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 -
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! :)
___
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
-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
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
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
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
--- 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
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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
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
--- 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
--- 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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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! :)
___
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
--- 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,
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.
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
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
___
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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
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
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.
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
-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
-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
-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
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.
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
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
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
___
--- 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
--- 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),
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___
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 +
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
