|
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
If you have not seen this, it's a eye opener for some.
http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/sli...istine_hi.html Joe |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... If you have not seen this, it's a eye opener for some. http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/sli...istine_hi.html Joe It's all those recreational boaters destroying the world. Boaters don't pay enough in taxes. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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! Hey Neal, get out of that trailer and take a road trip. Journey to Newfoundland, (you'll have to get on ferry, you'll get more sea time in one day than you've accumulated in the last twenty years). Stop at few of the villages on the Atlantic as you drive around the island. 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. Ask them to tell you how much cod was available in the Grand Banks during the '30s. Oh, and don't be as obnoxious there as you are on this group; while the Newfies are just about the friendliest bunch of folks you're likely to find on the planet, they don't like bull**** and they don't mind clocking someone who desperately deserves it. Cheers Marty |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"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. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"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. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"mr.b" wrote in message ... 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 |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
JimB wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message ... 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. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:17 +0000, JimB wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message ... 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'? fine...I lost my zen-mind for a moment...but there do seem to be a large number of seemingly "educated" people who refuse to see both the forest and the trees if I can put it that way...I suppose a definition of "educated" or"smart" would assist 'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue. ah but not untrue if you happen to subscribe to the Millenial flavour of Christianity...and these true believers want it to happen!!?! 'change is inevitable' - true there's the rub...our environment changes because it does, and because of what we do...but from my read of history, human nature has not changed and our actions as a species do not indicate to me any coming change...and for us, I think for humans, the self-limiting nature of our finite ecosystem will find its expression in our self-induced extinction at worst and extirpation at best...sadly because we are -to use your words- too "ill educated" to survive ourselves. |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
mr.b wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:17 +0000, JimB wrote: "mr.b" wrote in message ... 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'? fine...I lost my zen-mind for a moment...but there do seem to be a large number of seemingly "educated" people who refuse to see both the forest and the trees if I can put it that way...I suppose a definition of "educated" or"smart" would assist 'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue. ah but not untrue if you happen to subscribe to the Millenial flavour of Christianity...and these true believers want it to happen!!?! 'change is inevitable' - true there's the rub...our environment changes because it does, and because of what we do...but from my read of history, human nature has not changed and our actions as a species do not indicate to me any coming change...and for us, I think for humans, the self-limiting nature of our finite ecosystem will find its expression in our self-induced extinction at worst and extirpation at best...sadly because we are -to use your words- too "ill educated" to survive ourselves. Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false, because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone. Stephen |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
I can't decide if the Black River polution problem is completely cleared, or if it has caused some - mutation??? 1000 pound sturgeon! Hi As I mentined before here, my sweedish step dad commercial fished off the OR-WA coast in the late 50s up to 1980. When I was a about 10 it was not unusuall for him to bring home green sturgon that half would hang out the bed of a pickup: 500 lbs was about right, We never though anything diffrent. Just ate lots of sturgon and traded it. But the big ones were on display at the Bonneville Fish hatchery. But my uncles worked on the Columbia river when the Dalles Damn was built 1940s Thats where they say the really big river sturgon. When some rock was blasted for the Damn 16'+ fish were floating to the top. Kinda like killing a readwood. takes a long time to grow one. So have a seen change in my life, yup WHat have I learned....... Repubicans have no respect for the past. They are like spoild children who only want immediate gratification and do not care, respect, or regard the past or futre. They call it other things.... but actions speak lounder than their words. Just look at the results of their actins and yo will see a self serving spoild brat. Bob |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
"hpeer" wrote in message m... 1. Not "stupid" or "ill educated" but "self centered" and/or "short sighted" Yes. Nice. "The end of the world AS WE KNOW IT is nigh" and always will be . . . ------------------------------------------ 1. What it the correct number of people to have a maximum human experience? 2. Why is it that this question is never debated? Frightening, isn't it? Implications of population control, denial of the rights to re-produce, dreadfully non PC points of view. It will, of course, evolve naturally, so perhaps it doesn't need to be debated. But the changes involved will (and do already) terrify many whose lives will be changed. 'Stick your finger in the dyke, young man, we can't have a another flood . . ..' -- JimB Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com Compares Cruise areas of Europe |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false, because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone. Stephen Steve, I wasn't going to respond, I suspect that our world views are just far to divergent to engage in a meaningful dialog. However, serendipitously (being something of a Geek myself I love it when spell check lets me use really big words) I came across the following. I offer this not to insult or diminish you, but just because it was in my face. BTW I freely admit to being a "doomer." Panglossian Disorder: "The neurotic tendency toward extreme optimism in the face of likely cultural and planetary collapse." I have spoken elsewhere about the label "Doomer," and I've come to believe that this frame is outdated. Instead, I would like to suggest that we must stop asking ourselves, given the lateness of the hour, why there are those pessimistic about the future, and begin asking, instead, why there are those still blindly and enthusiastically optimistic about it. We can easily see why those who might be gloomy about the future could feel hopeless and take the path of inactivity. On the other hand, this same fear of disaster can motivate constructive action in an attempt to mitigate the effects. Not so, however, for those who see no NEED to take action, because they live in the best of all possible worlds. Indeed, I might argue that it is the very blind hopefulness and inaction of the masses that leads many of my readers to assume a more hopeless posture toward world events. Full text: http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
hpeer wrote:
Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false, because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone. Stephen Steve, I wasn't going to respond, I suspect that our world views are just far to divergent to engage in a meaningful dialog. However, serendipitously (being something of a Geek myself I love it when spell check lets me use really big words) I came across the following. I offer this not to insult or diminish you, but just because it was in my face. BTW I freely admit to being a "doomer." Panglossian Disorder: "The neurotic tendency toward extreme optimism in the face of likely cultural and planetary collapse." I have spoken elsewhere about the label "Doomer," and I've come to believe that this frame is outdated. Instead, I would like to suggest that we must stop asking ourselves, given the lateness of the hour, why there are those pessimistic about the future, and begin asking, instead, why there are those still blindly and enthusiastically optimistic about it. We can easily see why those who might be gloomy about the future could feel hopeless and take the path of inactivity. On the other hand, this same fear of disaster can motivate constructive action in an attempt to mitigate the effects. Not so, however, for those who see no NEED to take action, because they live in the best of all possible worlds. Indeed, I might argue that it is the very blind hopefulness and inaction of the masses that leads many of my readers to assume a more hopeless posture toward world events. Full text: http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html There is a very simple and clear reason for being optimistic about the future. Throughout the history of mankind we have continuously been coming up with new ideas to better the well being of mankind. There are less innocent people being killed, tortured, abused, starved, etc, etc than ever before thanks to better morality and better technology than ever before. This improvement has continued through all of recorded history and shows no sign of stopping now. Perhaps you should ask yourself what condition makes you blind to this? Stephen |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:14:38 -0800, a "Stephen Trapani" wrote this:
Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false, because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone. Stephen and then apparently wrote this: There is a very simple and clear reason for being optimistic about the future. Throughout the history of mankind we have continuously been coming up with new ideas to better the well being of mankind. There are less innocent people being killed, tortured, abused, starved, etc, etc than ever before thanks to better morality and better technology than ever before. This improvement has continued through all of recorded history and shows no sign of stopping now. Perhaps you should ask yourself what condition makes you blind to this? yikes! Stephen!! where are you getting those drugs??? share!! |
Pictures do not lie..Shifting Baselines
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:52:35 -0500, mr.b wrote
(in article ): On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:14:38 -0800, a "Stephen Trapani" wrote this: Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false, because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone. Stephen and then apparently wrote this: There is a very simple and clear reason for being optimistic about the future. Throughout the history of mankind we have continuously been coming up with new ideas to better the well being of mankind. There are less innocent people being killed, tortured, abused, starved, etc, etc than ever before thanks to better morality and better technology than ever before. This improvement has continued through all of recorded history and shows no sign of stopping now. Perhaps you should ask yourself what condition makes you blind to this? yikes! Stephen!! where are you getting those drugs??? share!! Face it... We are like the fruit fly in the jar experiment. We will breed into overpopulation... Deplete all our resources and die in our own excrement. That my friends is the good news. Just trying to be a little optimistic -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com