Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Br Cornelius

The Environment and Capitalism

51 posts in this topic

What we should develop is some sort of particle or molecule that we could slowly release into controlled greenhouse environments, or even possibly the environment itself, which would make the plants and trees healthier by a process like photosynthesis. The plants could absorb this helpful molecule into their life-systems, becoming more nutritious and providing and producing more energy. This added energy could feed more people and animals overall, preventing any overpopulation problems, and actually making people healthier. Maybe they're already doing this in modern greenhouses, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, but there is a Dr. Mark Jaccard (I believe that is his name, its been a while since i read his wor), he has some good papers out there and he basically disproves peak oil as myth (that in reality, while we need to be dramatically cutting back our CO2 production, we are not in danger of running out of oil for centuries - global climate change aside). They're worth reading.

Peak oil says we have half the oil left. It just the hard to get oil which costs more to get out. Coupled to steadily rising demand that is a formula for an energy crisis. This is why tat sands with its ridiculously low COP is now economically viable.

Half the oil left - energy crisis - not contradictory.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we should develop is some sort of particle or molecule that we could slowly release into controlled greenhouse environments, or even possibly the environment itself, which would make the plants and trees healthier by a process like photosynthesis. The plants could absorb this helpful molecule into their life-systems, becoming more nutritious and providing and producing more energy. This added energy could feed more people and animals overall, preventing any overpopulation problems, and actually making people healthier. Maybe they're already doing this in modern greenhouses, I'm not sure.

Funny man - you should read the science which says why that isn't how it works out. Increasing CO2 reduces overall plant productivity because it creates other stresses.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Green" movement was picked up a commodity by corporations selling "Green" products to consumers to make money out of environmentalist causes, but the question remains if capitalism and the environment are compatiable. The world needs to solve its problems in food supply, pollution and the ability to maintain healthy economic growth to prevent both poverty and ecological devastation. Private enterprise must promise to take part in environmental ethics the same way national governments and individuals themselves have to cut down on pollution and environmental damage. And global overpopulation is a ticking "time-bomb" when there's not enough food, water and essential amenities to go around in developing countries.

Agribusiness wants to make a profit anyway possible, like Monsanto who is under scrutiny for their own management of agriculture are accused of worsening the world food shortage by GMO seeds cannot regenerate new sprouts as time goes by leaving millions of square acres sterilized soil unable to grow plants again. Why can a major global agribusiness corporation Monsanto to purposefully grow lower-quality GMO food (fruits, grains and vegetables) meant to go bad? To raise food prices or to exercise power over less fortunate economies of the third world? Monsanto is the stuff of conspiracy theories on what's wrecking the planet's environment in addition to abundance in food supplies.

Edited by Tsa-La-Gie Oyate
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is what the supporters of eugenics said too, not so long ago.

The scientific analysis of why population was a problem was correct and all the predictions which follow from it come to pass.

Mixing it with racism and advocating unethical solutions was the mistake they made. That has nothing to do with the evidence !

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak oil says we have half the oil left. It just the hard to get oil which costs more to get out. Coupled to steadily rising demand that is a formula for an energy crisis. This is why tat sands with its ridiculously low COP is now economically viable.

Half the oil left - energy crisis - not contradictory.

Br Cornelius

Well, what this doctor/researcher claims is that that we have a lot more then "50%" of the oil supplies left. That when they "tally" up all the oil we have left, they do not count certain types of deposits and the such when doing these totals. Having studied under him in one of his classes, i am inclined to agree. But the point is kind of mute (as he would say), as he claims while we have a lot more oil then they are letting on, we should not be using it. Lol. Besides, peak phosphorous is something that I would argue is more critical.

Eitherway, we as a species will survive what is to come. It ain't going to be pretty. It ain't going to be nice. But we will prevail... (or at least some of us). :) Cheers!

Edited by Bavarian Raven
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I/we suppost to be on the verge of death because of global warming?

This is a possibility. Methane outbursts from the ocean are a part of our climate history and appear to have been responsible for some major climate shifts and extinction events. The Permian extinction, believed to have resulted from such a release, killed off 95% of the earth's species. At that time, global mean temperature was about 26.7 degrees C. (It was 14.5 degrees C. in 1990.). At about 16.5 degrees we will lose the ability to prevent methane release and the system will become self-sustaining. At that point, human extinction becomes possible.

Or is this more scare mongering and nostradamus like predictions for decades to come?

A methane outburst is believed to be the cause of the post-glacial melting at the end of the Younger Dryas. This may have been triggered by a disturbance in ocean currents caused by the collapse of the Baltic Ice Dam. At that time, temperatures changed from full glacial to warm Holocene in just forty years. Rainfall went from glacial to Holocene in four years and snowfall covered 98% of the change in just two years.

There have been many of these outbursts that have not produced major extinctions. Some have only affected a few species. We don't know why one event kills off 95% of the planet and another is barely noticeable.

A major methane outburst occurred in 2010 at Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean. Ambient methane concentrations 100 times normal were recorded (Fifty times "normal" set off the Permian extinction.). One methane plume was measured at more than a kilometer across.

Our best hope, if we don't act, seems to be that a disaster may not be immediately fatal, that it will kill off enough of us to reduce the damage level and allow the rest to survive. And that's the good news.

What kind of disaster could we get? Bird flu comes to mind. It could wipe out a quarter of humanity. And there are others that might break out - something like ebola, perhaps. Marburg virus was accidently released inside the Washington Beltway a few years ago. We don't need Ma nature to do it to us; we'll do it to ourselves.

Or a major change in storm patterns that makes large areas unsuitable for agriculture. Anything that disrupts our social systems enough could do it.

At any rate, similar things have happened before and on a smaller scale, are happening right now.

The handwriting is on the wall for those who choose to read it.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, but there is a Dr. Mark Jaccard (I believe that is his name, its been a while since i read his wor), he has some good papers out there and he basically disproves peak oil as myth (that in reality, while we need to be dramatically cutting back our CO2 production, we are not in danger of running out of oil for centuries - global climate change aside). They're worth reading.

There will always be enough oil for those who have the money to buy it (Assuming we're still here.). It's oil cheap enough that the rest of us can afford it that's the problem.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing inevitable about the current economic system. Nature is what we live in and nature never lives beyond her means.

For most of human history we did likewise.

It is the nature of this thread to destroy the concept that the current social and economic system is somehow a natural expression of some underlying natural imperative - it is not.

The dominant force in nature is codependence - competition is a subset of codependence and not its master.

We are quite capable of killing ourselves and our host planet if we live beyond the sustainable limits of renewal of the system.

Civilizations have collapsed before and this one can as well. The main defining qualities of a Civilization on the point of collapse are loss of forests and loss of soil fertility - we have both on a scale never before experienced in the history of man.

Man functions best in communities of less than 100 people - megacities are breeding grounds for social dysfunction and insanity. We were never meant to live on the scale at which we attempt to live.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will get green energy when the technology is ready. Right now it is just too expensive and ineffective.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe most of the doom and gloom you're selling. The world itself will regulate population. Populations are increasing because of the amount of available food and space. Plus there's only so much matter to go around. Matter can't be created or destroyed. More people alive now will create the fertilizer and basis of the food for future generations of animals, plants and humanity.

There's no evidence that people were happier in small communities, or happier at any point in the past than they are now. I'd like to see some evidence of that. The past was a disgusting, hard, foul place for almost all of the population. We are living in the happiest, freest and most amazing time in human history and some of us feel so guilty for it. But it's not our fault, and the solution is not to force ourselves backwards.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism, communism, socialism, democrat, republican, none of it matters, all it boils down to is money.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism, communism, socialism, democrat, republican, none of it matters, all it boils down to is money.

Everyone has to have some kind of enemy though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I/we suppost to be on the verge of death because of global warming?

Or is this more scare mongering and nostradamus like predictions for decades to come?

Are you saying that you won't believe it, until you see the whites of her eyes?

Brave words for a man, speaking on behalf of the seven billion souls on board this ship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self regulation of the planet - that means millions/billions dying horribly. I don't consider that a good outcome.

Far better to regulate ourselves - after all we do claim to be the most intelligent organism on the planet.

We can do so much better - if we just tried.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, at some point, ppl who feel like you Cornelius must realise that the neverending preaching of this gloomy apocalyptic world doesn't help. And preaching to go back in time, because that is what it comes across only deflects people.

And also the consistent nagging that "we have to do something, if only we tried" yadayada is very disappreciative of all the efforts that are already being made. Maybe you don't think everything is going fast enough, as i've pointed out in another thread i believe, but changes are being made. Electric car, solar powered cities (tokelau) , stockholm is making a lot of efforts whererin ppl don't have to reverse the clock, but everything runs more efficiently. The many ongoing searches for sustainable alternative fuels, recycling, ugh, i could go on.

Maybe start with appreciating with what has already been done and the developments that are being made, instead of consistently painting a picture of inevitable death. It's not realistic to think that ppl are gonna follow that line of thinking because it is inconceivable to picture such an end. That's why all those doomy preaches always stay the same, because no one really wants to listen to that sillyness. Except maybe some mayan followers and alike.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, at some point, ppl who feel like you Cornelius must realise that the neverending preaching of this gloomy apocalyptic world doesn't help. And preaching to go back in time, because that is what it comes across only deflects people.

And also the consistent nagging that "we have to do something, if only we tried" yadayada is very disappreciative of all the efforts that are already being made. Maybe you don't think everything is going fast enough, as i've pointed out in another thread i believe, but changes are being made. Electric car, solar powered cities (tokelau) , stockholm is making a lot of efforts whererin ppl don't have to reverse the clock, but everything runs more efficiently. The many ongoing searches for sustainable alternative fuels, recycling, ugh, i could go on.

Maybe start with appreciating with what has already been done and the developments that are being made, instead of consistently painting a picture of inevitable death. It's not realistic to think that ppl are gonna follow that line of thinking because it is inconceivable to picture such an end. That's why all those doomy preaches always stay the same, because no one really wants to listen to that sillyness. Except maybe some mayan followers and alike.

All very well - but consumption of basic resources is increasing year on year as are emissions of CO2.

There is vigorous and active lobbying by oil/energy interests to keep things exactly as they are - and they are winning. There is little justification for accepting the premise that we are doing the best we can - because quite simply we are doing terribly and could easily do better given the will to action. Good intentions will not reverse the damage already done and will certainly not bring the species we have driven to extinction back to life.

Try selling the idea of universal public transport (in place of a SUV) to an American and you will quickly realise how little has been achieved.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also the consistent nagging that "we have to do something, if only we tried" yadayada is very disappreciative of all the efforts that are already being made. Maybe you don't think everything is going fast enough, as i've pointed out in another thread i believe, but changes are being made. Electric car, solar powered cities (tokelau) , stockholm is making a lot of efforts whererin ppl don't have to reverse the clock, but everything runs more efficiently. The many ongoing searches for sustainable alternative fuels, recycling, ugh, i could go on.

These are all reasons to be hopeful. If we have the time, we will eventually solve the problems. I'm an optimist to that extent.

But do we have the time? Climate change is accelerating, has accelerated measurably since 2008. In the normal course of events, 2011 would have been the drought year in the central US and 2012 would have been less so. But that's not what happened. 2012 was worse than 2011. In just three years, Oklahoma has fallen almost a year behind in precip (We currently have a deficit of 28 inches; in a "normal" year we get 35. Is this the new normal?). At this point, I can't tell whether we're in a new drought pattern or not. Ask me in another year.

But it's starting to look a whole lot like something important happened about five years ago to destabilize the climate system. What was it? The only thing I can think of is a methane outburst. A major outburst happened in 2010 and continued into 2011. I don't have the numbers on 2012. Did we have one sometime between 2007 and 2009 that wasn't detected?

Arctic News had an online article entitled "Global extinction within one human lifetime as a result of a spreading atmospheric Arctic methane heat wave and surface firestorm." First, I would entertain a major chunk of skepticism regarding that article; it has not been peer reviewed and I have some serious questions about their math. Second, these things usually start out with some really wild numbers and then settle down as more people research the matter - example, some of IPCC's early warming estimates. Third, they don't mean a literal firestorm, as in a forest fire; they mean an extensive violent methane release(s). But: they estimate 2027 as the year when we loose control of the climate and 2048 as the year for extinction in the northern hemisphere. Add another nine or so years for the southern hemisphere.

Even if they're wrong by a factor of three, that doesn't leave a whole lot of time to fix things.

I've often wondered what it would take to get people off dead center. One of the first things we'll see once climate chanege actually starts is major disruptions in the drought patterns of the central US. Are we staring into that now? If the current spate of wild weather continues and gets worse, we could see starvation in the first world. That might be enough to do it - maybe.

Right now, I can't say that is happening. But neither can I say that it isn't happening.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be something in the air;

This boom has not happened by accident. Our lives have been corralled and shaped in order to encourage it. World trade rules force countries to participate in the festival of junk. Governments cut taxes, deregulate business, manipulate interest rates to stimulate spending. But seldom do the engineers of these policies stop and ask “spending on what?”. When every conceivable want and need has been met (among those who have disposable money), growth depends on selling the utterly useless. The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors.

............

So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. Witness last week’s Moral Maze programme, in which most of the panel lined up to decry the idea of consuming less, and to associate it, somehow, with authoritarianism(8). When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics.

http://www.monbiot.c...-gift-of-death/

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism, communism, socialism, democrat, republican, none of it matters, all it boils down to is money.

If a bunch of businessmen get together and decide to take over government, that's fascism. If a bunch of government people get together and decide to take over business, that's socialism. In effect, they're the same thing.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP's point is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this?

Sometimes species go extinct, we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think its not part of the ecosystem that we're meant to go extinct too.

When we die, the world will go on without us, and most likely better off for it. There's a time for everything, maybe the time for mankind is just closing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this?

Sometimes species go extinct, we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think its not part of the ecosystem that we're meant to go extinct too.

When we die, the world will go on without us, and most likely better off for it. There's a time for everything, maybe the time for mankind is just closing.

I hate to think that the most intelligent species in the history o0f the planet will go extinct out of stupidity.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And what about The Environment and Communism?

http://www.chinasuck...ion-300x180.jpg

http://link.springer...8671.pdf#page-1

e.t.c. :cry:

I am old enough to remember Chernobyl. And to have been living Europe when the East was run by plan economies, and having visited places like Bitterfeld (the chemical-industry center of East Germany). Dante`s inferno comes to mind.

The idea that socialized state economies are somehow good for the environment can only emanate from people who are ensconced in some ivory tower and have no clue about the reality out there.

Edited by Zaphod222
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.