On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message

...

Joe wrote:
If you have not seen this, it's a eye opener for some.

http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/sli...istine_hi.html

Joe

Pure Al Gore type BS.
Gordon

The little presentation defeats its own argument. How? It uses today as a
baseline of how different things were in past years than they are today. It
assumes that today's baseline is abnormal and yesterday's is normal.
Further, it selects images from today vs. images of yesterday selected
specifically to show great differences. Photos of large game fish vs. photos
of smaller fish. Sparse reefs vs. teaming reefs. Were there no pictures of
people holding up smaller fish in years past? No pictures of sparse reefs?
Certainly there were so why didn't they select those photos? It's because
those photos would not further their agenda. It's all about agenda and any
intelligent person should realize that. Pictures lie!

Things change. That's the only true baseline. This is also where human
caused global warming can be shown to be such a sham. It assumes today's
baseline is abnormal because it differs from some pre-selected past
baseline. Duh!

Wilbur Hubbard

Jimminy Crickets Wilbur! I'vs seen in my own lifetime a great
reduction of game and fish due to humans taking them all. Here Stone
Crabs for example, use to see them all the time even as late as the
80's ...now you do not see any here. Same with big Groupers and large
game fish. And my neighbor who lived on Galveston bay way back in 1900
(RIP) use to tell me how Galveston Bay was crystal clear and you could
pick up oysters as big as your hand all day long.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message

...

Joe wrote:
If you have not seen this, it's a eye opener for some.

http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/sli...istine_hi.html

Joe

Pure Al Gore type BS.
Gordon

The little presentation defeats its own argument. How? It uses today as a
baseline of how different things were in past years than they are today.
It
assumes that today's baseline is abnormal and yesterday's is normal.
Further, it selects images from today vs. images of yesterday selected
specifically to show great differences. Photos of large game fish vs.
photos
of smaller fish. Sparse reefs vs. teaming reefs. Were there no pictures
of
people holding up smaller fish in years past? No pictures of sparse
reefs?
Certainly there were so why didn't they select those photos? It's because
those photos would not further their agenda. It's all about agenda and
any
intelligent person should realize that. Pictures lie!

Things change. That's the only true baseline. This is also where human
caused global warming can be shown to be such a sham. It assumes today's
baseline is abnormal because it differs from some pre-selected past
baseline. Duh!

Wilbur Hubbard

Jimminy Crickets Wilbur! I'vs seen in my own lifetime a great
reduction of game and fish due to humans taking them all. Here Stone
Crabs for example, use to see them all the time even as late as the
80's ...now you do not see any here. Same with big Groupers and large
game fish. And my neighbor who lived on Galveston bay way back in 1900
(RIP) use to tell me how Galveston Bay was crystal clear and you could
pick up oysters as big as your hand all day long.

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


Don't forget the dinosuars too! Fred Flinstone and Barney went out and
clubbed them all to death. That's why there are none left.

Joe wrote:

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?

Sounds like Neal to me, "I'm alright Jack, and **** you." A
particularly easy attitude to adopt when one has no children.

Cheers
Marty

"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 go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

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

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.

"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