I would add a couple of points: First, current warnings on global climate review not only trends, but cause and effect mechanisms and now the empirical data from actual observations is matching the predictions. This adds credibility to the warnings, yet disbelievers still doubt the motives of the researchers and attack the messengers because they do not like the message.
Second, some problems, such as overpopulation, have SEEMED to have been solved by agricultural technology, such as "improved" seeds, increased use of inputs in the form of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, irrigation to produce larger crops. But the reality is that these "solutions" have their own cumulative, negative impact and are in many ways unsustainable in their own right. For instance, it is said that the current American industrial agricultural system uses up to 10 calories of energy to put one calorie of food on the table. This has been possible because of relatively cheap natural gas to convert to fertilizers, cheap fuel for tractors and transportation drawdown of nonrenewable aquifers, etc. Food is routinely shipped by truck a thousand miles from point of production to point of consumption, and many foods are even shipped by air. This CANNOT continue indefinitely into the future as we round the bell curve of Hubbert's Peak. It is then that the irreversibility of our high energy lifestyle and temporary life support system will be undeniable. We have been beyond carrying capacity for some time, but it takes time for a huge planetary system to crash and we treat that lag time as if it were a time of resolution rather than a delay of the inevitable. Not good! Yet, as several "alarmists" have pointed out, you cannot build a replacement energy system on an appropriate scale to replace the existing one based on energy outputs from the new system. For instance, to build large-scale wind energy developments, solar energy, etc., we need to make the transition using energy from petroleum sources, while they are still available enough to power the transition, but we are not doing so on a meaningful scale. This means, in my opinion and the view of others, that we are mandating a human die-off to bring ourselves into balance with the planetary life support system to correct our overshoot. I do believe that some threats are and have been fabricated or exaggerated in the past to manipulate the public. But generally, those are government-produced warnings against competitor nations with warnings against communism, terrorism, etc. Scientists are not making those warnings, unless they are part of the military/industrial complex. Scientists have stated that, for instance, the threat of global climate change is far more worrisom than any threat of terrorism. I would say, and have said, that the U.S. government's manipulation of public fear by continual mention of terrorism is a way of promoting the war industry, which some have said is the most profitable industry in the history of the earth. That industry has played its own role in environmental degradation, right into the present where U.S. agencies such as the Department of Defense have been allowed exemptions from environmental protections on their own lands in the U.S. which contain some of the best remaining habitat for imperiled species. My own view is that consumerism is not only more frightening than terrorism, it is actually a source for terrorism, and had been revealed to be so by mainstream commentators in recent literature. In significant ways, "terrorists" are people who resent our intrusion into their lands and cultures and resources, which are normally done to make consumerism possible. For instance, I heard Tony Blair on the radio calling Iraqis who killed British soldiers, not civilians, "terrorists" for resisting occupation of their land by British military forces. Who does Mr. Blair think he is kidding? The Iraqi people know why the Brits are there and it has got far less to do with freedom than petroleum. In fact, most Iraqis would prefer freedom FROM British and American occupation as the major solution to their predicament. If you were driving down the road and saw a warning indicator light come on in your dashboard, saying "check oil level", would you determine that because you had a similar warning before that you could ignore it this time? I would not! I know that that indicator, if accurate, could mean that continued driving of my vehicle could ruin the engine. I would pull over and check the oil level and if the level was okay, I would take my car to the shop as soon as possible and have the warning system repaired, adjusted, etc. Warnings vary in meaning and significance. Warnings of impending catastrophy deserve serious consideration. If your doctor warns you that smoking cigarettes can cause cancer or heart attack, and you go through another day, month, year without the disease/symptoms, is the doctor misleading you? People who don't take the warnings seriously often wake up one day and wish they had, and sometimes they even try to sue the manufacturer of the cigarettes for their suffering. A verse in the Bible said that a wise person sees danger ahead and proceeds to conceal himself. Aldo Leopold said that we are so fixated with prosperity, gadgets, etc. that we have lost the ability to be healthy as a society. There is no doubt that we as humans are prone to be allured by prosperity, wealth, possessions, etc. But the question I still cannot understand is how parents and grandparents can be so consumed by devotion to prosperity that they ignore warnings that will impact their children and grandchildren. The precautionary principle means nothing, apparently, when luxurious lifestyles (by historic standards are on the line. It is common to see bumper stickers on motorhomes saying something like "I spent my children's inheritance to buy this vehicle". We are guaranteeing a depauperized planet for our descendents; there is no question about it. I do not have children, but I want the world's future children to be familiar with polar bears and peregrine falcons and Bengal tigers and California tiger salamanders as living inhabitants of this planet. I want my planet to be healthy, not overharvested, polluted and degraded so that my human relatives could live luxuriously for a few short generations. That is why I listen to warnings. I do not believe all of them, but I tend to investigate them. My experience is that good scientists do not intentionally mislead people, but use their expertise to report patterns in nature. When the patterns change, or when errors or biases are determined, good scientists alter their analyses to fit the data. The data on the issues of global climate change, depletion of petroleum as an abundant, inexpensive planetary resource, etc. are strong and getter stronger almost every day, literally. Yet, still we see people dismissing the evidence and acting as if wishing it were not true would make the warnings go away... Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, >pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum. >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:40:15 +0100 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by >bay0-mc11-f13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, >9 Apr 2007 15:25:44 -0700 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id >l3954XZr013060;Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:25:34 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: >oG9qAjD2BNGxAARuxuS0AD2CFhZz95dVQwhfrmsxrvVyZQcf+W01sY2fAeio6Fli >Precedence: list >List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>, ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L> >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2007 22:25:44.0207 (UTC) >FILETIME=[0377B9F0:01C77AF6] > >Tom is right, we are constantly bombarded with warning messages. Remember >the claim that the Nazis were trying to take over the world? That AIDS >would >someday develop into a major threat to human health? That third-world >countries like China, India, Pakistan and North Korea could actually >develop >nuclear weapons? But is he right in thinking that because there have been >some false alarms we should ignore all warnings? > >Bill Silvert > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom Schweich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:20 AM >Subject: Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, >pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum. > > > >I dunno ... the first I remember is being taught to hide under my desk > > at school (1952), bend way over and kiss my ass good-bye because the > > commies were going to blow us to smithereens. Then I think it was all > > the smog in Los Angeles that was going to get us. Then all the nuclear > > power plants were going to simultaneously melt down. Then we were going > > to completely run out of oil by year 2000. Then all the pollution was > > going to kill us. Not to mention forest fires, plane crashes, > > earthquakes, and floods. I've given up dying over and over again, and > > plan to live a little in my few remaining years. Until then, I'll try > > to be efficient in my use of petroleum products and not contribute to > > over-population, excessive pollution, or set off any earthquakes. _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
