Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread LizR 
You'll have to explain what you mean. The spike for the PETM is very thin,
I can't tell exactly because the scale is too large but it looks to me as
if it's around the specified 0.2 Myr. (It's the little horizontal line
sticking out to the right, with an arrow pointing to it labelled PETM). On
the temperature scale shown it sticks out about 4 degrees above the mean
(red line) at that point.

[image: Inline images 1]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Richard Ruquist 
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:45 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
 the atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at
 which point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren
 will). It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming
 around the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release

>>>
>> The climate in the so-called 
>> Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>  lasted
>> for 20 million years.
>>
>
> 200,000 according to that article. Also from that article:
>
> "At the start of the PETM, average global temperatures increased by
> approximately 6 °C (11 °F) within about 20,000 years."
>
> That was the result of natural processes. The human race is doing a lot
> "better" than that!
>

That is not what the data shows. Take a look:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.meltonengineering.com/Zachos%25202001%2520PETM%252072%2520dpi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.concord.org/what-caused-the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum&h=285&w=177&sz=1&tbnid=6QMv8FTf8uJhzM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__wTlZHQ6Tyy42yi8HlCVB2eoB-ck=&docid=LavOcNHQ3o3thM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=EOr6UvCqF7Th0AH2k4GACw&ved=0CKUBEPwdMAo

>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl 
Hi Bruno and Liz:
 
I think it is not fruitful to look further at the words "natural" and 
"unnatural".  They seem to carry too much baggage.  I should not have used 
them.
 
I suggest looking at my post I pointed to:   

*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*
and go through it and discuss it one step at a time.  It uses the term 
"inherent".
 
After that we could explore how the collection of universes in the 
"Everything" permits the result of the discussion.
 
For example if the result is that life appears always inherently self 
extinguishing how does this lack of choice influence the origin and 
structure [if this is a reasonably applicable term] of the Everything. 
Hal Ruhl
 
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Liz:
>>  
>> I am not sure I understand your comment.
>> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that 
>> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches 
>> it accelerate.
>> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating 
>> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an 
>> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
>> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be 
>> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable 
>> boundaries.]
>>  In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus 
>> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective 
>> absent an "unnatural" earlier one. 
>>
>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if 
> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even 
> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on 
> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>
> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and 
> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at 
> justifying ourselves.
>
>
>
> It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by 
> the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
> It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to 
> avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm 
> the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey 
> the physical laws. 
>
> "naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a 
> role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's God will".
> I think this has a name: fatalism. 
>
> Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a theological 
> error. 
>
> Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable 
> "truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a 
> cul-de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.)
>
> We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial control, 
> and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.
>
>
>
>
> I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some 
> members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I 
> don't particularly want the same for our children.
>
>
> OK.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread LizR 
On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
>>> the atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at
>>> which point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren
>>> will). It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming
>>> around the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release
>>>
>>
> The climate in the so-called 
> Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>  lasted
> for 20 million years.
>

200,000 according to that article. Also from that article:

"At the start of the PETM, average global temperatures increased by
approximately 6 °C (11 °F) within about 20,000 years."

That was the result of natural processes. The human race is doing a lot
"better" than that!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Richard Ruquist 
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
 The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
 have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
 climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
 fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
 this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
 temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.

>>>
>>> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture
>>> to flourish, and with it civilisation.
>>>
>>> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
>>> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
>>> department...
>>>
>>
>> That we are currently in an interglacial period
>> suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)
>>
>
> It certainly would normally. I don't know if it does now we've bumped up
> atmospheric CO2 50% in 2 centuries (and we *have *had the hottest years
> on record with monotonous regularity over the last couple of decades, so,
> so far the effect is a warming trend - though that could have unexpected /
> counter-intuitive consequences of course - I mean above those it's already
> having!)
>
>>
>> In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
>> continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
>> So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.
>>
>
>> The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased
>> CO2
>> results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
>> in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
>> reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
>> thereby cooling the earth significantly.
>>
>
> Hmm, that seems possible I suppose. Most of the thermal energy is stored
> in the oceans, however, so we would expect them to expand (and possibly
> release dissolved CO2, methane, etc) so this is rather hypothetical (and in
> conflict with the opinions of 99.7% of climate scientists, if I remember
> correctly).
>
>>
>> Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
>> so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.
>>
>
> I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from the
> atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at which
> point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren will).
> It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming around
> the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release
>

The climate in the so-called
Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
lasted
for 20 million years.
Compared to the recent ice ages for only 1/2 million years, it was a very
stable climate.
That may be where we are headed. But I fear that we will return to more
glaciation.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.meltonengineering.com/Zachos%25202001%2520PETM%252072%2520dpi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.concord.org/what-caused-the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum&h=285&w=177&sz=1&tbnid=6QMv8FTf8uJhzM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__wTlZHQ6Tyy42yi8HlCVB2eoB-ck=&docid=LavOcNHQ3o3thM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=mJf6Ur6sKMuQ0QH_q4HgBw&ved=0CKUBEPwdMAo



>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread LizR 
On 12 February 2014 05:18, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl  wrote:
>
>> Hi Liz:
>>
>> I am not sure I understand your comment.
>> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that
>> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches
>> it accelerate.
>> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating
>> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an
>> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
>> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be
>> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable
>> boundaries.]
>>  In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus
>> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective
>> absent an "unnatural" earlier one.
>>
>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if
> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even
> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on
> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>
> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and
> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at
> justifying ourselves.
>
> It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by
> the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
> It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to
> avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm
> the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey
> the physical laws.
>
> "naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a
> role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's God will".
> I think this has a name: fatalism.
>

I guess my instinct to protect my offspring (and their offspring...etc)
from the results of the wild party the human race has been throwing since
we discovered all this "cool tech stuff" is also natural.

(So the hangover won't be too extreme...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread LizR 
On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
>>> have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
>>> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
>>> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
>>> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
>>> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
>>> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
>> flourish, and with it civilisation.
>>
>> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
>> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
>> department...
>>
>
> That we are currently in an interglacial period
> suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)
>

It certainly would normally. I don't know if it does now we've bumped up
atmospheric CO2 50% in 2 centuries (and we *have *had the hottest years on
record with monotonous regularity over the last couple of decades, so, so
far the effect is a warming trend - though that could have unexpected /
counter-intuitive consequences of course - I mean above those it's already
having!)

>
> In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
> continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
> So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.
>

> The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased
> CO2
> results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
> in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
> reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
> thereby cooling the earth significantly.
>

Hmm, that seems possible I suppose. Most of the thermal energy is stored in
the oceans, however, so we would expect them to expand (and possibly
release dissolved CO2, methane, etc) so this is rather hypothetical (and in
conflict with the opinions of 99.7% of climate scientists, if I remember
correctly).

>
> Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
> so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.
>

I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from the
atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at which
point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren will).
It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming around
the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:


On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl  wrote:
Hi Liz:

I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system  
that forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life  
approaches it accelerate.
There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating  
influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an  
"unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would  
be external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have  
permeable boundaries.]
 In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and  
thus unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully  
effective absent an "unnatural" earlier one.


I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are,  
if only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity,  
probably even more so than the next species since we have occupied  
almost every niche on the planet apart from deep sea smokers.


I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and  
unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at  
justifying ourselves.



It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder  
by the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction  
to avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can  
condemm the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that  
they too obey the physical laws.


"naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature  
plays a role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's  
God will".

I think this has a name: fatalism.

Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a  
theological error.


Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable  
"truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a cul- 
de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.)


We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial  
control, and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.






I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some  
members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years,  
and I don't particularly want the same for our children.


OK.

Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Richard Ruquist 
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
>> have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
>> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
>> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
>> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
>> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
>> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>>
>
> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
> flourish, and with it civilisation.
>
> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
> department...
>

That we are currently in an interglacial period
suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)

In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.

The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased CO2
results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
thereby cooling the earth significantly.

Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.

>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread LizR 
On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content have
> been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>

Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
flourish, and with it civilisation.

As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
department...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Richard Ruquist 
The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content have
been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> I had a look but it wasn't easy reading, and I don't have too much time,
> so, do you have precis, preferably a bit clearer than the one you gave
> before (with "everything" in "quotes" )?
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 16:41, Hal Ruhl  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:57:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>>

 I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if
>>> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even
>>> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on
>>> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>>>
>>> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and
>>> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at
>>> justifying ourselves.
>>>
>>> I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some
>>> members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I
>>> don't particularly want the same for our children.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Liz:
>>
>> The argument I present is based in the laws of physics as we know them in
>> our universe and resulting information flows.
>>
>> The laws of physics make no kind of judgment as to the nature of the
>> emotional consequences of actions that result from them other than are the
>> resulting emotions a correct result of the physics in play.
>>
>> My position is that the emotions anti ecocide will never come even close
>> to outweighing the emotions pro the process that leads to the ecocide.
>>
>> However I do make allowance for such a possibility.
>>
>> See the material I pointed to:
>> http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
>>
>>  Hal Ruhl
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread LizR 
I had a look but it wasn't easy reading, and I don't have too much time,
so, do you have precis, preferably a bit clearer than the one you gave
before (with "everything" in "quotes" )?


On 11 February 2014 16:41, Hal Ruhl  wrote:

>
> On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:57:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if
>> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even
>> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on
>> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>>
>> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and
>> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at
>> justifying ourselves.
>>
>> I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some
>> members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I
>> don't particularly want the same for our children.
>>
>>
> Hi Liz:
>
> The argument I present is based in the laws of physics as we know them in
> our universe and resulting information flows.
>
> The laws of physics make no kind of judgment as to the nature of the
> emotional consequences of actions that result from them other than are the
> resulting emotions a correct result of the physics in play.
>
> My position is that the emotions anti ecocide will never come even close
> to outweighing the emotions pro the process that leads to the ecocide.
>
> However I do make allowance for such a possibility.
>
> See the material I pointed to:  http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
>
>
>  Hal Ruhl
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl 

On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:57:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>  
>>
>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if 
> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even 
> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on 
> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>
> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and 
> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at 
> justifying ourselves.
>
> I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some 
> members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I 
> don't particularly want the same for our children.
>
>  
Hi Liz:
 
The argument I present is based in the laws of physics as we know them in 
our universe and resulting information flows.
 
The laws of physics make no kind of judgment as to the nature of the 
emotional consequences of actions that result from them other than are the 
resulting emotions a correct result of the physics in play.  
 
My position is that the emotions anti ecocide will never come even close 
to outweighing the emotions pro the process that leads to the ecocide.
 
However I do make allowance for such a possibility.
 
See the material I pointed to:  http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/ 
 
 Hal Ruhl
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread LizR 
Meanwhile, we may be fighting over water before much longer...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

[image: Inline images 1]

...though not everyone, obviously...

[image: Inline images 2]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread LizR 
On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl  wrote:

> Hi Liz:
>
> I am not sure I understand your comment.
> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that
> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches
> it accelerate.
> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating
> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an
> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be
> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable
> boundaries.]
>  In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus
> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective
> absent an "unnatural" earlier one.
>
> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if
only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even
more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on
the planet apart from deep sea smokers.

I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and unavoidable
aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at justifying
ourselves.

I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some members
alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I don't
particularly want the same for our children.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl 
Hi Liz:
 
I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that 
forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches 
it accelerate.
There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating 
influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an 
"unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be 
external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable 
boundaries.]
 In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus 
unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective 
absent an "unnatural" earlier one. 
 
Hal Ruhl
 
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:33:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

> It certainly isn't natural at the rate we've been doing it. We're coming 
> close to a cometary impact. 
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 14:02, Hal Ruhl 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>>>
>>> Hi Liz
>>>
>> Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread "Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia 
>> Spectrum" wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and 
>> unavoidable aspect of life.
>> A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at   
>>  
>> http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
>>  
>> Hal Ruhl
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread LizR 
It certainly isn't natural at the rate we've been doing it. We're coming
close to a cometary impact.


On 11 February 2014 14:02, Hal Ruhl  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>>
>> Hi Liz
>>
> Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread "Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia
> Spectrum" wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and
> unavoidable aspect of life.
> A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at
>
> http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl 

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>
> Hi Liz
>
Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread "Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia 
Spectrum" wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and 
unavoidable aspect of life.
A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at   
 
http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
 
Hal Ruhl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread LizR 
Meanwhile...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-09 Thread ghibbsa 

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:19:52 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> I've looked at the site and I still can't see who you mean by "he" - 
> please explain.
>
 
oh vally good! 

>
> I agree with you that we need to transform the world economy, however I 
> can't see that it is happening, 
>
 
Whatever hero (sorry liz) was meant to show up that day and transform the 
world economy, he obviously didn't get of bed himself. Should have been 
following your book review digest on twitter 
 

> so I promote all such initiatives on the basis that any small thing might 
> be "the last straw". See Robert Anton Wilson's "Ten reasons to get out of 
> bed in the morning" for whatever justification there is for this view. 
> http://www.rawillumination.net/2011/05/quoting-raw-to-grads-who-do-college.html
>
All of which is reasonable...I'll even be nice to them in future if you 
want. 
 
I feel it quite hard what's happening. Especially the West because that's 
my ancestral place. It took a lot of people a long time to accomplish the 
West. It'll be gone before I am. 

>
> If you have been watching series 2 of "The Bridge" you will have seen what 
> the next step is. I'm not sure I want to go that far (but I'm sure someone 
> will eventually...)
>
>
> On 10 February 2014 10:46, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:35:01 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>>>
>>> I support the idea, but I don't feel like I can trust organizations like 
>> that anymore. Often enough their just a money shakedown. Or they 
>> have really nasty agenda against his people or someone else's. Or maybe 
>> they come out looking rosy. Either way, they are a campaign group only. The 
>> world is way past that now. The only way this thing will be solved in the 
>> future is if there's a way transform the entire world ecomony to a better 
>> way to be. 
>>  
>> do I have to be the asshole to say he's being doing that? (hottub)
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-09 Thread LizR 
I've looked at the site and I still can't see who you mean by "he" - please
explain.

I agree with you that we need to transform the world economy, however I
can't see that it is happening, so I promote all such initiatives on the
basis that any small thing might be "the last straw". See Robert Anton
Wilson's "Ten reasons to get out of bed in the morning" for whatever
justification there is for this view.
http://www.rawillumination.net/2011/05/quoting-raw-to-grads-who-do-college.html

If you have been watching series 2 of "The Bridge" you will have seen what
the next step is. I'm not sure I want to go that far (but I'm sure someone
will eventually...)


On 10 February 2014 10:46,  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:35:01 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>>
>> I support the idea, but I don't feel like I can trust organizations like
> that anymore. Often enough their just a money shakedown. Or they
> have really nasty agenda against his people or someone else's. Or maybe
> they come out looking rosy. Either way, they are a campaign group only. The
> world is way past that now. The only way this thing will be solved in the
> future is if there's a way transform the entire world ecomony to a better
> way to be.
>
> do I have to be the asshole to say he's being doing that? (hottub)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-09 Thread ghibbsa 

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:35:01 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> http://www.endecocide.eu/
>
> I support the idea, but I don't feel like I can trust organizations like 
that anymore. Often enough their just a money shakedown. Or they 
have really nasty agenda against his people or someone else's. Or maybe 
they come out looking rosy. Either way, they are a campaign group only. The 
world is way past that now. The only way this thing will be solved in the 
future is if there's a way transform the entire world ecomony to a better 
way to be. 
 
do I have to be the asshole to say he's being doing that? (hottub)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.