On Nov 13, 3:37 am, "JimB" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"

I agree that the only thing that stays the same is change, but we
should focus on change for the better. Or do you just feel you are
here for the ride, and should just go with the flow and consider
exhausting instead of conserving resources as a natural process?

Joe

Change from when? The whole of evolution has been about competition between
species to survive as the available resources change. We had a carbon
dioxide atmosphere once - but that was consumed by tiny sea living creatures
whose skeletons now form enormous mountain ranges. Later, it was consumed by
plants which formed beds of coal; their waste prodcut was oxygen. That
permitted fish to evolve, consuming oxygen waste.

So, we're going back to an earlier baseline - returning some of that carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere. As the video says, choose your baseline.

I'll agree that change is the permanency (if that makes sense). If that's
the case, it's better to adapt to change, rather than try to prevent it. Is
that what you'd call 'going with the flow'? It's certainly going against the
current popular flow of 'resistance to change'.

And while I'm at it, I don't like his emotive choice of cockroaches and rats
as sole survivors. Nor his emotive use of dolphin pictures (BIG fish eaters)
to illustrate diminishing numbers of fishes. He didn't intend it that way of
course, he was just trying to capture our hearts with pictures of species we
love - even if they're consuming available resources . . .

Lets consider more 'adapting to change', rather than trying to prevent it .
. .

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or gowww.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

Some things you must adapt to, as you can do nothing about it. Some
things you can change for the better by adapting to more intelligent
ways of doing things. To say overfishing, or polluting our oceans is a
natural process is wrong. It is something that we can change by our
habits and methods.

Do you think the turtle decline was due to too much CO2 in the air?
Abalony in CA? RedSnapper and Grouper in the Gulf decline because of
global warming.
Do you think the stone crabs just threw off both pincers because the
suns shining too bright? Bar something like a comet strinking the
earth, or some type of catastropic event tell me of anything in
earth's history that species are dis-appearing or declining at this
rate?

Or was it because of turtle stew and tourist trinkets, Abalony &
garlic with wine, stupid idiots who could remove one claw from a crab,
but take both, and too many Snapper boats?

Dolphins do not eat to much fish. They were born in the sea and
deserve all the fish they can eat. Next you will be claiming whales
eat to much krill, and baby seals have too much warm fur.

Joe

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:48:47 -0800, Joe
wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:37 am, "JimB" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"

I agree that the only thing that stays the same is change, but we
should focus on change for the better. Or do you just feel you are
here for the ride, and should just go with the flow and consider
exhausting instead of conserving resources as a natural process?

Joe

Change from when? The whole of evolution has been about competition between
species to survive as the available resources change. We had a carbon
dioxide atmosphere once - but that was consumed by tiny sea living creatures
whose skeletons now form enormous mountain ranges. Later, it was consumed by
plants which formed beds of coal; their waste prodcut was oxygen. That
permitted fish to evolve, consuming oxygen waste.

So, we're going back to an earlier baseline - returning some of that carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere. As the video says, choose your baseline.

I'll agree that change is the permanency (if that makes sense). If that's
the case, it's better to adapt to change, rather than try to prevent it. Is
that what you'd call 'going with the flow'? It's certainly going against the
current popular flow of 'resistance to change'.

And while I'm at it, I don't like his emotive choice of cockroaches and rats
as sole survivors. Nor his emotive use of dolphin pictures (BIG fish eaters)
to illustrate diminishing numbers of fishes. He didn't intend it that way of
course, he was just trying to capture our hearts with pictures of species we
love - even if they're consuming available resources . . .

Lets consider more 'adapting to change', rather than trying to prevent it .
. .

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or gowww.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

Some things you must adapt to, as you can do nothing about it. Some
things you can change for the better by adapting to more intelligent
ways of doing things. To say overfishing, or polluting our oceans is a
natural process is wrong. It is something that we can change by our
habits and methods.

Do you think the turtle decline was due to too much CO2 in the air?
Abalony in CA? RedSnapper and Grouper in the Gulf decline because of
global warming.
Do you think the stone crabs just threw off both pincers because the
suns shining too bright? Bar something like a comet strinking the
earth, or some type of catastropic event tell me of anything in
earth's history that species are dis-appearing or declining at this
rate?

Or was it because of turtle stew and tourist trinkets, Abalony &
garlic with wine, stupid idiots who could remove one claw from a crab,
but take both, and too many Snapper boats?

Dolphins do not eat to much fish. They were born in the sea and
deserve all the fish they can eat. Next you will be claiming whales
eat to much krill, and baby seals have too much warm fur.

You're making too much sense.

--Vic

Bill Kearney wrote:
While
you're there, ask the folks why there are so few fishing boats about and
why what few are there are tied up in the local harbour.

Because they overfished the waters. TANSTAAFL and now they're paying the
price.



Exactly.

Cheers
Marty

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:48:47 -0800, Joe
wrote:

On Nov 13, 3:37 am, "JimB" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
I agree that the only thing that stays the same is change, but we
should focus on change for the better. Or do you just feel you are
here for the ride, and should just go with the flow and consider
exhausting instead of conserving resources as a natural process?
Joe
Change from when? The whole of evolution has been about competition between
species to survive as the available resources change. We had a carbon
dioxide atmosphere once - but that was consumed by tiny sea living creatures
whose skeletons now form enormous mountain ranges. Later, it was consumed by
plants which formed beds of coal; their waste prodcut was oxygen. That
permitted fish to evolve, consuming oxygen waste.

So, we're going back to an earlier baseline - returning some of that carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere. As the video says, choose your baseline.

I'll agree that change is the permanency (if that makes sense). If that's
the case, it's better to adapt to change, rather than try to prevent it. Is
that what you'd call 'going with the flow'? It's certainly going against the
current popular flow of 'resistance to change'.

And while I'm at it, I don't like his emotive choice of cockroaches and rats
as sole survivors. Nor his emotive use of dolphin pictures (BIG fish eaters)
to illustrate diminishing numbers of fishes. He didn't intend it that way of
course, he was just trying to capture our hearts with pictures of species we
love - even if they're consuming available resources . . .

Lets consider more 'adapting to change', rather than trying to prevent it .
. .

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or gowww.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe
Some things you must adapt to, as you can do nothing about it. Some
things you can change for the better by adapting to more intelligent
ways of doing things. To say overfishing, or polluting our oceans is a
natural process is wrong. It is something that we can change by our
habits and methods.

Do you think the turtle decline was due to too much CO2 in the air?
Abalony in CA? RedSnapper and Grouper in the Gulf decline because of
global warming.
Do you think the stone crabs just threw off both pincers because the
suns shining too bright? Bar something like a comet strinking the
earth, or some type of catastropic event tell me of anything in
earth's history that species are dis-appearing or declining at this
rate?

Or was it because of turtle stew and tourist trinkets, Abalony &
garlic with wine, stupid idiots who could remove one claw from a crab,
but take both, and too many Snapper boats?

Dolphins do not eat to much fish. They were born in the sea and
deserve all the fish they can eat. Next you will be claiming whales
eat to much krill, and baby seals have too much warm fur.

You're making too much sense.

--Vic

If I may........change is inevitable, the mission of the video was to
point out that we do adjust and then forget, loose track of, just how
far we have adjusted.

The video producers did also have a interior message that it would be
good to go back to where were were. I agree but, most sadly, we can
not. Change is among us and we must adjust.

On reason to understanding change completely is so that we can
understand the cause of the change and thus adjust appropriately. We
need to see the whole picture clearly, there is little obvious advantage
to ignorance, except that it makes the short term easier to bear.

Now my rant....there are many reasons why the ocean is in such rough
shape. But there is one common underlying reason why it is unlikely to
get any better. Simply put, there are too many mouths to feed.

I think, though I can not prove, that the oceans are in worst shape than
agriculture is that agriculture has been propped up by massive inputs of
calories (fossil fuels.) The oceans do not as easily lend themselves
to such manipulation. Thus the collapse you see in the oceans is a
future glimpse of what you will see in agriculture.

In short, we are in deep trouble, as a species. The short term (my
life) will be OK. My daughters life will not. That sucks.

Not meant to be a scientific argument but speaking from my gut and
intuitive understanding.

Bill Kearney wrote:

While
you're there, ask the folks why there are so few fishing boats about and
why what few are there are tied up in the local harbour.


Because they overfished the waters. TANSTAAFL and now they're paying the
price.


I can't decide if the Black River polution problem is completely
cleared, or if it has caused some - mutation???

1000 pound sturgeon!

http://vets.yuku.com/topic/9836

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
snipped
Now my rant....there are many reasons why the ocean is in such rough
shape. But there is one common underlying reason why it is unlikely to
get any better. Simply put, there are too many mouths to feed.

I think, though I can not prove, that the oceans are in worst shape than
agriculture is that agriculture has been propped up by massive inputs of
calories (fossil fuels.) The oceans do not as easily lend themselves to
such manipulation. Thus the collapse you see in the oceans is a future
glimpse of what you will see in agriculture.

In short, we are in deep trouble, as a species. The short term (my life)
will be OK. My daughters life will not. That sucks.

Not meant to be a scientific argument but speaking from my gut and
intuitive understanding.

Agree entirely about overpopulation.
But with agriculture it is not just fossil fuels that have propped it up.
Some of the species that are near the bottom of the sea's food chain and are
therefore vital for the survival of other species are being taken in huge
quantities and rendered down into fish meal to become agricultural
fertiliser. Examples of this are the anchovy fishing off the coast of
S.America and the fishing by Denmark of sand eels in the North sea.
Buried in a small paragraph in my local paper is the news that the fisheries
department here has just raised the quota of sei whales for 2008 by 11% to
247000 tonnes-yes, tonnes!. And that does not include the Japanese efforts.
Who said that there is a moratorium on whaling? You are right about the
future. For me too there will still be a few lions, tigers, bears ,
dolphins, whales etc in the wild for the rest of my life but the future
looks bleak for our descendants.

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Agree entirely about overpopulation.

Now we get to the real point. The pressure on earth resources is caused by
population growth, and the demand by existing populations to improve their
standards of living. This demand raises prices, and raised prices stimulate
production (or harvesting) to use ever more expensive techniques.

Those techniques initially are not necessarily efficient in the long term -
Joe's original point - killing the Goose that laid that golden egg. Sadly,
there's always a lag between solving today's problem (fishermen losing their
jobs, struggling to gather more to keep themselves in business) and the
long term answer; which is to cull the fisherman much more sharply for a
decade or two by denying them areas of the ocean. And when the first long
term answer is implemented, immediate shortages raise prices, strongly
rewarding more intense fishing (illegal, as well as legal). So a second long
term problem evolves - how to deter the rule breakers.

It's not dissimilar to the economics of cocaine production, silly though
that analogy may seem. The demand is such that it pays handsomely to break
the law and import the stuff, and every new barrier to import raises the
price, stimulating more ingenious efforts to break the law.

So, how do we reduce demand for earth resources? Cull the populations? Have
universal 'one baby' policies? Deny improved standards of living? Increase
cigarette consumption? Encourage premature death through obesity?
Alcoholicism? Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.

'change is inevitable' - true

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

JimB wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .
how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.

'change is inevitable' - true


Two thoughts:

1. Not "stupid" or "ill educated" but "self centered" and/or "short sighted"

2. Combining your two statements -

"The end of the world AS WE KNOW IT is nigh"

Since we are being a little philosophical here I propose two questions:

1. What it the correct number of people to have a maximum human experience?

2. Why is it that this question is never debated?

This question is distinctly different from asking about the ultimate
"carrying capacity" of the earth. It asks about the kind of earth we
want to live on and what we value as human experience.

I recently heard a lecture on "urban farming." My city is losing
population and their are proposals to turn the abandoned lots into
gardens. Well and good. Then the discussion turned to "vertical
farming." 10-story glass pyramids of intensive farming in the city.
And there are serious scientist and support efforts to find ways to
manage the earths environment (e.g. mirrors in space.) I may be getting
old and stiff but that is not a future that I relish.