An SOS for nature

[action]

37 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What? Haven't you on at least two occasions argued fiercely that humans, or any single species, can't possible affect something as grand as the climate on a planet? 

Anyway, I agree to a large extent with what you wrote in your post. This sixth mass-extinction even will not be the end of life on Earth, nor will climate change. Generally speaking, the "simpler" forms of life will always survive, like bacteria and other single-celled organisms. But I am not as convinced as you that humans will go extinct. Highly-adaptable, omnivorous species will likely find a way. There will not be enough food to sustain 7 billion of us, but we will likely cope eating whatever plants survive and algae and bacteria.

And yes, "our presence on here in ever growing numbers isn't sustainable." I couldn't agree more.

I'm going to simplify this as much as possible. it is much easier to create chaos, than to bring order. This is a law of nature. So it should not surprise that it is much easier to damage the climate, than to make it good again.

I can take a hammer and beat up a lamborghini to pieces. My dumb force and basic knowledge on handling a hammer allows me that. I am absolutely powerless to bring it back to its former state though. I lack the tools nor the intelligence.

[action]

45 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What? Haven't you on at least two occasions argued fiercely that humans, or any single species, can't possible affect something as grand as the climate on a planet? 

Anyway, I agree to a large extent with what you wrote in your post. This sixth mass-extinction even will not be the end of life on Earth, nor will climate change. Generally speaking, the "simpler" forms of life will always survive, like bacteria and other single-celled organisms. But I am not as convinced as you that humans will go extinct. Highly-adaptable, omnivorous species will likely find a way. There will not be enough food to sustain 7 billion of us, but we will likely cope eating whatever plants survive and algae and bacteria.

And yes, "our presence on here in ever growing numbers isn't sustainable." I couldn't agree more.

if the  climate doesn't finish us, a new evolved species will.

Just as mankind poaches gorillas, "man 2.0" will hunt and kill us. Because they will see what danger we pose to earth, like the danger a tiger poses in a populated city.

It's a bit hard to get your head around, I agree, but it's the way it will be nonetheless.

The surviving members of the human race, when they are hunted like wild animals, (maybe there'll be some philosophers and scientists among them) will no doubt make objection, and tell the new species that this can not happen, but that won't impress the new species much.

Think Hitler was bad? I'd say, the madness hasn't really well started yet. The future is bleak and apocalyptic, at least for mankind.

Edited September 11, 2020 by action

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, action said:

I'm going to simplify this as much as possible. it is much easier to create chaos, than to bring order. This is a law of nature.

Yes, the law is that it is simpler, not that it is impossible . 

[action]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, the law is that it is simpler, not that it is impossible . 

so you agree that one is simpler than the other.

my argument is that humans are capable of the simpler thing (increasing the greenhouse effect: all it takes is to release greenhouse gasses), but not the more difficult (decreasing the greenhouse effect by extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere).

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

so you agree that one is simpler than the other.

I have never not agreed to the basic law of entropy .

 

6 minutes ago, action said:

my argument is that humans are capable of the simpler thing (increasing the greenhouse effect: all it takes is to release greenhouse gasses), but not the more difficult (decreasing the greenhouse effect by extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere).

Except that we are able to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. I its simpler form it is called "planting a tree". But if you want to continue this discussion we can do that in the relevant thread, this thread is about mass extinction which is caused by much more than climate change.

[action]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

this thread is about mass extinction which is caused by much more than climate change.

wat?

you can safely point to climate change as the cause for the current mass extinction event.

even the asteroids weren't the cause of the then current MEE; the ensuing climate change was.

I'd even go as far as to argue that every MEE is caused by worldwide climate change, as per definition. Nothing else has the power to create such an event. Ultimately, it all comes back to the climate.

Edited September 11, 2020 by action

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

wat?

you can safely point to climate change as the cause for the current mass extinction event.

Only as one of the causes. See the report I linked to in the OP.

Edited September 11, 2020 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

I like this illustration.

The number of different marine life forms have been increasing since the start of the Triassic period and now it is at the greatest that it has ever been. At no time before in history has the oceans been teeming with as many different types of life than they do today.

Mass extinction events, and we have had about five of them previously, result in 10-40 % of marine species going extinct in a short period of time. Such events signal the start of a new geological time period because with whole families of animals disappearing this allows for the rapid evolution of new life forms that will set their mark on the next time period.

With the oceans now having an abundance of families of life, it is not a huge problem for life on earth if we go through a usual mass extinction event. There will likely be plenty of life forms left for evolution to work upon, resulting in a new time period. 

But, the ongoing extinction event could be worse than any of those we have had before, and would humans survive a mass extinction event? Well, I believe we will, but it will be a period of hunger, wars and conflict unlike any we have ever experienced before, as we cope with, and fight for, dwindling natural resources in a changing world.

[action]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I like this illustration.

The number of different marine life forms have been increasing since the start of the Triassic period and now it is at the greatest that it has ever been. At no time before in history has the oceans been teeming with as many different types of life than they do today.

Mass extinction events, and we have had about five of them previously, result in 10-40 % of marine species going extinct in a short period of time. Such events signal the start of a new geological time period because with whole families of animals disappearing this allows for the rapid evolution of new life forms that will set their mark on the next time period.

With the oceans now having an abundance of families of life, it is not a huge problem for life on earth if we go through a usual mass extinction event. There will likely be plenty of life forms left for evolution to work upon, resulting in a new time period. 

But, the ongoing extinction event could be worse than any of those we have had before, and would humans survive a mass extinction event? Well, I believe we will, but it will be a period of hunger, wars and conflict unlike any we have ever experienced before, as we cope with, and fight for, dwindling natural resources in a changing world.

the top one, the loch ness monster? that's still here.

[soon]

All I see is penises, vaginas and the fibonacci sequence. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I like this illustration.

The number of different marine life forms have been increasing since the start of the Triassic period and now it is at the greatest that it has ever been. At no time before in history has the oceans been teeming with as many different types of life than they do today.

Mass extinction events, and we have had about five of them previously, result in 10-40 % of marine species going extinct in a short period of time. Such events signal the start of a new geological time period because with whole families of animals disappearing this allows for the rapid evolution of new life forms that will set their mark on the next time period.

With the oceans now having an abundance of families of life, it is not a huge problem for life on earth if we go through a usual mass extinction event. There will likely be plenty of life forms left for evolution to work upon, resulting in a new time period. 

But, the ongoing extinction event could be worse than any of those we have had before, and would humans survive a mass extinction event? Well, I believe we will, but it will be a period of hunger, wars and conflict unlike any we have ever experienced before, as we cope with, and fight for, dwindling natural resources in a changing world.

Check out Rudist Bivalves strutting her stuff. If Scientists designed porn names...

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On 9/10/2020 at 8:56 AM, SoulMonster said:

In the latest biannual report from the WWF, The Living Planet Index, it is shown that since 1970 population sizes of more than 5,000 studied mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds have had an average drop of astounding 68 %. In other words, if you looked at a population of a given animal back in 1970, chances are it would be less than half the size now in 2020, 50 years later. There are less birds in the sky, fewer otters in the rivers, salamanders are becoming a rarer sight, and lizards are disappearing. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

Obviously, the 68 % drop in population sizes is an average, so some animals haven't seen such a huge drop... while others have had a larger drop and become decimated and are now extinct. Currently, about one million species are believed to be on the brink of extinction.

It doesn't get much worse than this. We are destroying our home. We are destroying the foundation for our own existence.

Personally, I find this to be an even greater threat to humanity than climate change - although the two things are of course intertwined (global warming is one of the reasons animals are going extinct, others being deforestation, pollution, illegal trade of animals, agriculture, and overfishing).

Just terrible and utterly scary.

Not surprised with all the human morons who mess with animals and nature. Then Mother Nature gets pissed off and we have fires, floods hurricanes. snow storms and of course a deadly virus. Yet man doesn't seem to understand how important all living things are to our survival. One day we will realize it and it'll be too late.

I was thinking of the 4 horsemen of the Apocolypse ( can't spell for shit) and I honestly think they are hear. It's one of them plague?

I'm glad someone else realizes this stuff like I have. So sad how we treat our world. Even all the signs that we are destroying it, still alot of people ignore the signs.

Global warming is a fact and it's here and no one in power seems to give a shit.

[soon]

On 9/11/2020 at 3:48 PM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Not surprised with all the human morons who mess with animals and nature. Then Mother Nature gets pissed off and we have fires, floods hurricanes. snow storms and of course a deadly virus. Yet man doesn't seem to understand how important all living things are to our survival. One day we will realize it and it'll be too late.

I was thinking of the 4 horsemen of the Apocolypse ( can't spell for shit) and I honestly think they are hear. It's one of them plague?

I'm glad someone else realizes this stuff like I have. So sad how we treat our world. Even all the signs that we are destroying it, still alot of people ignore the signs.

Global warming is a fact and it's here and no one in power seems to give a shit.

As long as we have unfettered capitalism our leaders are gonna keep playing their part in that system and allow ecocidal exploitation of nature, and all the waste and pollution that accompanies it. Along with taking away habitats and ecosystems that species need to survive. And people glide along, uneducated, true believers in the systems lies, unable to even conceive of the fact that neoliberal capitalism isnt the natural order of the world. Business as usual is a scientifically demonstrated impossiblity if we want to avert disaster - but most people will scoff at the idea that we can make changes to our economy. So sad and pathetic.

Im part of a wave of people who take interest in "triple bottom line' business models. That it People, Planet, Profit. Until now, profit was the only bottom line. Even as a supporter of triple bottom line, I think we will need even bigger system changes to counter the mass extinction and climate crisis.

Edited September 13, 2020 by soon

[Sosso]

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Human beings are destroying our planet and that's why we have floods, fires and hurricanes and anything else nature can throw at us.

It makes me laugh when they send shit out to space and different planets to maybe live there? No don't fuck up another planet and if there is any aliens out there, they won't let us.

We need to take care of our planet now. All this wasted money on space travel with probes or whatever is a waste of time and money. Man can't live on any other planet in our galaxy. 

I love Star Trek as much as the next person, but it's not possible in our lifetime.

Take care of our planet and the animals and human beings that live here or we are doomed.

[SoulMonster]

15 hours ago, soon said:

As long as we have unfettered capitalism our leaders are gonna keep playing their part in that system and allow ecocidal exploitation of nature, and all the waste and pollution that accompanies it. Along with taking away habitats and ecosystems that species need to survive. And people glide along, uneducated, true believers in the systems lies, unable to even conceive of the fact that neoliberal capitalism isnt the natural order of the world. Business as usual is a scientifically demonstrated impossiblity if we want to avert disaster - but most people will scoff at the idea that we can make changes to our economy. So sad and pathetic.

Im part of a wave of people who take interest in "triple bottom line' business models. That it People, Planet, Profit. Until now, profit was the only bottom line. Even as a supporter of triple bottom line, I think we will need even bigger system changes to counter the mass extinction and climate crisis.

I don't think capitalism is in itself an impenetrable barrier to enacting regulations and laws that will deal with the issues resulting in mass extinction. And I don't agree that in most capitalistic countries only profit matters. Don't get me wrong, profit is the main thing to corporations but in most countries with a capitalistic economic model, laws and regulations are imposed by governments meant to ensure that profit is balanced with people and planet. Like social safety nets. And environmental laws. 

So I believe most countries already have a form of government that allows for the right changes. What we lack are the right leaders to write laws and regulations that really focus on the environment. And the reason we have the wrong leaders is because most people don't care to elect them. So the problem isn't so much our form of government/economic model, or our leaders directly, but not enough support among voters. People don't care and then we get what we deserve.

Take overfishing, which is one of the reasons for mass extinction, as an example. A capitalist country could still enact laws regulating fishing to make it sustainable. Most countries already have quotas and laws preventing (to some extent) overfishing. A redistribution of ownership wouldn't necessarily deal with the issue, only laws against overfishing will. And another example if CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. Going away from capitalism (to socialism, I presume) wouldn't automatically result in less emission and cleaner industry. To do that you need to stimulate innovations in green technology and penalize emissions, which again can be achieved under a capitalistic economic model given that there is a will in the population to elect leaders who will execute the required changes. Another example is deforestation. Again, laws against this could just as easily be imposed in capitalistic countries if people just elected more environmentally-conscious leaders. 

 

[soon]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think capitalism is in itself an impenetrable barrier to enacting regulations and laws that will deal with the issues resulting in mass extinction. And I don't agree that in most capitalistic countries only profit matters. Don't get me wrong, profit is the main thing to corporations but in most countries with a capitalistic economic model, laws and regulations are imposed by governments meant to ensure that profit is balanced with people and planet. Like social safety nets. And environmental laws. 

So I believe most countries already have a form of government that allows for the right changes. What we lack are the right leaders to write laws and regulations that really focus on the environment. And the reason we have the wrong leaders is because most people don't care to elect them. So the problem isn't so much our form of government/economic model, or our leaders directly, but not enough support among voters. People don't care and then we get what we deserve.

Take overfishing, which is one of the reasons for mass extinction, as an example. A capitalist country could still enact laws regulating fishing to make it sustainable. Most countries already have quotas and laws preventing (to some extent) overfishing. A redistribution of ownership wouldn't necessarily deal with the issue, only laws against overfishing will. And another example if CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. Going away from capitalism (to socialism, I presume) wouldn't automatically result in less emission and cleaner industry. To do that you need to stimulate innovations in green technology and penalize emissions, which again can be achieved under a capitalistic economic model given that there is a will in the population to elect leaders who will execute the required changes. Another example is deforestation. Again, laws against this could just as easily be imposed in capitalistic countries if people just elected more environmentally-conscious leaders. 

 

Hmmmm. Well, I said unfettered capitalism and neloliberal capitalism.

i also spoke of triple bottom line capitalism.

so you seem to have completely misunderstood my post.

that said, you have presented some rather naive points regarding the nature of capitalism.

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Hmmmm. Well, I said unfettered capitalism and neloliberal capitalism.

i also spoke of triple bottom line capitalism.

so you seem to have completely misunderstood my post.

that said, you have presented some rather naive points regarding the nature of capitalism.

Could you suggest any countries with such "unfettered capitalism"?

Why do you think that a country with a capitalistic economy as executed under the Nordic model (think Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) would be unable to impose laws and regulations that would stop pollution and overfishing, etc? And if even curbed capitalism as seen in these countries can't achieve a stop to this, what do you propose as an alternative? I assume the answer would be socialism, so let me just follow-up on that to save one back-and-forth: how would socialism be a better system of government to prevent pollution and overfishing, etc?

My argument is that it doesn't matter so much what form of political system we have (capitalistic or socialistic or variants thereof) in democracies as long as we don't elect leaders who make the tough choices to put long-term sustainability over short-term pleasure. 

[soon]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Could you suggest any countries with such "unfettered capitalism"?

Why do you think that a country with a capitalistic economy as executed under the Nordic model (think Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) would be unable to impose laws and regulations that would stop pollution and overfishing, etc? And if even curbed capitalism as seen in these countries can't achieve a stop to this, what do you propose as an alternative? I assume the answer would be socialism, so let me just follow-up on that to save one back-and-forth: how would socialism be a better system of government to prevent pollution and overfishing, etc?

My argument is that it doesn't matter so much what form of political system we have (capitalistic or socialistic or variants thereof) in democracies as long as we don't elect leaders who make the tough choices to put long-term sustainability over short-term pleasure. 

You still dont understand my post, clearly. lol. I would love to see in your brain to see how you are (mis)understanding my post to then respond as you have. You clearly dont understand terms Ive used, especially neoliberalism which is defined by deregulation and removing decision making from the voters.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

You still dont understand my post, clearly. lol. I would love to see in your brain to see how you are (mis)understanding my post to then respond as you have. You clearly dont understand terms Ive used, especially neoliberalism which is defined by deregulation and removing decision making from the voters.

But I am not talking about neoliberalism, I am talking about capitalism, more specifically addressing this sentence "as long as we have unfettered capitalism our leaders are gonna keep playing their part in that system and allow ecocidal exploitation of nature, and all the waste and pollution that accompanies it". What countries have such unfettered capitalism that their leaders are unable to pass laws and regulations that would prevent ecocidal exploitation of nature?

My point is that I don't think such countries exist and my argument is that all (?) countries operating with a capitalistic economic model are democracies with varying degrees of governmental control and that even a country like USA could impose much stricter environmental laws if people just voted for the right leaders. The problem isn't the economic model, but a distinct failure in electing leaders who put long-term sustainability in front of short-term growth.

[soon]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But I am not talking about neoliberalism, I am talking about capitalism, more specifically addressing this sentence "as long as we have unfettered capitalism our leaders are gonna keep playing their part in that system and allow ecocidal exploitation of nature, and all the waste and pollution that accompanies it". What countries have such unfettered capitalism that their leaders are unable to pass laws and regulations that would prevent ecocidal exploitation of nature?

My point is that I don't think such countries exist and my argument is that all (?) countries operating with a capitalistic economic model are democracies with varying degrees of governmental control and that even a country like USA could impose much stricter environmental laws if people just voted for the right leaders. The problem isn't the economic model, but a distinct failure in electing leaders who put long-term sustainability in front of short-term growth.

Its pointless to discuss capitalisms role in the current crisis without discussing the structure that capitalism exists in - neloliberalism. And the rest of your Action-esque musings dont matter either in that case.

(You still dont understand my points)

 

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

On 9/10/2020 at 3:56 PM, SoulMonster said:

In the latest biannual report from the WWF, The Living Planet Index, it is shown that since 1970 population sizes of more than 5,000 studied mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds have had an average drop of astounding 68 %. In other words, if you looked at a population of a given animal back in 1970, chances are it would be less than half the size now in 2020, 50 years later. There are less birds in the sky, fewer otters in the rivers, salamanders are becoming a rarer sight, and lizards are disappearing. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

Obviously, the 68 % drop in population sizes is an average, so some animals haven't seen such a huge drop... while others have had a larger drop and become decimated and are now extinct. Currently, about one million species are believed to be on the brink of extinction.

It doesn't get much worse than this. We are destroying our home. We are destroying the foundation for our own existence.

Personally, I find this to be an even greater threat to humanity than climate change - although the two things are of course intertwined (global warming is one of the reasons animals are going extinct, others being deforestation, pollution, illegal trade of animals, agriculture, and overfishing).

Just terrible and utterly scary.

This has my main concern. The planet is dying. 

It boggles me how governments are willing to close everything down for a virus that kills a few people (of the 7.5 billion, a number that is still growing despite people dying from corona) but they refuse to act on bigger things like the loss of other life on our planet.

We aren't the most important thing on this planet. If anything, we're pretty much the worst thing that could've happened to Earth. 

I don't get why the world isn't trying harder to save what we had, before it's all lost. Instead we have people like Bolsonaro murdering the Amazon rainforest and everything in it.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Its pointless to discuss capitalisms role in the current crisis without discussing the structure that capitalism exists in - neloliberalism. And the rest of your Action-esque musings dont matter either in that case.

Going back to the Nordic countries -- which have market economy and some slight aspects of neoliberalism -- why don't you think these countries could implement laws and regulations that would prevent ecocidal exploitation of nature? If the people of Sweden (with a capitalistic model of economy and some neoliberalistic tendencies) wanted long-term environmental sustainability over short-term economic growth, what do you think would stop this from happening?

Just now, YOUCOULDBEMINE. said:

This has my main concern. The planet is dying. 

It boggles me how governments are willing to close everything down for a virus that kills a few people (of the 7.5 billion, a number that is still growing despite people dying from corona) but they refuse to act on bigger things like the loss of other life on our planet.

We aren't the most important thing on this planet. If anything, we're pretty much the worst thing that could've happened to Earth. 

I don't get why the world isn't trying harder to save what we had, before it's all lost. Instead we have people like Bolsonaro murdering the Amazon rainforest and everything in it.

Because most people don't agree with you and hence the right leaders aren't elected. When push comes to shove, most people elect leaders who maintain the status quo.

[Ace Nova]

It might have something to do with this...

 

 

 

Just sayin'

 

 

[Ace Nova]