Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Medicine, Science & Technology > Earth & Life Sciences > Biodiversity
Search this Thread:
Pages (2):  [1] 2 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

Biodiversity post #1  quote:



The variety of life on earth, its biological diversity is commonly referred to as biodiversity. The number of species of plants, animals, micro organisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse earth. Appropriate conservation and sustainable development strategies attempt to recognize this as being integral to any approach. Almost all cultures have in some way or form recognized the importance that nature, and its biological diversity has had upon them and the need to maintain it. Yet, power, greed and politics have affected the precarious balance.

Who Cares?

But why is biodiversity important? Does it really matter if there aren't as many species?

Biodiversity actually boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play and that it is this combination that enables the ecosystem to possess the ability to prevent and recover from a variety of disasters. This is obviously useful for mankind as a larger number of species of animals ensure that the ecosystem is naturally sustained.

Loss of Diversity and Extinctions

It is feared that human activity is causing massive extinctions. From various animal species, forests and the ecosystems that forests support, marine life. The costs associated with deteriorating or vanishing ecosystems will be high. However, sustainable development and consumption would help avert ecological problems.

Climate Change Affects Biodiversity

The world Resources Institute reports that there is a link between biodiversity and climate change. Rapid global warming can affect an ecosystems chances to adapt naturally.

Coral Reefs

One type of ecosystem that perhaps is neglected more than any other is perhaps also the richest in biodiversity--the Coral Reefs. Reefs are useful to the environment and to people in a number of ways. However, all around the world, much of the world's marine biodiversity faces threats from human activities as well as natural. It is feared that very soon, many Reefs could die off.

Water Gets Affected Too

Pollution of waters and oceans is increasing. It is easy to take clean water and regular access for granted in the developed nations. However, most of the planet's population can not get clean water.

- Anup Shah - globalissues.org



What are your thoughts on biodiversity?

What about Global Warming?

Have you recently seen an odd looking insect and thought "What the heck is that"?

Are there insects in your area that you're seeing less of each year?

Have you noticed extreme climate change in your area? Are the winters milder than they were 15 years ago?

There was a report a few days ago about the discovery of a wasp living above the Arctic Circle. Scientists are amazed, but not shocked.

Do you think our progression has destroyed the planet?


Old Post 09-16-2004 10:02 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

post #2  quote:

Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout
The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less protection from ultraviolet light will, over time, lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates and crop damage. The U.S., in cooperation with over 160 other countries, is phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances in an effort to safeguard the ozone layer.



I. The Ozone Layer
The Earth's atmosphere is divided into several layers. The lowest region, the troposphere, extends from the Earth's surface up to about 10 kilometers (km) in altitude. Virtually all human activities occur in the troposphere. Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain on the planet, is only about 9 km high. The next layer, the stratosphere, continues from 10 km to about 50 km. Most commercial airline traffic occurs in the lower part of the stratosphere.


As shown in the graph, most atmospheric ozone is concentrated in a layer in the stratosphere, about 15-30 kilometers above the Earth's surface (graph courtesy of World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998). Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor. Normal oxygen, which we breathe, has two oxygen atoms and is colorless and odorless. Ozone is much less common than normal oxygen. Out of each 10 million air molecules, about 2 million are normal oxygen, but only 3 are ozone.

However, even the small amount of ozone plays a key role in the atmosphere. The ozone layer absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the planet's surface. Most importantly, it absorbs the portion of ultraviolet light called UVB. UVB has been linked to many harmful effects, including various types of skin cancer, cataracts, and harm to some crops, certain materials, and some forms of marine life.

At any given time, ozone molecules are constantly formed and destroyed in the stratosphere. The total amount, however, remains relatively stable. The concentration of the ozone layer can be thought of as a stream's depth at a particular location. Although water is constantly flowing in and out, the depth remains constant.

While ozone concentrations vary naturally with sunspots, the seasons, and latitude, these processes are well understood and predictable. Scientists have established records spanning several decades that detail normal ozone levels during these natural cycles. Each natural reduction in ozone levels has been followed by a recovery. Recently, however, convincing scientific evidence has shown that the ozone shield is being depleted well beyond changes due to natural processes.

II. Ozone Depletion
For over 50 years, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were thought of as miracle substances. They are stable, nonflammable, low in toxicity, and inexpensive to produce. Over time, CFCs found uses as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, and in other smaller applications. Other chlorine-containing compounds include methyl chloroform, a solvent, and carbon tetrachloride, an industrial chemical. Halons, extremely effective fire extinguishing agents, and methyl bromide, an effective produce and soil fumigant, contain bromine. All of these compounds have atmospheric lifetimes long enough to allow them to be transported by winds into the stratosphere. Because they release chlorine or bromine when they break down, they damage the protective ozone layer. The discussion of the ozone depletion process below focuses on CFCs, but the basic concepts apply to all of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere.

The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.

Large fires and certain types of marine life produce one stable form of chlorine that does reach the stratosphere. However, numerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.

Large volcanic eruptions can have an indirect effect on ozone levels. Although Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption did not increase stratospheric chlorine concentrations, it did produce large amounts of tiny particles called aerosols (different from consumer products also known as aerosols). These aerosols increase chlorine's effectiveness at destroying ozone. The aerosols only increased depletion because of the presence of CFC - based chlorine. In effect, the aerosols increased the efficiency of the CFC siphon, lowering ozone levels even more than would have otherwise occurred. Unlike long-term ozone depletion, however, this effect is short-lived. The aerosols from Mt. Pinatubo have already disappeared, but satellite, ground-based, and balloon data still show ozone depletion occurring closer to the historic trend.

One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarctica that has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years.

In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole.

Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years.

Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.


Old Post 09-16-2004 11:57 PM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #3  quote:

Thank You, Becker. Very informative!

Do you believe all of our efforts at conservation and preservation will prove to be successful, or do you think we're fighting a losing battle?

Do you think the damage is too great and the only option, despite our efforts, is to keep declining?


Old Post 09-17-2004 02:42 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

post #4  quote:

It seems clear that weather patterns are changing on Earth. I don't know what anyone can do to halt the slow deterioration that has been taking place.

There will have to be some very advanced high-tech achievements to create someting to halt the changes, I am sure, you see occurring.

The earth's population is ever increasing and will occupy more and more space, need more air to breathe and food to eat. It is like a huge ocean liner that cannot be turned around quickly or halted easily from sailing its sea lanes.

Highly processed food consumption is bringing more and more illness to our population. Modern medicine is keeping them alive longer, but it doen't cure them. Ever increasing strains on health care are the result.

I could go on and on about this but I will stop now.


Old Post 09-17-2004 03:38 AM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #5  quote:

I believe we won't need a high tech solution to solve the problems we're introducing. In fact quite the contrary: low tech solutions could save us all. Here are the primary, self-inflicted problems we are faced with that most directly affect our quality of life as a race:

1) Unregulated greenhouse gas emissions from utility, industrial and automotive sources

2) Unregulated landfill dumping operations

3) Unregulated deforestation operations in the tropics

4) Unregulated population growth

There are solutions, but the capitalist pigs won't like it. There's not as much "easy money" in it. So our biggest challenge by far will be political in nature: getting the capitalists to realize that the problems we are faced with bear dire global consequences and are more important than making easy money by far. In fact there is a good deal of money to be had in these solutions, but it's a different kind of money, the kind that takes hard work to get; because they would much rather hardly work to get it as they do now, they will resist.

Nevertheless, here are some solutions that I think would address the four problems above and put us on a track to recovery. Though I couldn't hope to project any realistic rate of recovery, I am confident that it would indeed be a change for the positive where all do now is perpetuate the status quo.

1 - The emissions problem is directly tied to our use of combustible fuels in industry & transportaiton.

The solution is immediate reversion to an alternative energy platform. There has been tons of research on this both public and private and there are several deployable models. Anyone who has spent any amount of time researching this topic independently knows that the key factor is the establishment of infrastructure. Guess what: there is big money in the establishment of infrastructure.

The federal government should lay out a plan and force compliance no matter how much the big motor companies and civilian public utilities and such complain. The government has already taken steps in this direction by requiring automakers put a certain percentage for more fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets within certain timeframes, so we're not without precedent here. Of course they're going to complain. This would be completely stepping on their toes. But if we remember to keep our eyes on what is actually important here, it will all be worth it in the end. Auto makers can shift their focus to vehicles based on the new model. Utilities can focus on shifting their services to being supportive of the new model. Even the big oil companies can, and some have already started, adopt the new ideas to be prepared for the day when oil is only a lubricant.

If I had to predict the exact nature of the new energy platform, I'd say that it probably will involve a number of technology elements including hydgrogen-based infrastructure for transportation "fuel", hydrolytic and natural forms of hydrogen production based on natural resources (solar, heat, wind, hydro, atomic power, etc), and non-fuel-burning methods of energy production for the power grid. Add to this a wave of new, low-power devices to replace current appliances and electronics what would use a low power source such as 24-50V rather than today's 120-240V. By reducing heat loss and excessive drains from the grid, overall power output can be significantly reduced to levels easily sustainable by more energy-efficient systems. This will enable the decommissioning of older coal-burning power plants.

2 - Unregulated landfill operations are filled largely by product packagings.

The solution is two-fold.

First, it is necessary to enforce a new, recyclable product packaging standard for all commercial goods shipped and sold in the U.S. Up to now there has been ZERO regulation on what kind of packaging a company may/may not use on store shelves. A large amount of packaging is not even recyclable because of the types of materials used as well as the way in which the packaging is integrated (certain types of inks, glues, etc) that taint otherwise recyclable materials into being ultimately UNrecyclable. Today, ALL this material makes it to the dump.

Federal packaging standards would require that 100% of product packaging materials, including canning, sealing, wrapping, etc. food stuffs, and all retail products follow specific guidelines. In the same way that the FDA manages what drug products pharmaceutical companies are permitted to release to the public, a company that wishes to use some material or integration method not specifically approved for packaging would have to appeal to the regulatory commission and demonstrate recyclability in order to use it. There are many current products that this would have no impact on at all as their packagings (whether or not intentional) already meet the criteria that might be defined by regulation. Others would have to convert however. I predict that such regulation would most significantly affect manufacturers who specialize in product packaging over manufacturers of goods who must switch product packaging. Again there is an opportunity to make money in the adherence to packaging standards by way of:

a) increased volume production of more standardized packaging translates to lower costs, better profit margins on the part of both the packaging manufacturer and the product manufacturer who invests in the packaging materials.

b) 100% recyclable packaging materials translates to lower costs on sourcing raw materials for production of new packaging, further lowering operational expenses on the part of packaging manufacturers.

A more extreme implementation would also seek to regulate the types of materials and means of assembly used in consumer products in order that products can be realistically dismantled by an automated process if possible and reverted to raw material sources. This would be much more difficult to push through, but wasteful product manufacturing is also a significant contributor to landfill and resource consumption.

The second part part of the solution is a mandatory recycling program instituted at the state/city level. Residential and commercial waste would be routed through the recycling program to minimize wastes that actually make it out to landfill. Realistically there should be no reason for landfil to exist at all. Anything can be repurposed. Anything. Disintegrate something back into its constituent components and you can always crush, melt or otherwise manipulate the raw materials into a form which can be reused. Organic wastes should be separated for composting, everything else can be boxed up and shipped back out as raw materials to manufacturers offering the highest bid.

Ultimately we can reduce and even put a permanent end to landfill operations by employing existing recycling technologies on a massive scale which employs workers and reduces our dependence on untapped domestic and foreign natural resources. Other than possibly some increase in rates to offset build-out and operational costs, this program would have no impact on businesses or residents as they would continue to use the normal waste management program as usual - the waste management program itself is what is to be revised. There are some places in the U.S. that already implement a program like this with tremendous success. New York City is one of them.

3 - Unregulated deforestation operations in the tropics affects us all.

Unlike the deciduous trees here in the North America and Europe the tropics are always green. The significance of this is that tropical plants filter contaminants from the air all year round where deciduous trees which lose their leaves seasonally re-release all the carbon that they capture right back into the air as the leaves decay each year. This shows that bigger, ever-green plantlife is instrumental in trapping carbon over long periods making them an important biological timing device of the planetary carbon cycle. By wiping out these forests, we have significantly damaged this timing device, but not irreversibly.

Because of their significance to our habitable biosphere, I don't see tropical forests as being the exclusively the rightful property of the countries in which they reside. I see them as property of all things living, including every person on this planet - and that we all have a vested interest in ensuring protection and restoration. Don't call me a tree-hugger because I'm not stating this out of my unconditional love for life and want for protecting all the poor, sad trees that have every right to live as we do - I'm saying it because we NEED these forests to survive.

The problem comes once again back to economics. The rainforests provide a surplus of wealth in lumber and other products to those willing to harvest and sell it.

I think we can get around this by working with the governments of countries with prevailing tropical rain forests to protect them. If we bring alternative revenue streams to those places, the rain forests harvesting will become less required for the underlying economy of the region. We are already inadvertently on the cusp of making this happen with the onset of globalisation in industry. A concerted effort to bring out-sourced operations in manufacturing and technology sectors to those places with large, available labor forces who would otherwise be contributing to the further demise of the natural lands around them would work wonders for this goal. The micro-economy would be driven by industry and once established, it would be a simple matter to introduce tourism & hospitality. We're talking big bucks here! It is an opportunity for the regional fat-cats to get fat on something else while doing their country, their kin, and the world at large a favor. And with the country's government in agreement to the plan, he'd also be in compliance with the government's objectives.

4 - Unregulated population growth needs to slow, even reverse in order for us to remain a sustainable society.

If you've ever seen the result of a single weavel left undisturbed in a bag of grain, you have witnessed what amounts to a miniaturized version of exactly what is happening with the human race: while resources appear plentiful and breeding continues, the population will eventually out-match the available resources until the population cannot be sustained and the entire population dies off for lack of resources. Of course a bag of wheat chaff and bugs has no means of replacing the resources that it consumes, however even if they could replace the resources, if their breeding continued unchecked, the bag would literally pop and spill bugs all over the cabinet. As humans, we have nowhere to spill over to when our bag pops. We have nowhere to escape to. We won't be able to colonize other worlds and just make the same thick-headed mistakes there. The Earth is our home and we MUST make it work for ourselves!

More is NOT merrier, people. We can hardly be merry amongst ourselves. Adding more just multiplies the weight of the problems that we are faced with.

Education is one possible key to controlling population growth. Of course we are faced with a number of challenges of bringing improved education to the children in this country, and even moreso in third world countries where education is typically reserved for the well-off. In our quest for spreading the reach and depth of education offered to our children, I believe an initiative should be made to explain the problems associated with unchecked population growth. By discouraging recreational sex and unplanned pregnancies and providing inscentives for young adults to remain single and independent without want for upsetting their own lives with a child that they are not ready to care for as a single parent, we may be able to make a significant impact on the number of children born each year without having to consider more drastic options like government regulated and licensed birthing.

Conclusion

Some of the things I describe here may sound somewhat extreme in scope, but I cant imagine any more resonable, approachable methods to solving each of the four problems that are among the most critical for our long-term survival interests. The reports and studies from researchers and naturalists over the years have not been designed to instill some unfounded phobia as to the fate of the planet. They are realistic, scientific assessments of what is going on around us. To ignore the problems is to ignor the fate of your own children, grandchildren. No right-minded parent can honestly say they don't care what their child has to deal with when they grow up because it's not their problem. As parents we strive to make things easier and more attainable for our children. That makes their problems tomorrow, your problem today.

Many people recognize the severity of the unfolding situation, but feel helpless to make a difference. Instead of taking action, they simply hope that someone else more knowledgable or capable will make it better. This is something like expecting someone else to vote for the President for you because you feel like your vote doesn't count. If you recognize the problem, but don't feel that you can personally have a significant impact, at least shoot for a minor impact. Collectively, minor impacts in volume add up to major impacts. If you see a program or idea being promoted that you think sounds like a good idea, the very least you can do is express to others your support and optimism for that program. Maybe you can make a financial contribution. Maybe you can do promotional work. Maybe you can volunteer. You can't take on the world by yourself. That's why I'm here doing my part to encourage you to do the same!

You can make a difference, even if it is just encouraging others to try to make a difference themselves. Who knows? Maybe one day in the chain of people who you've encouraged to be more proactive, THE one person who will change it all will receive the needed encouragement to revolutionize our whole way of thinking. Your own child could be President one day, so do what you can!


Old Post 09-30-2004 01:44 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #6  quote:

I am in complete amazement of your post! It's so very nice to know there are realists like you in this world! The people who don't see the importance of doing anything, even a small amount, think the rest of us are unrealistic dreamers.

The city I grew up in initiated a groundbreaking recycling program eight years ago. It was supposed to be the "test" city for the Wet/Dry program. Although recycling basic things, like cans, bottles and cardboard had been underway for many years, the Wet/Dry program, which has been very successful, was turned down by other major cities in North America. The main concern was that it was too much of a burden, and that people didn't want to devote the extra few minutes a day it would take to assign wet and dry materials to the appropriate places. Each residential compost bin is contained outside of the home. It was considered unfair and too much work for people, after eating an enormous meal, to have to walk a few steps from their front doors to "feed" the earth with their own consumable waste. Thankfully, the requirements for landfill space in one Canadian City, have been reduced drastically in the eight years since its inception. But all of that has no significant value to the "capitalist pigs" who govern other cities. They make too much money by charging people to dispose of waste in designated landfill areas. If they could put aside their greed and look at the bigger picture, they would see that this particular recycling program will save money over the long haul. It will extend the life of an existing landfill, which will avoid the high cost of trucking garbage long distances, or having to build a new landfill. Wet/Dry recycling will save an averaged sized city $600 million in waste export over two decades, as well as recover $65 million in reusable materials each year. The plan, developed with environmental consultants, can divert 75% of garbage and yard waste from landfills through using a combination of recycling and composting.

It all seems very reasonable to me, but some people just aren't willing to put their precious time and energy into something that doesn't serve the immediate need! Our present existence is just a speck on the map of humanity. You are so right that by ignoring the problem now is ignoring the fate of our children and grandchildren. If we don't make changes now, what will the world be like for our grandchildren's children?

I believe you were correct when you said New York had adopted that particular recycling system. I'm not sure of which New York city is doing it, but I have heard there is at least one city in New York doing it.


Old Post 09-30-2004 10:02 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #7  quote:

Having just read a report on socialism before making my last post, my mind was on socialism.

"Capitalist pigs" was what I meant!!


My apologies to any fluffy socialist bunnies!


Old Post 09-30-2004 12:38 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #8  quote:

I've revised/corrected the post above as I didn't have time to go back and edit after my first pass when I wrote it. I would like to add the following thought to the section on population control & education, just before the conclusion - the message is too long to add it in directly, so I'll add it here:

quote:

Furthermore, I believe that this focus of attention could be focused on girls/women. Of the two genders, females are the ones who bear children. What's more is that girls tend to have a significantly higher degree of control in this regard; where young males younger than 30 are typically highly sexually driven, the females, though they are also interested in the same, don't expend nearly the effort or attention on sexual gratification, preferring quality of relationships over simple sexual pleasure. It is the combination of these elements that I feel puts females in the best position to control population growth. Generally, males just can't exhert enough self control. This is why you hear about dirty old men in alley ways raping women, but you've never heard of a dirty old woman raping men. The behavior is intrinsic to the genetic programming for the gender. Though this does not excuse men behaving badly, it does serve to illustrate that women will be more receptive and conscientious of pensive guidance. They should be taught how to defend themselves against aggressive men, and all the "ins and outs" (so to speak) of intercourse, pregnancy, bearing children, becoming a parent, and all the permutations therein.


Old Post 10-01-2004 02:16 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #9  quote:

I'm not speaking for all governments of the world, but rather the governments of Western Civilization.

Why should they care or invest the time and cost associated with educating people on population control? It's much easier and "cost effective" to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on space programs to find another planet that can sustain human life. When we've overpopulated and destroyed the Earth, we can all just hitch a ride to the next life sustaining planet. Why stop with Earth when we can destroy and overpopulate the entire Universe?

Humans have the unfortunate ability to control the order of things. Even small voices can make a large difference. The challenge is being heard by the people who have the power to institute change.


Old Post 10-01-2004 07:10 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:05 PM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #10  quote:

There may be a problem with the reasoning that more responsibility lies on girls/women. While they are the ones that bear children, it still does take two (usually) to tango, and putting the majority (or a larger helping) of the responsibility of population control on the women of a society I think might be negligent in a sense.

I think that "men behaving badly" is an area of refuge for some men who just would rather NOT take the mature approach, and think with their big (or bigger) head. I agree that certain genetic factors may play a role in male libido or sex-drive, but I think that part of being an "enlightened" species is overcoming some of our pre-programmed responses to such things as sex and sexuality.

I also think that the issue of population control may very well be the MOST THREATENING, because while the other major issues relate to things that we do out of greed, this one relates to part of what we were physically and psychologically DESIGNED to do...


Old Post 10-04-2004 01:09 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

Biomimicry post #11  quote:

Biomimicry Explained.

By Janine Benyus


What do you mean by the term "biomimicry"?


Biomimicry (from bios , meaning life, and mimesis , meaning to imitate) is a new science that studies nature's best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems. Studying a leaf to invent a better solar cell is an example. I think of it as "innovation inspired by nature."

The core idea is that nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with. Animals, plants, and microbes are the consummate engineers. They have found what works, what is appropriate, and most important, what lasts here on earth. This is the real news of biomimicry: After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.

Like the viceroy butterfly imitating the monarch, we humans are imitating the best and brightest organisms in our habitat. We are learning, for instance, how to harness energy like a leaf, grow food like a prairie, build ceramics like an abalone, self-medicate like a chimp, compute like a cell, and run a business like a hickory forest.

The conscious emulation of life's genius is a survival strategy for the human race, a path to a sustainable future. The more our world looks and functions like the natural world, the more likely we are to endure on this home that is ours, but not ours alone.


Here is the link for the full explanation as well as much more information on biomimicry.

www.biomimicry.org


Old Post 10-04-2004 11:11 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #12  quote:

quote:
Sierradaddy said this in post #10 :
There may be a problem with the reasoning that more responsibility lies on girls/women. While they are the ones that bear children, it still does take two (usually) to tango, and putting the majority (or a larger helping) of the responsibility of population control on the women of a society I think might be negligent in a sense.

I think that "men behaving badly" is an area of refuge for some men who just would rather NOT take the mature approach, and think with their big (or bigger) head. I agree that certain genetic factors may play a role in male libido or sex-drive, but I think that part of being an "enlightened" species is overcoming some of our pre-programmed responses to such things as sex and sexuality.

I also think that the issue of population control may very well be the MOST THREATENING, because while the other major issues relate to things that we do out of greed, this one relates to part of what we were physically and psychologically DESIGNED to do...


I Fully agree with all your statements above and took them into consideration before I wrote the above piece. My instinct tells me that we will never be an enlightened race and that we must learn to accept who we are now as who we will be forever. I believe that men will always be chemically, physiologically, psychologically less in control of themselves than women are. While some of us have the capacity for it, others just, plain don't. Just as some people have a perpensity towards artistry or athleticism or intellect - some people are just incapable of the self control we're after and I personally believe that the vast majority of those people are men.

You're right though in that males could be included in the education I am suggesting, but I think the angle would be significantly different and that the sexes should be segregated for focused, unembarassing discussion. It shouldn't be a secret what each is being told from the other - segregation would allow more direct addressing that doesn't exclude 50% of the audience every time the topic switches genders.


Old Post 10-04-2004 09:04 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #13  quote:

Amphibian decline is rapidly worsening

More than 32 percent of species threatened worldwide, study finds

The associated Press - Oct. 14, 2004

Washington - Frogs, newts and other amphibians are becoming threatened worldwide, and their rapid decline appears to be worsening, a team of researches reported Thursday.

"What we're seeing here is completely unprecedented declines and extinction," said Simon N. Stuart of the World Conservation Union, lead researcher on the study.

These declines are "outside our normal experience," Stuart said in a telephone interview.

Causes remain a mystery
There are a variety of reasons for some losses, while others remain a mystery, the group reports in a paper being published online by the Journal Science.

Amphibians have porous skins and narrow environmental requirements, and their decline may be an indication that something sinister is under way in the environment, Simon said.

"Where amphibians proceed, others may follow, possibly us also," he said.

The researchers reprted that 1,856 species, 32.5 percent of the known species of amphibians, are "globally threatened," meaning they fall into the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's categories of vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. By comparison, 12 percent of bird species and 23 percent of mammal species are threatened.

The researchers reported 435 amphibian species are in rapid decline, at least nine species have gone extinct since 1980 and another 113 species have not been reported from the wild in recent years and are considered to be possibly extinct.

Their findings, called the Global Amphibians Assessment, were compiled by more than 500 scientists in 60 countries.

In deep trouble
"All in all, amphibians are certainly in deep trouble in many areas, for a whole suite of reasons," said Ross A. Alford, a professor of tropical biology at James Cook University in Australia. Alford, who was not a co-author of the report, said via e-mail that the study "has done a good job of documenting (the decline), and also of pointing out how much more we need to know to really understand the scale of the problem and begin to attempt to solve it."

Indeed, he added, the report may even understate the problem due to the patchiness of knowledge of amphibians.

"It is quite possible that there are as-yet large-scale...declines, similar to those that have been documented for Australia and the New World tropics, that are occurring or have occurred" elsewhere, said Alford, author of a 1999 study of amphibian decline.

Trevor Beebee of the University of Sussex in England added that amphibians may be a type of warning, like the canaries miners used to take with them because the birds are more sensitive than people to the dangerous gases that can occur in mines.

"In my view this assessment of amphibian declines is very important, because it quantifies an extremely worrying set of observations," Beebee said via e-mail. "Amphibians are declining in many places all over the world, often in areas where we might expect human effects to be minimal."

Exploitation, habitat loss contributing factors
The new paper concludes that while exploitation and loss of habitat are factors in some losses, other declines remain enigmatic, occurring for unknown reasons.

Overexploited species are concentrated in East and Southeast Asia, where frogs are harvested for food, the report says. Habitat loss occurs more widely, but especially in Southeast Asia, West Africa and the Caribbean, it adds.

A major concern, the researchers say, are the enigmatic declines and disappearances occurring in North and South America, Puerto Rico and Australia.

"Such declines have taken place even within well-protected areas, such as Yosemite National Park (California), Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve (Costa Rica) and Eungella National Park (Australia)," the researchers wrote.

Some studies have associated these unexpected declines with a fungal disease that tends to occur at higher elevations and streamside locations, the report notes. Beebee also suggested subtle effects of climate change may also be at work.

Funding for the Global Amphibian Assessment was provided by the Moore Family Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Conservation International, MAVA Foundation, U.S. State Department, Regina Bauer Frankenberg Foundation for Animal Welfare, National Science Foundation, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, television producer George Meyer, conservation supporters Ben and Ruth Hammett and the Disney Foundation.


Old Post 10-15-2004 09:04 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

post #14  quote:

TWII...That is very thought-provoking information.

Do you have a solution in mind?


Old Post 10-15-2004 09:09 PM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #15  quote:

Becker,

see post #11


Old Post 10-15-2004 09:15 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

post #16  quote:

I read the Mimicry theory and it could have possibilities, however we are in an age of very rapid technological advancements, and I don't think there will be enough resources devoted to Mimicry.

It won't produce immediate profits to anyone.

Money rules our world.

Your hopes are admirable, but not realisitic.


Old Post 10-15-2004 09:30 PM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #17  quote:

Very rapid technological advancements may be what is destroying us. It is the very reason why we should consider biomimicry. It may be unrealistic to us now, but that is only because of what we have become as a society.

Greed rules our world.


Old Post 10-15-2004 09:34 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

Study confirms drop in number of birds post #18  quote:

From a local newspaper.....

The National Audubon Society in its "State of the Bird's study ..researchers say 30 % of the country's bird populations are in significant decline because of man.

It concludes there are fewer birds because there are fewer places for them to live. A loss of grassland and wetlands, poor forest management , pollution and sprawl contribute to the problem.

They say people should care about birds for at least two reasons:

Birding and related activities generate huge sums of money for the local, state and federal governments, and bird health says a lot about the overall health of our environment.

Birds need the same things we do---clean air, clean water and a good place to live.


Old Post 10-25-2004 09:32 PM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #19  quote:

Thank you, Becker. I'm so glad you mentioned urban sprawl!

It's very true that birds require a lot of the same things humans do. Aside from common toxins and chemicals, there are things humans expose themselves to on a daily basis without realizing the damage they are causing to themselves and the environment. Teflon and other non-stick surfaces, once heated beyond a certain degree, releases a poisonous gas into the air. The poison from heated non-stick surfaces suffocates and kills birds within a matter of minutes after exposure. I wonder what non-stick cooking apparatuses are doing to humans?

Urban sprawl is very alarming when you compare photographs of any present day city to photgraphs of the same city from 10, 15, or 30 years ago. Urban sprawl is the fancy term used to describe human infestation. To see a diagram of a city's urban sprawl, click the link below.

www.science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/11oct_sprawl.htm


Old Post 10-26-2004 12:27 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #20  quote:

Report Sounds Alarm on Pace of Arctic Climate Change
Warmth, Glacial Melt Linked to Humans; Wide-Ranging Effect on Environment and Industry Forecast

By Juliet Eilperin and Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 31, 2004; Page A08

The most comprehensive international assessment of Arctic climate change has concluded that Earth's upper latitudes are experiencing unprecedented increases in temperature, glacial melting and weather pattern changes, with most of those changes attributable to the human generation of greenhouse gases from automobiles, power plants and other sources.

The 144-page report is the work of a coalition of eight nations that have Arctic territories -- including the United States, which has hosted and financed the coalition's secretariat at the University of Alaska.

The findings, which reflect four years of study, confirm earlier evidence that the Arctic is warming far more quickly than the earth overall, with temperature increases in some northern regions exceeding by tenfold the average 1 degree Fahrenheit increase experienced on Earth in the past 100 years.

"For the past 30 years, there's been a dramatic increase in temperature and a decrease in the thickness of ice," said Robert W. Corell, a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society and chairman of the Arctic climate impact assessment group, which produced the report.

Those changes are already having practical impacts, including a reduction in the number of days each year that the tundra is hard enough to be driven on or drilled safely for oil. They can be expected to have even greater impact in the near future, the report predicts, in terms of agriculture, wildlife ranges for terrestrial and marine plants and animals, and global shoreline flooding because of increases in sea level caused by melting ice.

Warming could benefit certain sectors, the report said, by easing marine shipping and improving access to offshore oil and gas resources in the Arctic.

The report is scheduled to be released Nov. 9, but its summary findings were reported yesterday by the New York Times.

Gunnar Palsson, Icelandic chairman of the Arctic Council, predicted in an interview last week that the report "is going to generate a great deal of attention throughout the world."

"Climate change is not something that's going to happen -- it is happening all over the Arctic," Palsson said. "The Arctic is sort of a bellwether" for the rest of the earth.

Iceland has had much warmer summers recently and not much snow in Reykjavik the past two years, Iceland Ambassador Helgi Agustsson said. Palsson said Icelanders fear two of their most commercially valuable fish -- capelin and herring -- are migrating to cooler waters, which "would have a pretty big economic impact."

The report's authors believe Arctic temperatures will rise several degrees in the coming decades, according to a summary prepared by Gunn-Britt Retter, a technical adviser with the council's Indigenous People's Secretariat. Winters are expected to become warmer, and wet periods in the Arctic are expected to become longer, more frequent or both.

If nations want to temper or reverse that trend, Corell said, they will need to act quickly because carbon dioxide, the gas that is the prime culprit in global warming, typically lingers in the atmosphere 100 years before being recycled.

"If you were to put the brakes on right away, it's still going to take a long time for that supertanker to slow down," he said. "So there's a time scale issue here that does relate to how you decide what to do and how quickly."

Palsson said that while his country and a few others are suffering the most immediate effects from warming, other nations would have to take steps to curb climate change. "In order to contain these problems, we cannot think in terms of regional solutions," he said.

The Bush administration has consistently resisted calls for mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions, saying that it would cost too many American jobs. A coalition headed by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) is pushing legislation that would establish a pollution trading system aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, but it lacks the votes for passage.

Dana Perino, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the council's work "is part of the $8 billion the Bush administration has committed since taking office to climate change research. It reaffirms the importance of moving forward with the president's sensible strategy to address emissions in a way that keeps our economy strong."

Several sources said State Department officials had questioned some of the council's policy recommendations, which are to be released Nov. 24.

Palsson would not address possible administration resistance to aspects of the report, saying, "the Arctic Council is not a political forum for negotiating policies." But he added, "This is a highly political subject."

It is not entirely clear why the Arctic is warming much more quickly than other areas. One factor is probably albedo, or the heat-reflecting value of ice. Once icepacks melt and that reflective power is lost, temperature increases can accelerate more quickly than while icepacks are intact.

Scientists have found that melting icepacks are more porous than previously believed, a factor that speeds their melt rate once melting begins.

Of particular concern is the rate of melting of Greenland's ice, Corell said. Scientists have estimated that a total melt of that icepack would increase global sea levels by more than 25 feet.


Old Post 10-31-2004 12:58 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #21  quote:

quote:
the_way_it_is said this in post #20 :
The Bush administration has consistently resisted calls for mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide emissions, saying that it would cost too many American jobs.

(...)

"the Arctic Council is not a political forum for negotiating policies." But he added, "This is a highly political subject."


Yet another case of the tail wagging the dog. "No, no, I'm sorry, but what few American jobs could possibly be lost to efforts of pollution level redux far outweighs the consequences of severe global warming that could literally destroy the entier ecosystem on earth. And besides there's no proof that this is going to happen anyway.." These pukes make me sick.

You want to know why they won't do anything? It's not because of jobs. It's because it's too hard. They don't want to be the ones to have to do it. Save it for the next administraiton to deal with. They know damn well what's going on around the globe an what the cause is. The fact of the matter is, we're not talking about LOSING American jobs to an appropriately strategized response, we're talking about converting them, substituting one job for another. Changing the basis of our energy structure doesn't mean no workers are required, only that our workers will have to take on new, additional skills.

But that's too much to ask for. It's too much to demand that big oil companies begin establishing hydrogen infrastructure to the tune of trillions of investment dollars, especially when there are "black gold" cheerleaders running the Whitehouse.

Here's a secret tip: it takes money to make money. Oil's running dry and the environment is suffering as a result of our ever-consuming lifestyles. The big oil companies could turn straw into gold by beginning a migration path NOW to a hydrogen infrastructure and ensure that they will remain in business for the long term while at the same time demonstrating to the world that they actually care. Their expenses on such an infrastructure build-out would be a revenue-generating INVESTMENT that will eventually pay for itself.

The chicken & egg problem needs tobe solved somewhere. The same problem happened with HDTV. Broadcasters didn't want to invest in HD broadcast equipment because there weren't any HDTV set owners to justify the expense. Consumers didn't want to buy HDTV sets because there was nobody broadcasting. The solution ended up being a federally (FCC) mandated HDTV broadcasting requirement that minimized the broadcasters' initial expenses, but provided content for consumers to begin receiving. Then the first HDTV sets supported both SD and HD TV signals enabling them to functio with the majority of content as well as receive the new HD content. From there it began to spread like wildfire.

This is exactly what needs to happen with the oil industry. The government needs to mandate a baseline hydrogen infrastructure investment. Then auto-makers need to produce a line of vehicles with engines and electronics configured for upgradability to hydrogen burning capability. As the vehicles begin to hit the streets and the hydrogen stops become financially attractive and available to consumers, they will have their vehicles upgraded and the the hydrogen economy will begin to circulate.

This is a workable plan that keeps the oil companies and auto-makers employing their same old skilled labor force possibly cross-training some existing workers and hiring additional new experts to support the hydrogen processing aspects of their products. This is not that complicated. But we need a catalyst. Someone to break the resistance and enforce compliance to get it started because they're not volunteering to do it on their own.

California seems to be taking the lead with Schwarzenegger putting a plan into action to put together a network of hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. Now there's a man with a plan. Imagine that, a Republican with vision for the future. What kind of oxymoron is a "Liberal Republican?"


Old Post 10-31-2004 06:25 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #22  quote:

Here's another piece on the 8-nation report on Antarctic temperature increases: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...nment_arctic_dc

Old Post 11-03-2004 03:49 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #23  quote:

quote:
Sean Kelly said this in post #21 :


Yet another case of the tail wagging the dog. "No, no, I'm sorry, but what few American jobs could possibly be lost to efforts of pollution level redux far outweighs the consequences of severe global warming that could literally destroy the entier ecosystem on earth. And besides there's no proof that this is going to happen anyway.." These pukes make me sick.

You want to know why they won't do anything? It's not because of jobs. It's because it's too hard. They don't want to be the ones to have to do it. Save it for the next administraiton to deal with. They know damn well what's going on around the globe an what the cause is. The fact of the matter is, we're not talking about LOSING American jobs to an appropriately strategized response, we're talking about converting them, substituting one job for another. Changing the basis of our energy structure doesn't mean no workers are required, only that our workers will have to take on new, additional skills.

But that's too much to ask for. It's too much to demand that big oil companies begin establishing hydrogen infrastructure to the tune of trillions of investment dollars, especially when there are "black gold" cheerleaders running the Whitehouse.

Here's a secret tip: it takes money to make money. Oil's running dry and the environment is suffering as a result of our ever-consuming lifestyles. The big oil companies could turn straw into gold by beginning a migration path NOW to a hydrogen infrastructure and ensure that they will remain in business for the long term while at the same time demonstrating to the world that they actually care. Their expenses on such an infrastructure build-out would be a revenue-generating INVESTMENT that will eventually pay for itself.

The chicken & egg problem needs tobe solved somewhere. The same problem happened with HDTV. Broadcasters didn't want to invest in HD broadcast equipment because there weren't any HDTV set owners to justify the expense. Consumers didn't want to buy HDTV sets because there was nobody broadcasting. The solution ended up being a federally (FCC) mandated HDTV broadcasting requirement that minimized the broadcasters' initial expenses, but provided content for consumers to begin receiving. Then the first HDTV sets supported both SD and HD TV signals enabling them to functio with the majority of content as well as receive the new HD content. From there it began to spread like wildfire.

This is exactly what needs to happen with the oil industry. The government needs to mandate a baseline hydrogen infrastructure investment. Then auto-makers need to produce a line of vehicles with engines and electronics configured for upgradability to hydrogen burning capability. As the vehicles begin to hit the streets and the hydrogen stops become financially attractive and available to consumers, they will have their vehicles upgraded and the the hydrogen economy will begin to circulate.

This is a workable plan that keeps the oil companies and auto-makers employing their same old skilled labor force possibly cross-training some existing workers and hiring additional new experts to support the hydrogen processing aspects of their products. This is not that complicated. But we need a catalyst. Someone to break the resistance and enforce compliance to get it started because they're not volunteering to do it on their own.

California seems to be taking the lead with Schwarzenegger putting a plan into action to put together a network of hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. Now there's a man with a plan. Imagine that, a Republican with vision for the future. What kind of oxymoron is a "Liberal Republican?"



What are the possibilities of you having a future career in politics?

If I were American, you would get my vote!


Old Post 11-03-2004 04:33 AM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #24  quote:

Thanks, but I tend to piss people off on both sides of the fence - I don't think i'd get far politically.

Old Post 11-03-2004 07:58 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Anomaly77
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Feb 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: NY/USA
Posts: 589

post #25  quote:

I'm glad that we are discussing population growth.
Here's a funny little story:

I get a lot of slack about my decision to not have children. Sometimes, when someone is really harassing me, I comment (sarcastically) that I am doing my part to address the population growth problem. Silence. I go on to quote statistical estimates regarding population growth, the associated problems, lack of resource for all these people, etc. And what do I get?...Blank stares. I really think that most people don't even consider this a problem. I don't think that most people have the ability to conceptualize the associated problems.

And then...I LOVE this one...

When they respond with, "What do I care...I'll be dead by then!"
"You'll be dead by then," I respond sounding shocked...
"But you are the one having children and grandchildren...don't you care about their future?"
This usually shuts them up.


Old Post 11-06-2004 05:57 AM
Click here to Send Anomaly77 a Private Message Find more posts by Anomaly77 Add Anomaly77 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Anomaly77 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #26  quote:

They don't think it's a problem, you're absolutely right. This ties a fair amount into religion where most religions regard a large, warm, fuzzy family as being a Holy blessing of God, most fortuitous and prosperous - the more the merrier.

Unfortunately, there's an actual economic and logistical problem that in't addressed in that formula. I wrote another thread on this topic maybe a year ago proposing a solution: that women agree to bear zero, one or two children only (or perhaps it should be mandated?) If this were done the world over, even if every woman bore exactly two children, population expansion would halt. Numerically the population would sustain itself exactly where it is today (unless some statistical fluke caused a surge in the proportion of females to males at which point the females would begin multiplying at alarming rates like mice..!! but never-mind that.. it'd never happen, the miracle of DNA sees fit to that.) If some women instead opted to have only one or no children at all, the size of our population would begin to recede. It only gets better from there.

With a smaller population, we can be assured of our survival. If we continue to grow, we will eventually be unable to harvest enough crops to feed us all. It's that simple. This isn't the Matrix with a well-balanced containment and food processing system that guarantees perpetual resources. I hereby guarantee that the U.S. could not sustain a population of 1 billion people today. how do you suppose China does it? Oh wait, that's right - that country is rife with disease and infection because they can't sustain that either..

More is not merrier.

Taking this one step further, we are the first species on this planet to defeat Darwin's evolutionary theory. His theory mandates that natural selection - survival of the fittest - will determine which individuals will continue to reproduce and propagate the species. This results in strong offspring who are made to endure the test of time and elements. This rule is not true among humans. We insist on caring for the weak, on patting them on the back, on telling them that they are strong and smart though they are not. We encourage people with flawed DNA to believe that they can overcome their weakness, and they procreate and bear weak children. This process continues infinitum. This is how we end up with family lineages where every family member is destined to die of cancer. If the reproductive cycle were stopped dead in its tracks that DNA lineage would end and never threaten to contaminate the rest of the gene pool.

As it is, we have many, MANY, contaminants in our gene pool. It is scientifically irresponsible to encourage those flawed variants to reproduce in the HOPE that their child does not suffer their fate. The fact is that even if their child is fortunate to not suffer from the bunk gene, they are now a carrier. A breeding transmitter who will multiple that bunk gene back into the population and it will rear its ugly head again.

Some would say this is a heartless view. Really, as with most of my views, it is simply the cold, hard, realistic truth - sad, but true. Some might suggest that I should practice what I preach. Guess what? I do. I am in fact faced with having no children with my wife because of a DNA deficiency in my wife's lineage that makes for a high probability that our child will suffer from the defect or be a carrier. As a result, we are faced with adoption. That, in my humbe opinion, is the way to go.


Old Post 11-06-2004 08:08 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #27  quote:

quote:
Taking this one step further, we are the first species on this planet to defeat Darwin's evolutionary theory. His theory mandates that natural selection - survival of the fittest - will determine which individuals will continue to reproduce and propagate the species. This results in strong offspring who are made to endure the test of time and elements. This rule is not true among humans. We insist on caring for the weak, on patting them on the back, on telling them that they are strong and smart though they are not. We encourage people with flawed DNA to believe that they can overcome their weakness, and they procreate and bear weak children. This process continues infinitum. This is how we end up with family lineages where every family member is destined to die of cancer. If the reproductive cycle were stopped dead in its tracks that DNA lineage would end and never threaten to contaminate the rest of the gene pool.


this is not necessarily true. On a genetic level, yes, we have defeated Darwinism. But humans evolve through a different medium now: culture. If you view the human phenomenon as group units of culture where the individual monkies are part of a greater whole, you still see natural selection taking place.

Also bear in mind that natural selection is a slow process, that has its most pronounced effects in times of hardship. It's not so much that the stronger you are the better off you are, with a constant clipping of the weaker ones; it's when the weaker ones become so weak they cannot survive... well, they don't survive.


Old Post 11-06-2004 04:58 PM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Flutterbywingz
Taking Flight

offline
Registered: Jul 2004
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location:
Posts: 2343

post #28  quote:

China's family planning law, although implemented due to severe overpopulation, is something that the rest of the world should take serious notice of. After 30 years of efforts, exponential population growth has been effectively controlled, and 300 million births have been prevented. Under undeveloped economic circumstances and in a relatively short period of time, the country has realized a remarkably low birth rate. I believe it is human responsibility to not allow our individual societies to become a giant petri dish of human infestation. China is only a very small place in the vastness of earth. If people don't start taking responsibility, the entire world will become as overpopulated and polluted as China is today, even though they have managed to prevent millions of births. When there are more people on earth to accommodate, the natural earth will be nothing more than the foundation that holds up crammed together houses and buildings.


People don't take urban sprawl and overpopulation as a threat. They are usually the same people who complain of less lawn space when buying a new home in overcrowded, recently built subdivisions in cities that was once free, natural land-space. But they buy the houses anyway. A few newlywed couples with the hopes of adding a few more members to their family -- families that will grow older and require houses to accommodate their own growing families. If we keep going at the rate we're going now, what will be left? People think it's cold and detached to want to control population growth, but it's quite possibly the most caring decision anyone can make. Lets stop building and start rebuilding. Every city has its run down neighborhoods -- neighborhoods that have been an eye sore for many years. I say, tear them down! Rebuild there!


People of earth --We have a major problem! You don't think human overpopulation is a threat now -- remember that the next time you call the authorities to remove the wolves, foxes and bears you find rummaging through the garbage in "your" backyards. You think earth will continue to sustain human life? Look deeper, much deeper than your desires to contribute to the growth of the population -- stop looking at those wild animals as intruders: They are merely homeless creatures who have nowhere else to go because of the increasing needs of the growing population. Humans have already overrun animals. It's only a matter of time before humans overrun humans too.


I think your idea of a law to limit the number of children a person should have would be an exceptional plan. People will think it's unfair, but that's what we are faced with from having ancestors who felt some kind of civic duty to have ten children each. There are already too many people giving birth to children who aren't even wanted. Couple that with the people who feel the need to have four or more children. Adoption is definitely the way to go. It's not just the city streets that are overcrowded, it's the orphanages too. When we can't support the life that already exists, why add more?


Last edited by Flutterbywingz on 11-06-2004 at 06:29 PM |
Old Post 11-06-2004 06:12 PM
Click here to Send Flutterbywingz a Private Message Find more posts by Flutterbywingz Add Flutterbywingz to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Flutterbywingz REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

becker
Definitively Illumined

offline
Registered: Dec 2003
Local time: 01:05 PM
Location: In my beautiful condo
Posts: 7447

post #29  quote:

TWII--

I agree with your post comments.

But children are now having children.

I don't think laws will stop these people.

Even now educational programs have failed to halt teen age sex.

Diseases have failed to stop casual sex.


Current trends will continue.

Anomaly thinks with clarity.


I don't think anything will cause the majority of population to change their ways and mores.

I recently saw an expert in the field proclaim that Global Warming is occurring as we speak. Oceans are warming, etc.
As TWII has posted previously.


Old Post 11-06-2004 07:39 PM
Click here to Send becker a Private Message Find more posts by becker Add becker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore becker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 10:05 AM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #30  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #27 :
.. humans evolve through a different medium now: culture.


That's my greatest fear because "culture" is controlled by the media. What the media defines as "cool" is what guides people's attractions and thus is an influence in the shape of our evolution. If the media says that skinny dumb chicks with big tits and olive skin and black men with bulging muscles, baggy clothes and a bad attitude are what's hot, sexy and desirable at that time, it shapes people's percetions, they seek those things, partners are found, babies are born and bam: media's influence on evolution is realized. Would these things be considered specifically genetically desirable traits that would fare well in a challenge that is truly survival of the fittest? Are these people more likely to survive a post-apocalyptic world and realistically propagate the species? (Well maybe the black dude would, but certainly not the chick! )

quote:

Also bear in mind that natural selection is a slow process, that has its most pronounced effects in times of hardship.


This statement holds true in nature, yes. but it has been found that human culture has significantly amplified this effect. There are regions where the human gene pool has been decimated by a truly natural selection process. Take for example Cat Island in the Bahamas where everyone looks like Sidney Poitier. A hurricane blew out a significant chunk of the human gene pool from this island some time back and what remains is a veritable formula for genetic disease that could make its way into the rest of the gene pool. In this place and other third world countries, the gene pool is so small that the effects have brought on thousands of years worth of equivalent genetic evolution in only so many decades. The genetic problems I'm referring to are the same as those that result from destructive inbreeding. I'm not sure if bringing in fresh DNA for mating will revitalize the lineage or simply hybridize / dillute impending genetic defects for some sort of delayed result. It's possible that genetic problems could be eliminated with a single fresh DNA source, I'm not positive on that though.


Old Post 11-06-2004 08:02 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 06:05 PM Post New Thread   
Pages (2):  [1] 2 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Medicine, Science & Technology > Earth & Life Sciences > Biodiversity
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.11888909 seconds (94.22% PHP - 5.78% MySQL) with 37 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home