JDG wrote:
Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for
the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up
for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something
by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter four, perhaps
you would like to do that one John?
The question has been asked "what the islanders think as they were
cutting down the last tree?" Of course, we now know that the Easter
Islanders need not have cut down the last tree. Once the tree
population's genetic diversity was reduced below a certain trheshhold,
the remaining trees would have died naturally.
But look at it this way. There were 20+ species of trees. They weren't
all wiped out at once and the loss of the most useful ones most likely
preceded those that were less useful. The islanders had to have some
inkling of what they were doing to themselves.
I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse and
civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily
ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You may be
offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was
integral to their collapse?)
Another, much more logical question, would be: "was memorial building
integral to their collapse?" In this case, one might connect
America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders'
proclivity for the same.
But the Moai are essentially religious icons, are they not? The question
points the the fact that precious resources were funneled in to the
building of these statues at a time when it was critical that they
conserve those resources.
First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect
upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever
intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There
is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we
hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our
welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making
serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes. Thus, it is not
sufficient to simply say "because the risks are high, we must take
action whatever the cost." These risks must always be balanced against
other risks.
Do you have a credible source that doesn't believe we can have an effect
on the climate via greenhouse gasses?
How would it be "tinkering" if we reduced our production of these gasses?
This is like saying we're not sure crapping in the river has an ill effect
on our health so we'll continue to crap in the river until we have
verified that that is the problem because if tinker with our crapping
habits we may cause more damage to our welfare.
As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no
cost in order to combat global warming.
No. I'm saying we should make it a top priority.
Should we not also be sparing
no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or
perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for
gamma ray bursts?
We have little or no control over these phenomenon, and there is little
likelihood that even if we did spare no expense that we would be able to
do anything about them.
And finally, once one decides to spare no cost in an endeavor, one must
consider just how palatable those sacrifices really are. There are
many causes which seem worthy - for instance medical research, AIDS
treatment, preserving wild places, breeding endangered species, disaster
relief, etc. The are many other priorities which need to be
considered.
None of which have anywhere near the potential for disaster that warming
does. In fact, warming has the potential to exacerbate the problems you
mention.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
