acchieved by the relative numbers of predators and quantity of naturally available food. Man though has learnt to protect himself from his predators and produce his own food. ANd fo rthis you condemn us as some kind of parasite? Intelligence is a disease? Well then why dont you be stupid and go and live in the jungle. See how long you last.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
The megafauna extinctions were certainly not caused by man, as there was not enough people around to destroy all the individuals, and even if there were more people at the time, they lacked helicopters and satellite tracking to be able to get to the very last individuals.
It wasn't a singular event. All people had to do was kill enough to reduce the survival rate below the replacement rate. Then over time, the population decline accelerates until extinction occurs. Megafauna doesn't have a high birth rate so it doesn't take much pressure to have an effect.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
The point is the megafauna were already in major decline before man got there (The North America Megafauna Collapse) and he certainly wasn't responsible for the total extinction of so many species. And what about the cat gap? That was millions of years before the first Homo ever climbed out of a tree.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
The point is the megafauna were already in major decline before man got there (The North America Megafauna Collapse) and he certainly wasn't responsible for the total extinction of so many species. And what about the cat gap? That was millions of years before the first Homo ever climbed out of a tree.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
That was millions of years before the first Homo ever climbed out of a tree.
Don't you mean 'closet'? ;P
-
That is such absoloute crap. Ever seen a colony of sea birds on a rock/cliff? Its uterly covered in bird shit. The ground so turned over by centuries of nest digging that barely a single plant grows. Whats going through the mind of a bear when it rips apart a bees nest for the honey? Does it take every other hive to ensure its got a good future supply? Its only natural predation and the scarcity of their prey that keeps numbers in check.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.
More crap, and by the way YOU are a human too. The only species that CARES for the environemnt is humans! Whens the last time you saw a dog trying to save an endangered species? Instinctive balance! Where do you get this bolocks? Balanc in nature is acchieved by the relative numbers of predators and quantity of naturally available food. Man though has learnt to protect himself from his predators and produce his own food. ANd fo rthis you condemn us as some kind of parasite? Intelligence is a disease? Well then why dont you be stupid and go and live in the jungle. See how long you last.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
On the African Savannah, if it don't rain, grass eating animals don't feed and don't multiply and meat eaters (the big cats) population is also controlled. The local environment no longer troubles humans as it previously would have as it continues to do for those hoofed animals and those meat eaters. However, there must come a point where a global environment can no longer sustain such a human population. We humans are getting rather good at solving problems with respect to childhood and other diseases, the Victorians had large families knowing a high proportion of children would not make adulthood.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
That was millions of years before the first Homo ever climbed out of a tree.
Don't you mean 'closet'? ;P
-
On the African Savannah, if it don't rain, grass eating animals don't feed and don't multiply and meat eaters (the big cats) population is also controlled. The local environment no longer troubles humans as it previously would have as it continues to do for those hoofed animals and those meat eaters. However, there must come a point where a global environment can no longer sustain such a human population. We humans are getting rather good at solving problems with respect to childhood and other diseases, the Victorians had large families knowing a high proportion of children would not make adulthood.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there must come a point where a global environment can no longer sustain such a human population.
Its been stated over and over again, as a fear, that this will happen and yet two points of note: 1) Populations in developed countries are stable (immigration seems to be the only growth factor) 2) Agricultural production has increase massively in the last 60 years to the point where we dont actually need to use land in Europe. We have so much over production we actually pay farmers to set aside their land. ANd a final note. When and if we do exhaust the resources on this planet we will go and find another one to use. Man has ever done that and dont underestimate the ability of mankind in the future to solve such problems this way. Put yourself in the shoes of a Roman and try to imagine a raido/telephone/satellit communicaitons network solving the problem of communication across their vast Empire. They couldnt, and neither can you imagine how we will solve these issues in the future, but solve them we will because that is the nature of man. What is NOT in the nature of man is limitation and reversal. We are NOT going back to some kind of meek, medieval pastoral existence where we humbly beg nature to allow us to exist, treading carefully on each and every square inch of earth lest we in some way offend Gaia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
That was millions of years before the first Homo ever climbed out of a tree.
Don't you mean 'closet'? ;P
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there must come a point where a global environment can no longer sustain such a human population.
Its been stated over and over again, as a fear, that this will happen and yet two points of note: 1) Populations in developed countries are stable (immigration seems to be the only growth factor) 2) Agricultural production has increase massively in the last 60 years to the point where we dont actually need to use land in Europe. We have so much over production we actually pay farmers to set aside their land. ANd a final note. When and if we do exhaust the resources on this planet we will go and find another one to use. Man has ever done that and dont underestimate the ability of mankind in the future to solve such problems this way. Put yourself in the shoes of a Roman and try to imagine a raido/telephone/satellit communicaitons network solving the problem of communication across their vast Empire. They couldnt, and neither can you imagine how we will solve these issues in the future, but solve them we will because that is the nature of man. What is NOT in the nature of man is limitation and reversal. We are NOT going back to some kind of meek, medieval pastoral existence where we humbly beg nature to allow us to exist, treading carefully on each and every square inch of earth lest we in some way offend Gaia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Populations in developed countries are stable
There was real fears during the early part of the current worldwide financial problems that if the banks were not bailed out and thus failed, this would have a knock-on effect insofar that produce from the towns and villages, as well as produce from foreign lands, could not be transported to the cities. Add to that the fear that utility company's could not function so gas, electricity, water might be in very short supply. The cities could thus die alongside huge losses of residents lives. A localized extinction (of sorts) of humans. To expect a city office worker, and his/her family, who have no experience of farming to suddenly migrate to the towns/villages and to produce all they need to survive is a tall order that the overwhelming many city workers, and their family, will fail, that is if the local inhabitants of towns/villages permit such large numbers to migrate to their places as this will also have the effect of depleting their food, and other, reserves that much faster causing civil unrest there. A no win scenario in town and city alike. Populations, at this moment, might be stable, but not that resilient when faced with such a catastrophe.
fat_boy wrote:
Agricultural production has increase massively in the last 60 years
Yes it has, but there are limits, you can be as efficient as possible, but when you exhaust the land's ability your options become very much less abundant.
fat_boy wrote:
When and if we do exhaust the resources on this planet we will go and find another one to use
So we humans are parasites then. When one host no longer suffices, find another.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Populations in developed countries are stable
There was real fears during the early part of the current worldwide financial problems that if the banks were not bailed out and thus failed, this would have a knock-on effect insofar that produce from the towns and villages, as well as produce from foreign lands, could not be transported to the cities. Add to that the fear that utility company's could not function so gas, electricity, water might be in very short supply. The cities could thus die alongside huge losses of residents lives. A localized extinction (of sorts) of humans. To expect a city office worker, and his/her family, who have no experience of farming to suddenly migrate to the towns/villages and to produce all they need to survive is a tall order that the overwhelming many city workers, and their family, will fail, that is if the local inhabitants of towns/villages permit such large numbers to migrate to their places as this will also have the effect of depleting their food, and other, reserves that much faster causing civil unrest there. A no win scenario in town and city alike. Populations, at this moment, might be stable, but not that resilient when faced with such a catastrophe.
fat_boy wrote:
Agricultural production has increase massively in the last 60 years
Yes it has, but there are limits, you can be as efficient as possible, but when you exhaust the land's ability your options become very much less abundant.
fat_boy wrote:
When and if we do exhaust the resources on this planet we will go and find another one to use
So we humans are parasites then. When one host no longer suffices, find another.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So we humans are parasites then
All life is parasitic. It all depends on killing other life to survive. Even plants, although they use the sun still depend on rotted down organic matter for nutrients, and the exhalations of animals, CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So we humans are parasites then
All life is parasitic. It all depends on killing other life to survive. Even plants, although they use the sun still depend on rotted down organic matter for nutrients, and the exhalations of animals, CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not entirely true. All animals are heterotrophs, but they are not all parasites. (You are confusing Parasitism with Predation, they are not the same). Some species exist together in a symbiosis, and in fact it was early viral/archeal symbiosis that created first the prekaryote then eukaryote cells. Not all plants require other organisms for nutrients, algae and lichens, for example, feed only on sunlight and whatever nutrients that happen to be in the immediate environs.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Not entirely true. All animals are heterotrophs, but they are not all parasites. (You are confusing Parasitism with Predation, they are not the same). Some species exist together in a symbiosis, and in fact it was early viral/archeal symbiosis that created first the prekaryote then eukaryote cells. Not all plants require other organisms for nutrients, algae and lichens, for example, feed only on sunlight and whatever nutrients that happen to be in the immediate environs.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I was waiting for a pedant to raise that point. Dont foprget what I wrote was in Response to Richards post, and since his use of parasite wasnt accurate neither was mine, but thats not important since the point of my post was to point out that all life behaves the way he condems man for behaving. And yes, there are some exceptions to my statement, such as the very simple life you pointed out. (You can also add the 'plants' that live in deep water around volcanic vents.) but they are still consuming the earths resources (since the absorb minerals which come from the earth).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I was waiting for a pedant to raise that point. Dont foprget what I wrote was in Response to Richards post, and since his use of parasite wasnt accurate neither was mine, but thats not important since the point of my post was to point out that all life behaves the way he condems man for behaving. And yes, there are some exceptions to my statement, such as the very simple life you pointed out. (You can also add the 'plants' that live in deep water around volcanic vents.) but they are still consuming the earths resources (since the absorb minerals which come from the earth).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
condems man
My use of "parasite" was not accurate, but I considered it to be appropriate. That said, yes, I condemn humans for their many abuses of the resources of this world, and exporting that abuse to other worlds could be argued as being indefensible.
-
fat_boy wrote:
condems man
My use of "parasite" was not accurate, but I considered it to be appropriate. That said, yes, I condemn humans for their many abuses of the resources of this world, and exporting that abuse to other worlds could be argued as being indefensible.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I condemn humans for their many abuses of the resources of this world
What abuses? Is it OK to take a few gallons of fresh water out of a river but an abuse to take 20 thousand gallons when that water will end up in the sea? Perhaps you would like to use the examples of the Syr and Ur Darya rivers, which have been so used the Aral sea is disapearing. But so what?m But for an accident of deology that sea wouldnt have been there anyway. Is it an abuse if a thousands of fish die out and a few thousand people have to move elsewhere (probably to work in the green fields created by the 'abuse' of that water where many thousands of plants now enjoy life that woulod have been denied them and people a secure food supply). Or perhaps it is an abuse to take rock and dirt and make metals? Why, what plans has the earth for this matter? Does the earth abuse itself when it subducts vast areas of land down into the mantle and liquifies it? Oil spils, a natural material by the way, kill hundreds of birds, but give life to billions of oil eating bacteria. If thats an abuse then who are we to decide one life form has precidence over another? You speak emotionally. 'Gaia' is not an organism. There is nothing that can be hurt by our existence or by the existence of any other animal or plant whose sole interest is self survival. There is nothing that can be abused. ALl there is is life. We are part of it, we are part of nature. We are doing what we are programed to do, and so is everything else on earth. And one day we might well need mpre space in which case we will go and find new planets to settle and survive on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I condemn humans for their many abuses of the resources of this world
What abuses? Is it OK to take a few gallons of fresh water out of a river but an abuse to take 20 thousand gallons when that water will end up in the sea? Perhaps you would like to use the examples of the Syr and Ur Darya rivers, which have been so used the Aral sea is disapearing. But so what?m But for an accident of deology that sea wouldnt have been there anyway. Is it an abuse if a thousands of fish die out and a few thousand people have to move elsewhere (probably to work in the green fields created by the 'abuse' of that water where many thousands of plants now enjoy life that woulod have been denied them and people a secure food supply). Or perhaps it is an abuse to take rock and dirt and make metals? Why, what plans has the earth for this matter? Does the earth abuse itself when it subducts vast areas of land down into the mantle and liquifies it? Oil spils, a natural material by the way, kill hundreds of birds, but give life to billions of oil eating bacteria. If thats an abuse then who are we to decide one life form has precidence over another? You speak emotionally. 'Gaia' is not an organism. There is nothing that can be hurt by our existence or by the existence of any other animal or plant whose sole interest is self survival. There is nothing that can be abused. ALl there is is life. We are part of it, we are part of nature. We are doing what we are programed to do, and so is everything else on earth. And one day we might well need mpre space in which case we will go and find new planets to settle and survive on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What abuses?
Since the Industrial Revolution, peoples around the world have blighted the landscape (strip mining for example), polluted the land, rivers and oceans as well as the air you breathe and the food you consume. You need only Google for examples. (make it a scholarly search - you'll get better results from more trustworthy sources) After us humans have departed this planet, this planet will recover, it always has, but it takes time - more than just a few generations. But whilst we are here, we should really do a better job of looking after it, as if we don't, nobody will.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What abuses?
Since the Industrial Revolution, peoples around the world have blighted the landscape (strip mining for example), polluted the land, rivers and oceans as well as the air you breathe and the food you consume. You need only Google for examples. (make it a scholarly search - you'll get better results from more trustworthy sources) After us humans have departed this planet, this planet will recover, it always has, but it takes time - more than just a few generations. But whilst we are here, we should really do a better job of looking after it, as if we don't, nobody will.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
blighted the landscape
volcanoes, avalanches, land slides, floods, earthquakes, all blight the landscape. As for pollution. Yes, we have, but increasingly we bring in laws to halt it. So we are less of a blight onm the planet than before? :)
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
After us humans have departed this planet, this planet will recover
Shame for all those endangered species we are saving. If we go they are fucked.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
What abuses?
Since the Industrial Revolution, peoples around the world have blighted the landscape (strip mining for example), polluted the land, rivers and oceans as well as the air you breathe and the food you consume. You need only Google for examples. (make it a scholarly search - you'll get better results from more trustworthy sources) After us humans have departed this planet, this planet will recover, it always has, but it takes time - more than just a few generations. But whilst we are here, we should really do a better job of looking after it, as if we don't, nobody will.
Blighted the landscape? Have you never heard of the Siberian Traps? (Or the Deccan Traps for that matter). That caused more destruction desolation than mankind ever has. What if The Yellowstone Super Volcano went up tomorrow, would that not be a natural destruction of fertile ground and natural resources? Ice ages? The Oxygen Catastrophe? The Iron Catastrophe? Bolide Impact? Local GRB? Conintental Drifts? Haline Inversion? Supernovae? Evolution of Disease? These are all natural and all would do more damage than man could ever do. The earth is a speck of dust, and is not alive, merely in a state of dynamic equilibrium. You should read Stephen J Gould, very enlightening.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
blighted the landscape
volcanoes, avalanches, land slides, floods, earthquakes, all blight the landscape. As for pollution. Yes, we have, but increasingly we bring in laws to halt it. So we are less of a blight onm the planet than before? :)
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
After us humans have departed this planet, this planet will recover
Shame for all those endangered species we are saving. If we go they are fucked.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If we go they are f***ed.
Not a good argument, 99.99999999999% of all species that ever existed are extinct.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]