> I am appalled (though not surprised)
> that people on this list who " don't
> have any answers" suggest "it might just
> require the end of wasteful materialism
> wasteful materialism" and joke about
> soylent green.
> Energy hungry synthetic nitrogen is the
> reason for something between 1/3 and 1/2
> of crop yield. The ending of famines in
> Europe was the result of railroads more
> than any other factor. This allowed grain
> to be shipped from places with good crops
> to places where the crops had failed.
> Railroads allowed cities to grow, and
> cities do far less ecological damage than
> spread out humans.
> you have lots of people not only saying
> it is not possible, but directly arguing
> that a human die-back is more desirable
> than cheap energy."
> I agree, how dare they! Except, I don't
> remember anyone saying that. I remember
> some people suggesting alternate energy
> sources, I remember someone talking about solar.
> As far as I remember, no suggested "the end of
> wasteful materialism". I did suggest that we
> may have to be a little more efficient about
> our energy use and make some compromises
> I certainly don't remember anyone calling for
> the dying off of the population.
> the majority of American crops are used to feed
> livestock, not people.
> Nothing says that that energy has to come from
> coal, it can just as easily come from nuclear
> power, solar power, wind power. If we shift
> away from fossil fuels and towards another
> primary power source, that won't stop the
> production of Ammonium Nitrate.
> Nuclear power is just as cheap as coal
> in the long term renewable sources average
> out to about the same cost as coal...
> If you think so little of the people on this
> list as to equate them with typical blog
> posters, then why are you here? Learn quickly,
> straw men arguments don't go well on this list
> so treating us like we aren't as smart as you
> or setting up straw men to knock down is not
> going to convince a one of us. Most of us are
> in science related fields and almost all are
> card-carrying skeptics.
> Trent has opined similarly in the past, with a
> tone that says that a significant human die-off
> is perfectly acceptable to him. I am of neither
> the opinion that such a die-off is acceptable,
> nor that he should be first in line.
I agree that railroads have contributed to ending
famines in Europe, and they are becoming much less
destructive to the environment than other means
of transportation and distribution. Advances in the
technology of food production have also contributed
to the growth of populations, not only of humans, but
of domesticated meat stocks, which does not result
in feeding more people, but in some people consuming
more biomass...
I am not suggesting that the green revolution was a
bad thing. I also recognize that developed countries
are experiencing reduced population growth.
However, I make no apology for suggesting that human
civilization could collapse, unless we can somehow
reduce excessive waste, pollution, conspicuous consumption
and materialistic greed. To quote Larry Niven out of
context, "Think of it as evolution in action".
When any species overpopulates, or despoils its own
habitat, it can contribute to its own decimation, or even
extinction. We humans are fouling our own nest, and
if we don't do something to repair the damage, we may
suffer the consequences.
I don't have the arrogance to claim I know how to solve
the problems related to climate change and overpopulation,
etc. Nor do I claim that they are solely the result of
human population, industry and agribusiness, etc. I do
believe human civilization is a factor, and our success
in adapting our planet to feed a population that has
tripled in my lifetime, has to have an effect on the
ecological equilibrium, habitats, and other species'
survival.
So it goes...
Jon Mann
_______________________________________________
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
