Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Think of Mesopotamia. When it was the cradle of civilization it was the fertile crescent. Now it is mostly desert (that is it is Iraq). How did this happen? I guess Bush has the answer to that :-) Over time the people living in the region degraded the environment (cut down the trees - always a bad idea). But it took quite a long time. In the Easter The people in Scotland also cut down most of the trees in order to have more room for sheep. Or so I learned. Yup, deforestation works without rats :-) - klaus _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
At 11:57 AM Monday 9/18/2006, Klaus Stock wrote: The people in Scotland also cut down most of the trees in order to have more room for sheep. They also took to wearing kilts, those naughty Scots . . . Baa! Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/18/2006 12:26:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They also took to wearing kilts, those naughty Scots . . . More room for the sheep. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) Dan wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Denton Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but didn't have website reference available. It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological finds as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, these finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with convictions to see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. Actually I have a number of problems with the article. First, he blames the deforestation on the rats, but offers only evidence that the giant palms were endangered by the rodents. There were several other species of large trees, what became of them? Remember, when first contacted, the islanders were in small, leaky canoes. Second, the actual population of the island at its height is still in question. Diamond had a good deal more substantiation for his estimate than I saw in this article. Third the conclusion that the population collapse occurred after contact with European explorers is not well substantiated. Has he established that the cannibalism that occurred was after contact? Finally, I think that the author's objectivity is questionable. He admits that one of the reasons he took on the project was that a student of his from the island peaked his interest. It is more than likely that a native of the island would be anxious to disprove the idea that his ancestors were so irresponsible. I'm not sure that you see the same basic arguments that I do. I see his two main points as: 1) The conventional dating of human artifacts in lakes is conventionally early because it was taken from lakes. We have established that old sediment in lakes does get mixed up with newer human artifacts in other lakes, thus it is possible that this is seen on Easter Island. Further, since we found a wonderful spot to excavate on the one good beach on the island, and have established an earliest date of 800 AD there, this is the most probable time of landing. Therefore, the deforestation started at the beginning of the period. 2) Investigation of deforestation in other Polynesian islands has given us a model for a likely scenario. Both humans and rats have been tied to deforestation. However, we do not have a case of massive deforestation with humans alone, while we do have a case of minimal human artifacts and evidence of a substantial rat population tied to deforestation. Thus, there is at least some evidence that rats have a stronger impact than humans. That seems reasonable to me on an offhand basis, but it will take a while for this work to take its place in the forming consensus. My point is not really that all of Diamonds assertions have been proven wrong by new research. My point is that we know fairly little about cultures such as these. Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such matters. Reports of cannibalism are not sufficient to show a very large population (15k or so) that dwindled due to deforestation. I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/17/2006 3:29:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. I did not take Diamond to be saying that religious fanaticism was the sole cause of the collapse. Although I have not read the book in awhile I think he meant to show that the isolated population could not sustain itself for a variety of reasons including lack of accessible fish etc. A civilization may last for centuries before its actions sufficiently degrade the environment. Think of Mesopotamia. When it was the cradle of civilization it was the fertile crescent. Now it is mostly desert (that is it is Iraq). How did this happen? Over time the people living in the region degraded the environment (cut down the trees - always a bad idea). But it took quite a long time. In the Easter Islands it is possible that the civilization that was already in decline when the practice of making the statues began in earnest in response to that decline. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Dan wrote: Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such matters. We're discussing Diamond's book Collapse, as is indicated in the subject header, and while I have no objection whatsoever to your participation in the discussion, I'm not sure that you're qualified to draw conclusions about the material if you haven't read it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG said: Additionally, if my memory serves me correctly, Egypt went on to become one of the most important and productive provinces in the Roman Empire. Thus, it hardly seems to have been depleted. In fact, Egypt was so productive that there were people who argued against its annexation as it was so much richer than the existing provinces that whoever controlled it would necessarily dominate the Roman state. This in fact turned out to be true. Octavian - later the emperor Augustus - took control of Egypt not as a new Roman province but as his own personal property, and this was an important part of his stabilisation of the turmoil of the collapsing Republic. Throughout the early Principate it remained an anomalous province controlled more or less directly by the emperor. Its importance was shown again a century later during the civil wars after the death of Nero, the key event of which was Vespasian gaining control of the Egyptian corn supply, which fed the city of Rome. The economic decline of Egypt only started almost a century after that, with Marcus Aurelius' suppression of an Egyptian revolt and the detrimental effects on the Egyptian economy of several years of warfare. I'm not sure why the solution of dividing Egypt into a number of smaller provinces took so long to occur to the Romans. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you may be onto something here. When the choices of others are involved? That's a good answer. Of course, under this definition, the Easter Islanders would not be regarded as fanatical, right? Additionally, would you consider such practices as wearing a hair shirt or adopting the lifestyle of an ascetical hermit to be fanatical? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
At 04:53 PM Thursday 9/14/2006, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Hmm. That didn't work. Lemme try something else: Guns, Germs, and Steel: A National Geographic Presentation The Haves and Have-nots 10:00 PM, 1 hr Thu 09/14/2006 WBIQ 10 (= the local PBS affiliate. Check your local listings.) Documentary/Other TVPG, English, 2005 The conclusion explores how the European colonization of Africa in the 19th century was built on the ruins of African civilization, as narrator Peter Coyote puts it. Europeans used their superiority in arms and transport to conquer almost at will and force natives to abandon their traditional, agrarian ways of life. As a result, they lost the immunity to tropical diseases they had built up over millennia, and endemic poverty is its legacy. Jared Diamond hosts. (Thought some might be interested in light of the current discussion. FWIW.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On 14/09/2006, at 8:58 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you may be onto something here. When the choices of others are involved? That's a good answer. Of course, under this definition, the Easter Islanders would not be regarded as fanatical, right? Additionally, would you consider such practices as wearing a hair shirt or adopting the lifestyle of an ascetical hermit to be fanatical? No. Excessive, maybe. To a non-believer, lunacy. But still devout rather than fanatical, I think. Mind you, it's the sort of playing with degrees that plagues the human/not-yet-human debate, so frankly it's poisoned from the start. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of storms. I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181 and a relevant quote: Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1). Thanks for providing a source. I've looked some more in to this though, and I don't find anything approaching a scientific consensus. From last week's issue of _The Economist_: Bill Gray, a professor of meteorology at Colorado State University, who runs a hurricane-forecasting centre and is the man America always turns to when a big hurricane threatens, doubts the methods of the climatologists. 'I'm a great believer in computer models,' he told the 27th Conference on Tropical Meteorology earlier this year. 'I am-out to ten or 12 days. But when you get to the climate scale, you get into a can of worms... Robert Muir-Wood , head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a firm that create catastrophe models for use in the insurance industry, says that 'if you ask climatologists how much of the extra activity is the result of climate change, the range of opinion is between 10% and 60%. [A paper] by Peter Webster, Judith Curry, and colleagues, said the data supported the idea that there was a long-term increase in the number of category four and five (intense) hurricanes... Finally, the article presents a graph showing that the annual frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes has been higher since in every year since the early 1990's than in any since at least 1930 JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the downfall of Egypt (and WHICH downfalln too?) would be due to resource depletion neccessarily, since the downfall was due to conquest by external forces (with vastly superior organization, resources, etc) at a time when monumental construction was out... Additionally, if my memory serves me correctly, Egypt went on to become one of the most important and productive provinces in the Roman Empire. Thus, it hardly seems to have been depleted. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Denton Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but didn't have website reference available. It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological finds as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, these finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with convictions to see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation I really would like to see them growing trees from the top down . . . snort! :) From the central government at the time (Tokagawa IIRC), as opposed to the New Guinians bottom-up -- I did *not* make these terms up! -- and localized approach. Debbi Fun With Deliberate Misconstruing Maru ;) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. Diamond mentioned that the (native) giant palm tree was likely destroyed by rats, as seeds had been found with rat tooth marks destroying critical parts - snip http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=trueprint=yes or http://tinyurl.com/ldwbm TIA - I will read this next time I have a chunk of library computer; now it's off for the next lesson. Debbi whose Cezanne is cantering (while ridden) on command, and - more importantly! - slowing promptly on my request big DEFANGED_ole DEFANGED_smile __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Dan wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Denton Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but didn't have website reference available. It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological finds as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, these finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with convictions to see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. Actually I have a number of problems with the article. First, he blames the deforestation on the rats, but offers only evidence that the giant palms were endangered by the rodents. There were several other species of large trees, what became of them? Remember, when first contacted, the islanders were in small, leaky canoes. Second, the actual population of the island at its height is still in question. Diamond had a good deal more substantiation for his estimate than I saw in this article. Third the conclusion that the population collapse occurred after contact with European explorers is not well substantiated. Has he established that the cannibalism that occurred was after contact? Finally, I think that the author's objectivity is questionable. He admits that one of the reasons he took on the project was that a student of his from the island peaked his interest. It is more than likely that a native of the island would be anxious to disprove the idea that his ancestors were so irresponsible. I would be very interested in a response from Diamond on this study. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. It also appears that the islanders began building moai and ahu soon after reaching the island. The human population probably reached a maximum of about 3,000, perhaps a bit higher, around 1350 A.D. and remained fairly stable until the arrival of Europeans. The environmental limitations of Rapa Nui would have kept the population from growing much larger. By the time Roggeveen arrived in 1722, most of the island's trees were gone, but deforestation did not trigger societal collapse, as Diamond and others have argued. There is no reliable evidence that the island's population ever grew as large as 15,000 or more, and the actual downfall of the Rapanui resulted not from internal strife but from contact with Europeans. When Roggeveen landed on Rapa Nui's shores in 1722, a few days after Easter (hence the island's name), he took more than 100 of his men with him, and all were armed with muskets, pistols and cutlasses. Before he had advanced very far, Roggeveen heard shots from the rear of the party. He turned to find 10 or 12 islanders dead and a number of others wounded. His sailors claimed that some of the Rapanui had made threatening gestures. Whatever the provocation, the result did not bode well for the island's inhabitants. Newly introduced diseases, conflict with European invaders and enslavement followed over the next century and a half, and these were the chief causes of the collapse. In the early 1860s, more than a thousand Rapanui were taken from the island as slaves, and by the late 1870s the number of native islanders numbered only around 100. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=trueprint=yes or http://tinyurl.com/ldwbm Gary Denton OddsEnds - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News -http://elemming2.blogspot.com http://www.apollocon.org June 22-24, 2007 I ncompetence M oney Laundering P ropaganda E lectronic surveillance A bu Ghraib C ronyism H ad enough? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I don't think the downfall of Egypt (and WHICH downfalln too?) would be due to resource depletion neccessarily, since the downfall was due to conquest by external forces (with vastly superior organization, resources, etc) at a time when monumental construction was out... IIRC, thinking back to my college classes, the downfall of both the Old and Middle kingdoms came during times of political unrest... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:10:41 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ...You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why? So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future? O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. No. In later chapters he cites a couple of other Polynesian islands that avoided ecological collapse by (1) strict population regulation and (2) cultivation of useful trees. (Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation, but you were specifically talking about Polynesians, IIRC.) These are Tikopia and the New Guinea highlands, Chapter 9. Tikopia is reported to be 1.8 sq. miles in surface, and to have been occupied [by humans] continuously for almost 3000 years. pg. 286, hardback copy. The methods used for population control varied from contraception through abortion, infanticide, and suicide-by-sea-voyaging -- not what I'd call ideal, although it seemed to work for them. :P Their use of a tiered forest for food and wood, however, was/is quite clever. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? Yes - see the Tikopia solution. Although that island also has the favorable factors he listed for productivity (soil renewal by volcanism/dust, decent rainfall, etc.); Easter was poor in these IIRC. And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? No. Anytime a culture squanders its resources, it runs the risk of destroying itself; it may be made worse by the natural environment (like Greenland) or climatic change (frex the little ice age). An aside: has anyone proposed that part of what led to the downfall of Egypt was its resource depletion by building monuments to/for the dead? Although they certainly survived many centuries - and of course had a very large area to exploit, with neighbors to plunder and so forth. Debbi who got to recheck the book out, 'cause it wasn't on hold! :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Damon said: IRC, thinking back to my college classes, the downfall of both the Old and Middle kingdoms came during times of political unrest... It's quite hard at this distance to determine the causes of the end of the Old and Middle kingdoms when we can only barely discern even the symptoms. What is clear is that the end of both was a gradual process, with a weakened central authority coexisting with strengthening regional administrations for many decades, rather than a dramatic downfall. (There was a tendency towards regionalism throughout Egyptian history, especially when weakened pharaohs allowed administrative or religious posts in the nomes to become hereditary. A strong king was largely one who could impose his will in appointing people to these posts.) In the case of the First Intermediate Period, it's been suggested that a period of reduced inundations of the Nile in turn reduced the agricultural surplus on which the Old Kingdom regime depended, and local people looked to local powers to provide for them during a time of famine. The Second Intermediate Period saw the Nile delta dominated by the Hyksos kings, who invaded Egypt from Palestine. The Middle Kingdom had seen a gradual infiltration of Egypt by asiatics (including people from the Eastern Desert) and perhaps the support of these people for the Hyksos invaders proved the deciding factor. (As I've already said, the increased power of the priesthood of Amun was a factor in the end of the New Kingdom, as was the erosion of the Egyptian empire in Palestine and Syria under pressure from the Hittites.) Rich GCU Not An Expert ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ...You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why? So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future? O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. No. In later chapters he cites a couple of other Polynesian islands that avoided ecological collapse by (1) strict population regulation and (2) cultivation of useful trees. (Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation, but you were specifically talking about Polynesians, IIRC.) These are Tikopia and the New Guinea highlands, Chapter 9. Tikopia is reported to be 1.8 sq. miles in surface, and to have been occupied [by humans] continuously for almost 3000 years. pg. 286, hardback copy. The methods used for population control varied from contraception through abortion, infanticide, and suicide-by-sea-voyaging -- not what I'd call ideal, although it seemed to work for them. :P Their use of a tiered forest for food and wood, however, was/is quite clever. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? Yes - see the Tikopia solution. Although that island also has the favorable factors he listed for productivity (soil renewal by volcanism/dust, decent rainfall, etc.); Easter was poor in these IIRC. And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? No. Anytime a culture squanders its resources, it runs the risk of destroying itself; it may be made worse by the natural environment (like Greenland) or climatic change (frex the little ice age). An aside: has anyone proposed that part of what led to the downfall of Egypt was its resource depletion by building monuments to/for the dead? Although they certainly survived many centuries - and of course had a very large area to exploit, with neighbors to plunder and so forth. Debbi who got to recheck the book out, 'cause it wasn't on hold! :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
At 04:10 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation I really would like to see them growing trees from the top down . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On 9/11/06, Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. No. Anytime a culture squanders its resources, it runs the risk of destroying itself; it may be made worse by the natural environment (like Greenland) or climatic change (frex the little ice age). An aside: has anyone proposed that part of what led to the downfall of Egypt was its resource depletion by building monuments to/for the dead? Although they certainly survived many centuries - and of course had a very large area to exploit, with neighbors to plunder and so forth. Debbi who got to recheck the book out, 'cause it wasn't on hold! :) I'm not sure the pyramids and other funerary things can really explain much of the ancient Egyptians. I mean, the big pyramids were Old Kingdom predominantly, and the interregnums, Middle and New Kindgoms were more inclined to rock tombs, and it was during those periods that Egypt reached its zenith and approached its nadir, no? Also, would the pyramids have had all that much of an economic effect? The farmers were not all that busy in the periods they were conscripted, and I don't think there would be much of an opportunity cost - if the farmers weren't working on various infrastructural improvement projects and vanity projects like pyramids and temples, what enduring gains could they have made? Not much; it's nowhere comparable to today where any nation that forced a sizable proportion of its populace to do manual labor on vanity projects would be eaten alive by the opportunity costs. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I can only suppose that their religiosity was a factor contributing to their use of such a large fraction of their resources for the construction of moai. snip Good post, Rich, thanks for the info. I'd like to point out, though, that I cited not just religion but religious fanatasizm in my original post. I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about this post for some time, the recent thread on religion makes this post somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to get involved in an atheism vs. religion discussion I'm curious as to why you make a decision between their religiosity and their religious fanatacism. Isn't the use of the word fanatacism simply a way of trying to distinguish their religion from our religion. For example, is there really any difference between the building of the moai and the building of Christian Cathedrals - undertakings which often took generations?Was the building of Christian Cathedrals an example of Christian fanatcism? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On 08/09/2006, at 2:20 PM, jdiebremse wrote: I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about this post for some time, the recent thread on religion makes this post somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to get involved in an atheism vs. religion discussion ;) Too late... I'm curious as to why you make a decision between their religiosity and their religious fanatacism. Isn't the use of the word fanatacism simply a way of trying to distinguish their religion from our religion. For example, is there really any difference between the building of the moai and the building of Christian Cathedrals - undertakings which often took generations?Was the building of Christian Cathedrals an example of Christian fanatcism? Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you may be onto something here. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Charlie Bell wrote: Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you may be onto something here. When the choices of others are involved? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On 08/09/2006, at 2:53 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you may be onto something here. When the choices of others are involved? That's a good answer. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina The effect warming has is on the intensity of the storms, not their frequency. While it can be argued that the recent pattern of intense storms is not a result of warming; that it is part of a natural cycle, the facts are that 1) warming increases ocean temperatures and 2) hurricanes are fueled by warm water. It really isn't much of a stretch to assume that warming _will_ cause higher intensity storms. I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of storms. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Clearly, I've had other distractions of my own, but I will definitely volunteer for Chapter 4, once Chapter 3 is off the books. 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. I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the building of moai could be a cultural phenomenon - sort of like how 19th and early-20th Century Americans built numerous obelisks that serve no religious purpose. Diamond at least obliquely suggests that the building of the moai might have been motivated as much by boredom as anything else. Diamond mentions that Easter Island's relative isolation precluded devoting surplus labor to warfare, exploration, and trading. You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why?So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future?O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. And the recent discovery of the Apophis asteroid, has suddenly made this possibility much more relevant than ever before. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:25:36 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of storms. I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181 and a relevant quote: Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1). -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG wrote: I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the building of moai could be a cultural phenomenon - sort of like how 19th and early-20th Century Americans built numerous obelisks that serve no religious purpose. http://islandheritage.org/eihistory.html They built houses and shrines, and carved enormous statues (called moai), similar to statues Polynesians made on Ra'ivavae and the Marquesas Islands. The function of the statues was to stand on an ahu (shrine) as representatives of sacred chiefs and gods. Ahu are an outgrowth of marae found in the Society Islands and elsewhere in Polynesia. These shrines followed a similar pattern: in the Society Islands, upright stone slabs stood for chiefs. When a chief died, his stone remained. It is a short step from this concept to the use of a statue to represent a sacred chief. Diamond at least obliquely suggests that the building of the moai might have been motivated as much by boredom as anything else. Diamond mentions that Easter Island's relative isolation precluded devoting surplus labor to warfare, exploration, and trading. You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why?So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future?O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? Indeed, it may have been that they started erecting more and larger statues as a result of their realizing that they had stranded themselves on that remote island. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Global warming will alter weather conditions around the world. It would probably l upset food production and cause other sorts of economic havoc. The political consequences of this cannot be determined but it is likely that they will be bad for those currently at the top (us). An asteroid hit will be far more devastating but there is no indication that one is imminent. Fix the thing you know is happening before you fix the thing you don't know about ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
At 12:59 PM Monday 9/4/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Global warming will alter weather conditions around the world. It would probably l upset food production and cause other sorts of economic havoc. The political consequences of this cannot be determined but it is likely that they will be bad for those currently at the top (us). An asteroid hit will be far more devastating but there is no indication that one is imminent. We should know in about 23 years. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 12:59 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Global warming will alter weather conditions around the world. It would probably l upset food production and cause other sorts of economic havoc. The political consequences of this cannot be determined but it is likely that they will be bad for those currently at the top (us). OK, but this point was brought up in response to the weighing of the great potential for disaster of global warming vs. known problems with malaria, bad water, AIDs, etc. In other words, if one is to argue that potential for disaster is the yardstick...then asteroid hits should be one's primary worry, while if one argues for known consequences...then the present world problems should be considered before global warming. An asteroid hit will be far more devastating but there is no indication that one is imminent. Fix the thing you know is happening before you fix the thing you don't know about But, wouldn't that argue for first hitting problems that are now known to cause far greater human suffering than global warming is projected to cause in the next decade? Particularly, since it would be far cheaper to address these with the tools we now have and expect to have in the next 20 years than global warming would be. Finally, fighting global warming with the tools we now have available would be far more expensive than an extremely vigorous campaign to eradicate malaria, provide clean drinking water, drastically cut AIDs worldwide, and provide an effective defense against rouge asteroids. The former would probably cost a trillion or so, and the latter should be doable for a couple of hundred of billion. Stopping global warming in, say, 25 years would cost tens of billions. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:01 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) 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. Can you quantify this? For example, in order to stop global warming by 2050, the costs would be overwhelming. The only quantitative estimates that I've seen are in the tens of trillions of dollars. 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. Maybe with gamma ray bursts, but an asteroid warning/prevention system should be far less expensive than stopping global warming. None of which have anywhere near the potential for disaster that warming does. Well, a brand new estimate for this century has just come up. It is given at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060902/sc_nm/environment_climate_australia_dc_1 quote SYDNEY (Reuters) - The world's top climate scientists are slightly less pessimistic in their latest forecasts for global warming over the next 100 years, the Australian newspaper reported on Saturday. A draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change obtained by the newspaper says the temperature increase could be contained to two degrees Celsius by 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions were held at current levels. A three-degree Celsius rise in the average global daily temperature is projected if no action is taken to cut emissions. The panel's Draft Fourth Assessment report narrows the band of predicted temperature rises by 2100 to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius, from 1.4-5.8 degrees in the previous assessment in 2001. Sea levels are now forecast to rise by between 14 cm (5.5 in) and 43 cm (17 in). The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program in 1988 to investigate the impact of climate change and recommend options for its mitigation. Its fourth assessment report is due to be completed in 2007. end quote This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:10 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina The effect warming has is on the intensity of the storms, not their frequency. While it can be argued that the recent pattern of intense storms is not a result of warming; that it is part of a natural cycle, There is an even better explanation. The advent of world wide satellite coverage of tropical storms, and hurricanes/typhoons has increased our ability to categorize these storms as severe. We do not have a good worldwide baseline from 30 years ago with which to compare. Further, there is a good deal of dispute concerning satellite classifications of these storms. A good site, run by a Phd meteorologist who was the meteorologist on board the hurricane hunter that almost went down in hurricane Hugo, is at: Here's a relevant quote from his August 11th blog entries: quote n China, the death toll has risen to over 100 in the wake of Supertyphoon Saomai, which slammed into the coast south of Shanghai Thursday as a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds. The death toll will no doubt rise higher today as the remains of Saomai spread heavy rains through the same region of China hit by Tropical Storm Bilis, which killed more than 600 people last month. The media is calling Saomai the worst typhoon to hit China in 50 years, but there is some dispute about just how strong the storm was at landfall. Here is comparison of intensities from three different agencies at Saomai's landfall at 12 GMT August 10: U.S. Joint Typhoon Warning Center: 1-min sustained winds of 135 mph, Cat 4. Japan Meteorological Agency: 1-min sustained winds of 100 mph, Cat 2. Hong Kong Observatory: 1-min sustained winds of 115 mph, Cat 3. So, these three agencies all using the same satellite data couldn't agree on the strength of this typhoon within two Saffir-Simpson categories! This underscores the difficulty of trying to determine if global warming is causing an increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes--even today with much better tools and training, experts still can't agree on storm intensities with the accuracy needed for such a study. This was discussed in more detail in a paper published this year by Kamahori, Yamazaki, Mannoji, and Takahashi of the the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) in the on-line journal Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere - a new journal produced by the Meteorological Society of Japan. The study compares typhoon intensities in the Northwest Pacific since 1977 as compiled by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) and the JMA. The JTWC data was used in the famous Webster et. al study from 2005 that found a worldwide 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones since 1970. A key element of their conclusions was the data from the Northwest Pacific, which make up about 50% of global Category 4 and 5 storms. The JMA group found that using JTWC's dataset, the number of days when a Category 4 or 5 typhoon was present increased from about 10 per year in 1977-90, to 17 per year during 1991-2004--a 70% increase. However, the JMA data for the same time period showed a 40% decrease in Category 4 and 5 typhoon days. The authors concluded, We do not have sufficient evidence to judge which dataset is reasonable. I would have to agree--until we get a coordinated major re-analysis effort of all the tropical cyclone data for the globe, it is dangerous to make conclusions about whether global warming is causing an increase in tropical cyclone intensities. I think it is likely there has been some increase, but it is nowhere nearly as large as the 80% increase reported by Webster et. al. Jeff Masters end quote Elsewhere he quotes a NOAA model/analysis that indicates that global warming up to this point should cause about a 1 mph increase in hurricane force...well within both the uncertainty in measurements and the natural variation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. There certainly is the risk of unknown consequences of our actions but doing nothing will have the predictable consequence of allowing global temperatures to continue to rise As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. 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? One should allocate resources based on relative risk and consequence of that risk. Global warming is happening; its consequences are not fully understood but scientists are pretty much totally in agreement that it is occurring as we speak. Another asteroid strike is probably inevitable as well but the best science available does not provide data on when this will occur. We get whacked about every 28 million years and we are about 14 million years since the last hit so we are not exactly overdue. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG said: 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. I can only suppose that their religiosity was a factor contributing to their use of such a large fraction of their resources for the construction of moai. But in any case, I agree that being highly religious is not necessarily an indication of societal fragility. The strongest counterexample is ancient Egypt, which was one of the most pervasively religious societies in history, and also one of the most enduring. Indeed, as I said earlier in this discussion, a more or less politically independent and unified Egyptian civilisation lasted for around three thousand years, and the culture of ancient Egypt continued for a further thousand years under various foreign dominations. (Although it would be hard to argue that Egyptian religion was responsible for the end of Egyptian civilisation, the increasing power of the priesthood of Amun was certainly a factor in the collapse of centralised political power at the end of the New Kingdom. This shift in power from king to priests was apparent to pharaohs as early as Amenhotep III in the mid 18th dynasty and was very probably behind the monotheistic religious innovations of his son Akhenaten during the famous Amarna period. Pharaohs would continue to grapple with the problem of taming the priesthood of Amun throughout the Third Intermediate Period and into the Late Period.) Egyptian culture was finally destroyed by Christian fanaticism under the later Roman Empire, but I don't suppose we're considering extrinsic causes here so I won't say more about that. It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. Here, the ancient Egyptians had a substantial advantage over the Easter islanders as the Nile valley was a much more stable environment under perturbations caused by human activity. Even so, like the Romans, the Egyptians were rather good at adapting their social, political and economic structures to internal and external changes while still presenting a facade of unbending conservatism. Consider, for example, the contrast between the policies adopted by the Saite kings of the 26th dynasty - which would have been entirely alien and distasteful to the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, let alone the Middle or Old Kingdoms - and their entirely conventional portrayal in statuary and inscriptions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure really have the evidence to establish the flexibility or otherwise of Easter polynesians when confronted with potentially disastrous changes to their social and environmental situation, but we will be able to do so for other cases that we'll discuss later. Rich, who wonders when he started defending religion... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Richard Baker wrote: It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. That's precisely the point Diamond makes in later chapters regarding the Greenland Norse. I had plenty of time to read ahead while I was away. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. ...somewhat like the current US administration? Charlie GCU Or The ID Movement ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did they know what they were doing to their island? Did they try to do anything about it? I can just imagine an Island conference to discuss the preservation of the trees. Would the attendees have come to the conclusion that it was not economically feasible to curtail the logging? Was there a faction of ecologically oriented islanders that fought for preservation? 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. What led them to build the moai? Was their religious fanaticism integral to their collapse? 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. Diamond sees the Island as a metaphor for our modern planet and indeed, I find the metaphor compelling. We know that we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and that Antarctic ice cores show that they are at a much higher level now than at any time in the last 420,000 years*, but we hesitate to act because of the short term economic impact that may result as a result of our attempts to slow the warming. My worry has always been not that the experts on warming are alarmist, but that they are too conservative in their estimates. If we acted quickly and an economic disaster followed, the world would be impacted for a generation or less. If, however, we triggered an ecological disaster, the repercussions could potentially be far worse. I don't think this is a useful course of thought. You always have to make decisions based upon the best information you have available. 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. As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. 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? 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. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red- footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the real when their priorities are more along the line of survival is something else entirely, I'll warrant. That may be true but how many low income people in New Orleans do you think need convincing that there _might_ be a problem? Well, the problems in New Orleans were not unpredictable. Indeed, as Alberto noted here, I told him about the dangers to New Orleans from a hurricane just a month and a half before Katrina. In fact, New Orleans was and is the only major American City without an office of the American Red Cross - the Red Cross has judged it just too unsafe. And is it any surprise? Most people have forgotten that Katrina *missed* New Orleans, and that it weakened just before landfall - and that in fact, the story in the many hours immediately following Katrina was that New Orleans had been spared. So, just imagine what a direct hit would have been like. What's amazing, is that despite all the warnings, the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisianna simply did not have adequate plans for evacuation, let alone for emergency response.Its as if the officials of New Orleans and Louisianna believe that because all the middle class people with cars could get out of the City that somehow all the poor people without cars who could not or did not leave simply didn't matter. If there is a lesson here, it is that humans seem bad at dealing with asymetric risks. We ar every bad at coping appropriately with risks that have high cost and long time horizons. We are particular bad at dealing with risks that have long-time horizons when facing risks with short time horizons. As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
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
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina The effect warming has is on the intensity of the storms, not their frequency. While it can be argued that the recent pattern of intense storms is not a result of warming; that it is part of a natural cycle, the facts are that 1) warming increases ocean temperatures and 2) hurricanes are fueled by warm water. It really isn't much of a stretch to assume that warming _will_ cause higher intensity storms. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red- footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the real when their priorities are more along the line of survival is something else entirely, I'll warrant. Responsible ecotourism and 'fair trade' companies could really help in this area, by giving economic incentives for preserving, or at least minimally impacting, various ecosystems, such as reefs, jungles and river basins. As Bob said: BobZ wrote: In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many times in a row. Educating the rich about their peril, should chaos befall, is rather what Al is attempting to do with his movie, I think. Of course 'doing it because it's right' is good and noble, but some people need to see why sustaining a healthy environment and helping the have-nots out of severe poverty are important *to their way of life.* Debbi Educate, Inform, Empower Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Alberto wrote: I can compare Bangladesh with the poorest areas in my hometown, Rio de Janeiro, who is located between sea and mountain[*]. _If_ rising sea waters is not a myth [**], then the coastal areas would be the first to sink. But no poor guys worry about ecology, and keep doing disastrous things to the environment, like dumping trash in the sea or razing the tree coverage of the hills. An sea level increase of 1 meter will flood 15% of Bangladesh. Look at the map, the whole place is a river delta. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Satellite_image_of_Bangladesh_in_October_2001.jpg ] [**] if you put ice in a cup, and let it melt, the water level doesn't rise. Sea levels might rise if we consider ice in Antarctica and inland, but there might be other factors here. Two things. The ice in western Antarctica and Greenland is melting at unprecedented rates. This is water flowing from land to the ocean and resulting in an increase in sea level. Second, while the fact that Arctic ice melt will not effect sea level directly, the change in emissivity between reflective ice and absorbent open ocean will speed the warming of the oceans and have who knows what effect on global weather patterns. So yea, there are other factors here. 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On Bob wrote: I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many times in a row. I don't disagree with any of that. Certianly those that have more have more to loose. That doesn't mean (and I'm not implying that anyone said this, just making an observation) that the less well to do are all brain dead morons that don't give a sh*t about what might befall civilization as a result of industrialization. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
At 12:38 AM Wednesday 8/16/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: I am generally a believer in global warming, but you're citing a city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided, as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned about eating than conservation? I would argue that in NO's case, many of Diamond's other factors for disaster had as much, if not more, of an impact as any overall climate change in the case of the Katrina disaster. First of all, no one is arguing that anyone is _more_ concerned about ecology than eating. The argument is; are they worried about eating to the exclusion of any kind of ecological concerns. Secondly, because other factors played a part in the disaster does not mean that NO residents are not cognizant of the one factor that not only could continue to haunt them in the form of storms but that in fact could doom their city altogether due to rising sea levels. Third, you may recall that hurricane Rita, a second cat 5 storm was on a path very similar to Katrina and actually did hit Western Louisiana. So while one 100 year storm in a season might not fuel the imagination too much, the prospect of a second hitting shortly after the first had to have given the residents there food for thought. I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that theyâll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? If they had money, they could move to higher ground. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Doug Pensinger wrote: I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that [UTF-8?]theyâll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? I can compare Bangladesh with the poorest areas in my hometown, Rio de Janeiro, who is located between sea and mountain[*]. _If_ rising sea waters is not a myth [**], then the coastal areas would be the first to sink. But no poor guys worry about ecology, and keep doing disastrous things to the environment, like dumping trash in the sea or razing the tree coverage of the hills. Alberto Monteiro [*] take mountain with a grain of salt. About 500 meters is the highest it gets. [**] if you put ice in a cup, and let it melt, the water level doesn't rise. Sea levels might rise if we consider ice in Antarctica and inland, but there might be other factors here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Alberto Monteiro wrote: [*] take mountain with a grain of salt. About 500 meters is the highest it gets. If I'm taking a 500-meter mountain, I'm going to want more than just one grain of salt with it. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Julia Thompson wrote: [*] take mountain with a grain of salt. About 500 meters is the highest it gets. If I'm taking a 500-meter mountain, I'm going to want more than just one grain of salt with it. :) Ok, but what I am trying to say is that, despite being the size of Continental USA + 1/2 Alaska, Brazil does not have any big mountains. Those that settled our territory, apparently, took almost all of South America that were outside of the Andes :-) The highest peak is at 3000 meters; compare this to other similiar-sized countries: Russia: 5642; China: 8848; Canada: 5959, USA: 6194, India: 7816, Argentina: 6982, Mexico: 5636, Antarctica: 4892. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peaks_by_prominence Yes, if the seas rise, we will be the first to vanish! :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many times in a row. Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Doug Pensinger wrote: So was any part of this post serious? 8^) Probably this part: People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about the environment. Ecology is for rich people, poor people want to get fed, and if they must kill the last whale or the last cockroach to get food, the Hell with Ecological Balance. It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red- footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the real when their priorities are more along the line of survival is something else entirely, I'll warrant. Jim Off like a prom dress tomorrow Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Jim Sharkey wrote: Jim Off like a prom dress tomorrow Maru I always found it something of a relief to remove the prom dress Bridesmaids dresses were somehow worse. (Maybe it was the shoes the brides forced me to wear with them, I got to wear very flat but very pretty sandals with the prom dresses.) The wedding dress I could have danced in all day, but the shoes were not at all kind to my feet. (I am never, ever again wearing enough heel that you could say I was wearing heels.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Julia Thompson wrote: The wedding dress I could have danced in all day, but the shoes were not at all kind to my feet. I was amazed at how Charlene wore hers for over 10 hours without complaining. Her only complaint that whole day was her brothers - who are prone to *serious* flop sweat - wanting to dance with her. :) Though she did have a complaint that night when I walked into the hotel and looked at her puzzled at she stood at the threshold behind me, for some reason not coming in. It was pretty funny. I did make up for my brain lapse later, though. Jim It's nice and cool in this doghouse Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Jim Sharkey wrote: It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red- footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the real when their priorities are more along the line of survival is something else entirely, I'll warrant. That may be true but how many low income people in New Orleans do you think need convincing that there _might_ be a problem? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Doug wrote: That may be true but how many low income people in New Orleans do you think need convincing that there _might_ be a problem? I am generally a believer in global warming, but you're citing a city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided, as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned about eating than conservation? I would argue that in NO's case, many of Diamond's other factors for disaster had as much, if not more, of an impact as any overall climate change in the case of the Katrina disaster. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: The wedding dress I could have danced in all day, but the shoes were not at all kind to my feet. I was amazed at how Charlene wore hers for over 10 hours without complaining. Her only complaint that whole day was her brothers - who are prone to *serious* flop sweat - wanting to dance with her. :) Though she did have a complaint that night when I walked into the hotel and looked at her puzzled at she stood at the threshold behind me, for some reason not coming in. It was pretty funny. I did make up for my brain lapse later, though. Jim It's nice and cool in this doghouse Maru Nice and cool is usually good. :) Dan remembered that detail. Getting through the door was a bit awkward, though. (HINT: do NOT bang the bride's elbow on the doorframe. Watch out for that particular problem, if she's as klutzy as I am, it could really be a problem. Seriously.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Jim Sharkey wrote: I am generally a believer in global warming, but you're citing a city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided, as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned about eating than conservation? I would argue that in NO's case, many of Diamond's other factors for disaster had as much, if not more, of an impact as any overall climate change in the case of the Katrina disaster. First of all, no one is arguing that anyone is _more_ concerned about ecology than eating. The argument is; are they worried about eating to the exclusion of any kind of ecological concerns. Secondly, because other factors played a part in the disaster does not mean that NO residents are not cognizant of the one factor that not only could continue to haunt them in the form of storms but that in fact could doom their city altogether due to rising sea levels. Third, you may recall that hurricane Rita, a second cat 5 storm was on a path very similar to Katrina and actually did hit Western Louisiana. So while one 100 year storm in a season might not fuel the imagination too much, the prospect of a second hitting shortly after the first had to have given the residents there food for thought. I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Doug Pensinger wrote: My worry has always been not that the experts on warming are alarmist, but that they are too conservative in their estimates. If we acted quickly and an economic disaster followed, the world would be impacted for a generation or less. If, however, we triggered an ecological disaster, the repercussions could potentially be far worse. You fail to mention something in this dichotomy: an economical disaster will trigger an ecological disaster, much worse than the ecological disaster that may come if we do nothing; People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about the environment. Ecology is for rich people, poor people want to get fed, and if they must kill the last whale or the last cockroach to get food, the Hell with Ecological Balance. Only a pure World Soclalist Government, in the line of Visionary Prophet Pol Pot, can save the World, by killing 98% of its population in a systemtic way. Go Commies! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Quick note: I'm off for vacation shortly, so I'll be AFK for the next chapter or two. Just wanted to make sure you take my silence for the absence that it will be, not apathy. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Alberto wrote: You fail to mention something in this dichotomy: an economical disaster will trigger an ecological disaster, much worse than the ecological disaster that may come if we do nothing; People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about the environment. Ecology is for rich people, poor people want to get fed, and if they must kill the last whale or the last cockroach to get food, the Hell with Ecological Balance. Only a pure World Soclalist Government, in the line of Visionary Prophet Pol Pot, can save the World, by killing 98% of its population in a systemtic way. Go Commies! So was any part of this post serious? 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I often wonder what California looked prior to 1849. Today, inland from the ocean the landscape is dotted with huge, majestic live oak trees; were there thousands more before the forty-niners came and cut them down for their various gold mining related pursuits? What did the coastal redwood forests look like before the loggers got to them? As a backpacker I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to meet up with a California Grizzly, but I'd love to have seen how much more diverse the wildlife was back then. But despite all the exploitation by the early settlers, my home state remains a fantastically beautiful place and many of its treasures remain. Can the same be said for Easter Island? Diamond tells us that the island was once home to twenty two species of trees including what may have been the world’s largest species of palm tree. No large trees remain. According to the author, Easter may once have been “the richest breeding site (for nesting seabirds) in all of Polynesia and probably in the whole pacific.” The few remaining seabirds now nest on three offshore islets. Did they know what they were doing to their island? Did they try to do anything about it? I can just imagine an Island conference to discuss the preservation of the trees. Would the attendees have come to the conclusion that it was not economically feasible to curtail the logging? Was there a faction of ecologically oriented islanders that fought for preservation? What led them to build the moai? Was their religious fanaticism integral to their collapse? Diamond sees the Island as a metaphor for our modern planet and indeed, I find the metaphor compelling. We know that we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and that Antarctic ice cores show that they are at a much higher level now than at any time in the last 420,000 years*, but we hesitate to act because of the short term economic impact that may result as a result of our attempts to slow the warming. My worry has always been not that the experts on warming are alarmist, but that they are too conservative in their estimates. If we acted quickly and an economic disaster followed, the world would be impacted for a generation or less. If, however, we triggered an ecological disaster, the repercussions could potentially be far worse. I have to think that the islanders, conference or no, probably didn’t realize that they had a serious problem until it was too late to do anything about it. What are we waiting for? *[http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/] -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
