Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42

Thread: Human damage to earth worsening fact

  1. #26
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Destiny, I don't have the link to the report itself, though I bet you coulld gt it off YAHOO
    I checked YAHOO, there was no link. In fact, the article did not even give a definitive title to the report other than to call it, "an international report". The article also failed to mention who paid for the report. Also, only one of the "1,360 experts in 95 nations" was identified by name, though the article did not make clear what role he played in the research. The one person identified with the report, Professor A.H. Zakri, a native of Malaysia, holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and Plant Breeding. How that qualifies him to address issues such as global warming, is not clear.

    Funny when I referenced a study authored by an agency of the U.S. Government and questioned the validity and motivation of the authors of the report you responded by asking me, "Do you really think 1 outdated EPA study is more impressve than the work of 1,000 international scientists? You really think it's more comprehensive?" Well, how do we know the "study" is more comprehensive if we can't read it? You also further insisted, "but 1,000 scientists from around the world vs 1 agency concentrating only on the US and responsible to a non-environmental adminsitration...which do you feel is more likely to be slanted? Which presents a GLOBAL rather than NATIONAL picture" Well, with aboslutely no idea what the report is called, who sponsered it, or who these "1,000 international scientists" are, how can we judge whether their report might be slanted or not?

    The excerpt you took on the DOE report is misleading, as it doesn't take into account the economy of scale (and price reductions therefrom ) of volume production of cleaner energy, the savings from conservation, COMPLETELY IGNORES the costs of maintaining military forces worldwide to protect oil reserves, the cost of emergency cleanup crews (that's your tax money folks) health effects of pollution, destruction of land values from pollution and extraction industries, expenses of relocating families when events occur, etc. NOT TO MENTION their numbers are questionable to begin with, since they disagree with what every other signing nation said about Kyoto.
    You asked me for evidence of the billions it would cost. I provided you evidence. Now if you want to fall back on the old, "the government is misleading us" argument go ahead. I'm curious as to what you think the motivation of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) would be to mislead us. Especially since the report I quoted was prepared in 1998 while Al Gore was Vice-President. It seems to me that the EIA would have every motivation to slant their report in favor of the treaty that their boss signed.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  2. #27
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I agree if we can't see the original article, we can't cross-examine it. Easy enough to find UN and other documents that say the same thing anyway. predominance of international opinion (and US opinion too) agree our actions are causing bad consequences...and that there are better ways of doing what we do today

    I never said the DOE report was misleading..I said to take just that excerpt out of context is misleading, and provded reasons why. It's also going to cost BILLIONS to drill in the REFUGE at ANWR, yet the administration (and a shrinking number of oil companies) see it's a good idea. Capitalism takes investment. Sustainable practices repay that investment quickly and forever.

  3. #28
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I agree if we can't see the original article, we can't cross-examine it. Easy enough to find UN and other documents that say the same thing anyway. predominance of international opinion (and US opinion too) agree our actions are causing bad consequences...and that there are better ways of doing what we do today
    You post an article of dubious origin filled with Doomsday Scenarios and state, "This is getting scarier!" Then when I question the validity of the report and offer an alternative view you basically respond with so what, there's plenty of other evidence. Really? Evidence of equally dubious origin? The article is nothing more that the same old fear-mongering that has been standard operating procedure of the environmental movement for the past 30 years.

    "The real dangerous people are the ones who say nothing's wrong, and ignore the growing fire...The question is..are we willing to do what our HEADS and our SCIENTIStS tell us we need to?" I'm guessing I'm one of those real dangerous people? People who question authority, read the fine print (when it's provided)? and refuse to accept what so-called "experts" say at face value?

    I never said the DOE report was misleading..I said to take just that excerpt out of context is misleading, and provded reasons why. It's also going to cost BILLIONS to drill in the REFUGE at ANWR, yet the administration (and a shrinking number of oil companies) see it's a good idea. Capitalism takes investment. Sustainable practices repay that investment quickly and forever.
    Okay, so I'm to believe that the Clinton/Gore Adiministation was decieving itself? I did not take that except out of context. The report plainly states that the Kyoto Treaty would cost our country $400 billion dollars a year. If all that other stuff you mentioned adds up to more than $400 billlion, please provide the numbers. Really, if you won't accept a report prepared under Al Gore's watch, I have to wonder if there are any facts you will accept that don't fit in with your idealogy.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  4. #29
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I have provided links to the UN (among many other groups) that support the basic message: Sustainability works and makes for stronger economies, better communities and equal or better lifestyles.

    I have included links that outline the BILLIONS in subsidies our existing programs are costing (propping up our extraction economy), Nobel lauriates who support implementation of more practical structures, companies and entire stock indecies which indicate how it's working already and deserving of more support.

    I have also said repeatedly that the goal should be BALANCE of economy, ecology and lifestyle

    You show me that Kyoto (a program I never mentioned and which many nations have seen value in) will require investment (ignoring the economic benefits my other sources listed) as if there's anything in the world that doesn't

    Though you can't refute the statements in the article you want to discard it out of hand...simply because it contradicts your thinking. Find the evidence that disproves the statement. The article simply says IF WE CONTINUE AT THIS RATE we will not be guaranteed safe ecosystems in the future. No doomsday, just reality. Develop without controls or balance and risk ecological problems

    As the ancient cree prophecy says
    "When the last tree has been cut
    the last stream poisoned
    The last field destroyed
    then you will find out that money cannot be eaten."

    What makes you think Al Gore is my buddy?

  5. #30
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    ...You show me that Kyoto (a program I never mentioned and which many nations have seen value in) will require investment (ignoring the economic benefits my other sources listed) as if there's anything in the world that doesn't

    Though you can't refute the statements in the article you want to discard it out of hand...simply because it contradicts your thinking. Find the evidence that disproves the statement. The article simply says IF WE CONTINUE AT THIS RATE we will not be guaranteed safe ecosystems in the future. No doomsday, just reality. Develop without controls or balance and risk ecological problems...

    What makes you think Al Gore is my buddy?
    I prefaced my quote with, "I assume you think the U.S. should ratify the Kyoto Treaty". Are you in favor of the treaty or not?

    I can't refute the statements in the article because I can't even read the report or any of the documentation that supposedly backs it up. How convenient.

    I never said Al Gore was your buddy. I assumed that you would think the Clinton/Gore Administration had more credibility on environmental issues than the current one. Was I wrong?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  6. #31
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I've never read Kyoto. Many people I respect like it, so I'm inclined in that direction...however, I bet it's far from perfect. is it the right step? Can't say. Should the US have stayed involved and supported the inernational search for BALANCED, PRACTICAL solutions to our pressing issues, and demonstrated REAL leadership in the world? ABSOLUTELY! Might that mean getting involved with imperfect treaties (we can always break them, thats an American tradition)...but not always.

    My local trash collector has more credibility on environmental issues than most of the current administration. I'm in favor of BALANCE and Al is in favor of environmental protection...that's part of balance (especially since he's from the big-business end of his party)...

  7. #32
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    A couple source links for the article...have fun!

    http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx - there ya go, the horse's mouth. This millenium group has some STRONG partners....

    * Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
    * Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
    * Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
    * Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
    * Global Environment Facility (GEF)
    * International Council for Science (ICSU)
    * Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
    * UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
    * UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
    * United Nations Foundation
    * United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
    * United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
    * United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
    * World Bank
    * World Conservation Union (IUCN)
    * World Health Organization (WHO)

    Institutions Housing MA Secretariat Staff

    * Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Italy
    * Institute of Economic Growth India
    * Meridian Institute United States
    * National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Netherlands
    * Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) France
    * Stanford University United States
    * The Cropper Foundation Trinidad and Tobago
    * UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) United Kingdom
    * University of Pretoria, The Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) South Africa
    * University of Wisconsin – Madison United States
    * World Resources Institute United States
    * WorldFish Center Malaysia

    Institutions of MA Assessment Panel Members and Review Board Co-chairs

    * Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Indonesia
    * Chinese Academy of Sciences China
    * Council for Science and Industrial Research (CSIR) South Africa
    * Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Italy
    * Institute of Economic Growth India
    * Meridian Institute United States
    * Mestor Associates Ltd. Canada
    * Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History United States
    * The Cropper Foundation Trinidad and Tobago
    * United Nations University Japan
    * Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico
    * University of Cambridge United Kingdom
    * University of Oxford United Kingdom
    * University of Pretoria South Africa
    * University of Wisconsin-Madison United States
    * Wageningen University Netherlands
    * World Bank United States
    * WorldFish Center Malaysia

    your experience and great knowledge can couteract this? Seems pretty balanced between ECONOMY, ECOLOGY, LIFESTYLE and International Relations

  8. #33
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...earth_s_health

    humans had depleted 60 percent of the world's grasslands, forests, farmlands, rivers and lakes.

    Unless nations adopt more eco-friendly policies, increased human demands for food, clean water and fuels could speed the disappearance of forests, fish and fresh water reserves and lead to more frequent disease outbreaks over the next 50 years, it said.

  9. #34
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I've never read Kyoto. Many people I respect like it, so I'm inclined in that direction...however, I bet it's far from perfect. is it the right step? Can't say. Should the US have stayed involved and supported the inernational search for BALANCED, PRACTICAL solutions to our pressing issues, and demonstrated REAL leadership in the world? ABSOLUTELY! Might that mean getting involved with imperfect treaties (we can always break them, thats an American tradition)...but not always.
    You are a firm believer in Global Warming but don't know for sure if you support the Kyoto Treaty or not? Well, okay, I thought Kyoto was our only hope for saving the planet from Global Warming but I appreciate your honesty. Of course China and India, two of the most populous countries in the world, also refused to sign it, and it doesn't even effect third-world countries so one has to wonder how effective it would be even if the U.S. signed on. If you don't favor the Kyoto Treaty, then I rescind my previous statement of $400 billion cost. What about reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Are you in favor of that? The Clinton/Gore Administration stated that carbon dioxide regulation would add about $90 billion to the nation's electrical generating costs.

    My local trash collector has more credibility on environmental issues than most of the current administration. I'm in favor of BALANCE and Al is in favor of environmental protection...that's part of balance (especially since he's from the big-business end of his party)...
    Okay but is the Clinton/Gore Administration a credible source of information on environmental issues or not?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  10. #35
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    You are a firm believer in Global Warming but don't know for sure if you support the Kyoto Treaty or not? What about reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Are you in favor of that?
    I never said I belive in Global Warming...I have seen PLENTY of evidence global climate change is fact.

    I am in favor of reducing ALL pollutants, emissions and destructive practices as possible when BALANCING ECONOMY ECOLOGY AND LIFESTYLE. so Yes I support reducing emissions

    Okay but is the Clinton/Gore Administration a credible source of information on environmental issues or not?
    Depends what scientists they relied upon. I don't trust ANY politicians...I trust science, facs and BALANCE.


    The Clinton/Gore Administration stated that carbon dioxide regulation would add about $90 billion to the nation's electrical generating costs.
    Again, taken without examining the benefits to overall BALANCE (not to mention economic benefits, economies of scale, etc..) we can't make a proper determination...can we?

    My research indicates (and my personal experience, living in a 100% renewable energy household) that the numbers quoted may be high...but let's agree to PRINCIPLES before tripping over numbers that can be viewed from many angles.

    DO YOU BELIEVE IN BALANCING ECONOMY, ECOLOGY, and LIFESTYLE..or is the dollar the only ruler?

  11. #36
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I never said I belive in Global Warming...I have seen PLENTY of evidence global climate change is fact.
    I stand corrected, I assumed you were a firm believer in Global Warming. But now I'm confused. You won't state that you believe in Global Warming, yet when I stated my skepticism on the issue you replied, "You want to wait a "geological year" until we've really screwed things up irreparably," Well, if Global Warming is not a fact, which you won't state that it is, how will waiting for conclusive facts "screw things up"?

    Depends what scientists they relied upon. I don't trust ANY politicians...I trust science, facs and BALANCE.
    I see. You keep saying "I trust balance...I trust balance". This is an honest question. What if you are wrong? What if we can't "have it all"? What if it is physically impossible to totally balance all the competing interests in the world? What if in order to keep some of the peoples of the world from freezing to death we have to pollute the air some? What if in order to keep some of the world's population from starving to death we have to use genetically modified foods? By your own description are you not refusing to believe that, even if it was a scientific fact? By your own admission are you stating that you filter all science through the lens of "balance"?
    DO YOU BELIEVE IN BALANCING ECONOMY, ECOLOGY, and LIFESTYLE..or is the dollar the only ruler?
    I'll put my own thoughts on this down later.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  12. #37
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    A couple source links for the article...have fun!

    http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx - there ya go, the horse's mouth. This millenium group has some STRONG partners....your experience and great knowledge can couteract this? Seems pretty balanced between ECONOMY, ECOLOGY, LIFESTYLE and International Relations
    Never said it could. But a bunch of experts shouldn't have any trouble showing a dumb stripper whats what, right?

    One interesting quote from the report that I don't think made the article: "Although evidence remains incomplete, there is enough for the experts to warn that the ongoing degradation of 15 of the 24 ecosystem services examined is increasing the likelihood of potentially abrupt changes that will seriously affect human well-being." Well, now, let's not let a little thing like incomplete evidence stop us from jumping to conclusions. You have to be a really, really, smart expert to draw catostrophic conclusions from incomplete data. But then the article wouldn't have been nearly as exiciting if it had started out with, "though evidence is incomplete...we're all gonna die."

    Funny, I don't remember reading this in the Doomsday article either: “The over-riding conclusion of this assessment is that it lies within the power of human societies to ease the strains we are putting on the nature services of the planet, while continuing to use them to bring better living standards to all,” So the good news is that maybe we are not all gonna die after all.

    But the bad news is that 1/2 of all the animals are gonna die. Gretchen Daily, one of the authors of the report stated,
    "This century we’re driving probably half of the world’s species to extinction—the very plants and animals that control processes we depend on, like the carbon cycle and pollination. And our conservation efforts have hardly made a dent." How she knows that is unclear.

    Actually, most all of the claims in the report are almost impossible to verify since it doesn't provide any documentation or footnotes that I can find. Here's one, "First, the anticipated speed of climate change is greater than anything seen for at least 10,000 years". They can predict the speed of climate change in the future and can positively know there's been nothing like it in the last 10 millennium? Wow. These are some smart scientist. Half the time I watch the Weather Channel the night before, get up in the morning and they have changed the forecast. They also have estimated global temperature averages for the past 1,000 years, and can project future temperatures out to 2100 depending on various plausible scenarios. What those scenarios might be they didn't say, but the chart shows global temperatures going through the roof in the future so the general idea is we're all gonna fry. I'd better get some stronger sun screen.

    Another interesting, "fact": "On the credit side, ...total food production increased by about two-and-a-half times while the number of people in the world doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion between 1960 and 2000." Population up 100%, food supply up 250%. Sounds like good news to me. So if the trend is that our food supply has outpaced the growth in population, why all the gloom and doom? Could it be that they don't really want the human race to flourish?


    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  13. #38
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    You are a firm believer in Global Warming but don't know for sure if you support the Kyoto Treaty or not?
    READ MY TYPING:
    "I never said I belive in Global Warming...I have seen PLENTY of evidence global climate change is fact."


    What am I a firm believer in? Please pay attention!

    Well, okay, I thought Kyoto was our only hope
    Never said that or anything like it. You simply catch sound bytes and decide based on those. problem is, you get em from ultra-imbalanced sources. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (call it planning, call it whatever you like) is the best hope - BALANCING economy (good long term investments, paying people what things cost without taxpayer subsidies to industry), ecology (reducing damage and creating more "cradle to cradle " products and businesses, reducing dependence on extraction and disposables) and Lifestyle (all the other things, including ETHICS (the third E) that make a good life.

    If you don't favor the Kyoto Treaty, then I rescind my previous statement of $400 billion cost.
    I refuse to deal with Kyoto, either pro or con. Have you read the entire document? Do you favor it?

  14. #39
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Well, if Global Warming is not a fact, which you won't state that it is, how will waiting for conclusive facts "screw things up"?
    1. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE -

    2. My question is simple: is it worth the risk, when there are more sustainable, les damaging ways to do what we're doing now and make (more of) a profit?

    What if you are wrong? What if we can't "have it all"?
    Cars can't be made perfectly safe, but we do all we can with airbags, crash testing, seatbelts, crunch zones, etc - should we stop those practices because we can't reach perfection? BALANCE isn't about perfection, it's about doing the best that can be done taking ALL factors (not just money and immediate gain) into account while not externalizing ANY factors (such as pollution we leave governments to clean up and citizens to get sick from).

    What if in order to keep some of the peoples of the world from freezing to death we have to pollute the air some?
    That's part of the balancing act...pollute when NEEDED and when it promotes the overall balance - I never excluded that option AT ALL

    What if in order to keep some of the world's population from starving to death we have to use genetically modified foods?
    You can provide CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE this is true? SInce you want me to provide evidence that all environmental theories and trends are conclusively true (by the way, name one busines or government activity that doesn't rely on trends in some way)then prove the emerging science of GM foods will save the worlds population and NOT CAUSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

    are you stating that you filter all science through the lens of "balance"?
    I don't filter any science, except when the source is completely biased and it's clear their science doesn't stand to muster. BALANCE is the act of applying logic to science and action to achieve the best result. it doesn't throw out any activity or information, simply analyzes what provides teh best result - keeping the long term in mind while effecting the needs of Communities and People (not just investors) in hte shorter term.

    Is it practical to come in from the outside, swooping in with big money (and big bribes to government officials) and telling locals (who haven't been exposed to the science and likely don't have any professional advisors or scientific consultants on their side of the negotiations, leaving the locals at a disadvantage) that they need to pollute their community and kill off whole habitats in order to progress...when it's KNOWN in the developed countries that other options exist? Study the other options, examine them with the locals (who have to live with it long after the investors fly home) and determine the bst course of action.

    Citing the case from Woburn, Ma (where I grew up) of TTC poisoning (was it a diffeent acronym, I forget) from a few chemical plants. Did the investors do right by putting profits (not paying disposal costs to properly handle their waste, choosing dangerous chemicals when another option may have been available) ahead of people? Externalizing the cleanup (they left the mess to leach into the water table and poison entire communities - and filed bankruptcy to hide from damages...) and other costs? That's imbalance if you ask me.

    I'll put my own thoughts on this down later.
    WHY?" you're trying to nail down all my thoughts, but you're avoiding sharing yours, except selected sound bytes?

  15. #40
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Never said it could. But a bunch of experts shouldn't have any trouble showing a dumb stripper whats what, right?
    Not dumb just obtuse....listening only to the statements from scientists that you agree with (who can't prove GM foods will solve our problems and have no consequences, cant prove that current development trends WON't lead to bigger problems, can't prove that the solutions offered to the developing nation were the only ones viable in their community) and ignoring all others (and requiring incontrivertable proof that her own beliefs don't require)

    One interesting quote from the report that I don't think made the article: [color=Blue]"Although evidence remains incomplete, there is enough for the experts to warn that the ongoing degradation of 15 of the 24 ecosystem services examined is increasing the likelihood of potentially abrupt changes
    We don't have incontrivertable, complete proof that interest rates are going up, but smart investors are following the trend. DOn't have PROOF that if you drink and drive you will most certainly get in an accident ...but the trend and likelihood indicate you will.

    Radio and TV stations live and die on trends and research,,,our most stringent laws require only 2/3 majority to pass...yet degradation of 15/24 (just shy of 2/3) of what life depends on isn't enough to pay attention to a trend?


    We do have proof that alternatives to many current activities (even as I've said if those alternatives are using current practices more carefully) can reduce the possible downsides while maintaining or improving the upside.

    When we started wearing lead suits around X ray machines the research was still going on ... but it was considered SAFER to do so. Research was still going on when DDT was approved, but it was approved anyway (and we see how well that worked)...I could go on (we don't have COMPLETE PROOF that a broken O-ring cased the Challenger disaster in 86, but we redesigned the shuttle based on that)...Science is NEVER done when a decision is called for...you just make the best use of the information you have

    You have to be a really, really, smart expert to draw catostrophic conclusions from incomplete data.
    I don't see it as a prediction of destruction, I see it as evidence we should examine what we do. Stating that smoking is hazardous does NOT mean that all smokers are going to die of it. It simply means to be aware of the risks and DECIDE (in this case as a society) if it's worth the risk to continue the actions.


    “The over-riding conclusion of this assessment is that it lies within the power of human societies to ease the strains we are putting on the nature services of the planet, while continuing to use them to bring better living standards to all,” [color=Black]So the good news is that maybe we are not all gonna die after all.
    Mu point exactly...why the hell are you fighting sanity so hard/


    I won't comment on Ms Daly's work - though I agree we're pushing alot of species to extinction.

    [color=Black]Actually, most all of the claims in the report are almost impossible to verify since it doesn't provide any documentation or footnotes that I can find.
    I suggest you follow some of the links I provided...I bet you will find some answers there. Or, visit some of Milleniums partners and ask them (or the authors) where the information came from. Good reports have bibliographies.

    Here's one, [color=Blue]"First, the anticipated speed of climate change is greater than anything seen for at least 10,000 years".
    umm..its called anthropolgy and geology...my guesses as to how we know that.

    I'd better get some stronger sun screen.
    Better, start working for saner BALANCE betwen the Economics, Ecology and Lifestyle and the "doomsday theories" will never have a chance to come true

    Could it be that they don't really want the human race to flourish?
    simply not worth answering ... could it be that the pollution and extraction industries really don't want the human race to continue to prosper ? they're poisoning it and striving for short term gains rather than overall BALANCE.

  16. #41
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Oh, how was it I found the original report in 5 minutes on Google, when you said you couldn't? Couldn't or didn't want to?
    I said that I could not find a link to it from the Yahoo News Article (you could not either). You're the one who posted the article, berated me for questioning it, and then boasted of the impeccable credentials of the "1,000 scientists" that authored the report before you ever read it.

    You asked why I accuse you of wanting to extend Ecological Imperialism over the world.

    Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

    Sounds like your plan to me.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #42
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    According to Webster
    hegemony
    preponderant influence or authority over others

    1. So setting rules on products imported to the us is domination but US investors telling these hypothetical people there is one way to grow, and not allowing other scientifically sound options to be discussed...just for short term profits with the KNOWLEDGE there will be nevgative consequences (we know 'cause we're clleaning it up here)...that's not domination

    my plan is simple....there is a short term way to do things. and there's a way to do things now that looks at future consequences. Sustainable Development provides for short term results while minimizing damaging effect (BALANCING the three factors) and SPECIFICALLY allows for current technology when it's the best option and used properly. Your theory takes a shortcut and just worries about immediate results...screw the future.

    Ya. That;s balance

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 03:41 PM
  2. Just a random fact...
    By PookaShell in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 11:18 PM
  3. Read a fact, post a fact, be enlightened.
    By BlackSheEp3 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 09-01-2007, 01:50 PM
  4. Random Fact
    By PookaShell in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 02:54 PM
  5. Are you..in fact...a junkie??
    By Joe12601 in forum General Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 06:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •