EnviroLink Forum

Forget the rant of our local fruitcake and go to the links of proof yourself.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

7billion more trees http://www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign ... s/eden.asp from one country alone
+ these efforts: http://www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign ... /index.asp

Here is an article with some explanation of methane release from the tundras. What it doesn't say is that atmospheric heat warms the oceans and they have much more methane hydrate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

There's your "thermageddon" for you. Read it, people. Comment if you've got the guts---no one has for a month!!!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

From the Denver Post about a month ago: "Colorado State Forest Service Director Jeff Jahnke said 'Since 1988 the number of 1,000 acre or larger fires has QUADRUPLED. The typical fire burns six times more land, and the fire season is 78 days longer.'"

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

From the reports, Russia is just cooking right now.

As we all know global warming happens when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature. We know that any living creatures can be hurt because of this and when someone cannot take it then most probably it can result to death. Surely, in the next hundreds of years the effect will getting worst and worst but hopefully people might do something in order to alter this. We should start within ourselves.

Literally.....baking and choking from peat bog fires of far beyond historic magnitude because of AGW. AGW from methane releases from CO2 warming to CH4 warming in their tundras..enabling beyond historic fires. It won't be getting better......not in anyone's lifetime.
Then you have the denialists and the ignorant...

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

There is little if any hope. Humans will populate and congregate themselves into oblivion. Stay clear of the cities or at least, live on the outskirts so you can get the hell out of dodge easily when necessary...and it will, perhaps, become necessary in our lifetime.

_________________
TANG SOO!

There is little hope if we continue to ignore the fact that we are one people. If we live in cities or towns, it might be a good idea to share our backyards with each other.

If it is necessary to get out of Dodge, I wonder what the next Dodge will look like, especially if that Dodge is as scared as you? If the town you flee to is as protective and survival/security based as you are .... then what? Getting out of Dodge leads one to ..... Dodge?

... we are all here together and we would do well to figure this out .... together. It's not us against them .... it's just us! (there is no them).

There is more than enough difference between people as to be separate species. Most have more in common with chimpanzees than the top 3% in intelligence.
Two disasters are coming, the first is the population crash where the cities will get hit hardest, and survival will depend on remoteness and cooperative village living.
Hitting more and more will be malevolent climate change, with natural reactions already at tipping points that will extend to worsening conditions for hundreds of years. The perhaps a few areas, by luck of geography will be less hit, and many people will go to underground living. This disaster will destroy support ecosystems, and the change will be faster than most life can adapt. It will be up to several million years before conditions are again similar to this interglacial epoch. This Anthropocene Epoch marked by extinction of over 3/4s of species, but will any future paleoanthropologist or geologist even see it in the rock layers?
How long will humans last underground or in less grievously hit areas? Will these less badly hit areas stay that way? How long will underground nuclear reactors provide power for grow lights?
Will people last for more than a few hundred years? Will people be around when the last of the plastic on land and in the oceans finally breaks down in 50,000 years? Will the ecosystems and species that can adapt in time and survive, be helpful for human survival?
Our extinction is not 100% certain, but close.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

You can get as philosophical and judging as you wish. The fact of the matter is that there are too many of "us". Sharing, tolerance, and conservation don't address the root cause of overpopulating.

_________________
TANG SOO!

There are a lot of us for sure. i believe we are now numbered at around 6.7 billion, maybe 6.8 which means there are many who are reproducing or will soon be reproducing - especially in the more traditional, religious countries, and even more so in countries where women have few rights including the right to be educated. I don't disagree that over population is a problem but I see that the inequitable economic systems we have in place are an even bigger problem. A competetive market means individuals, companies and multinationals are polluting the environments of every country. When people can no longer grow their own food or be assured of clean drinking water, when their environments are over-ridden with mining companies and factories that degrade the air, water and land .... this, IMO, is a far greater problem. Once these countries can reclaim their surroundings, they might then be able to raise their education levels which would, in turn, decrease population. In countries where women and men are educated, there is often a negative pop growth - none at all if it weren't for immigration. But of course, people from more densely populated countries come spilling in and they will continue to do so.

As I said in another posting this summer, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Org (FAO) reports that current food production can sustain world food needs even for the 8 billion people projected to inhabit the planet in 2030 - and this, without the use of GMOs. Resources go furthest when people produce their own food near to where it is consumed. There are many hunger relief organizations provide assistance by teaching and providing support technology for locally appropriate, sustainable farming. The multinationals don't end up getting a pay-check, but the people get a livlihood while the real root of hunger is also addressed - which is not about food production, but about poverty.

The two sites below are about organizations doing just this. The second one has several interesting articles.

http://www.wn.org/site/c.coIELNOsGpF/b. ... 2/Home.htm

http://www.wn.org/site/c.coIELNOsGpF/b. ... 2/Home.htm

We are overpopulated, but I believe it is the economic systems and our patterns of consumption which are creating the most havoc and i think that more equitable and less consumptive behavior will go far in reducing over-population.

Johnny, please explain your reasoning re: intelligence. I know, for absolute sure, that i am not within the 3% that are the most itelligent. (Or maybe i am and there has not been a tool to measure it - how do you measure the poet, mystic, artist's intelligence?) I don't know how you have come up with the 3% figure except that there is always a small outlier group in statistical analysis. When looking at the world from a statistical standpoint, there must be an outlier group. If 97% are more intellectually akin to chimps, so be it, but are you then saying that 97% of us are too dumb, dumb like chimps, to figure out how to live together peacefully on our little planet? Are you saying that it is only the outlier group who should have anything to say? And do you consider yourself a member of the 3%?

It seems the most intelligent people have been able to integrate knowledge to form a holistic perspective - and IQ tests are not exactly holistic, so how does one measure such things? And after measurement, so what?



I'm all for cooperative living, which is why taking down fences, even between countries, strikes me as an "intelligent" idea.



Climate change, even while the multinationals, most noteably the oil companies, spin other stories and even use scientists as 'shrills' to back their propoganda ( the shrills may even be part of the 3% you speak of, even as they rent out their PH.D's)), is preventable. i don't know that underground living will be beneficial - I would rather be over-ground. i don't want to live in a secure prison unless my family and friends and neighbors and community, can also be there. If they can't, what's the point? We are all here together, even dumb people like my friends and family and general community. and yes, even me! i would love for all people of average intelligence to survive this crisis. And I believe that our intelligence, our common sense, and our recognition of connectivity, could well survive this crisis, even if 3% are smarter than us. (I would even vouch for the survival of other species too).

How long will humans last underground or in less grievously hit areas? Will these less badly hit areas stay that way? How long will underground nuclear reactors provide power for grow lights?
Will people last for more than a few hundred years? Will people be around when the last of the plastic on land and in the oceans finally breaks down in 50,000 years? Will the ecosystems and species that can adapt in time and survive, be helpful for human survival?
Our extinction is not 100% certain, but close. [/quote]

We are, as you say, at crisis point. I get what you are saying and I also get that you and your family have taken measures to lessen your individual footprints. i applaud you and believe you have much to teach your community, (including the community of this forum). You may be a leader by example and hopefully more .... but if you set yourself up as special ... you are in for delusion. The practical advice you have offered is immeasureable in terms of "us' as there is no other .... for even 'dumb' people, the other 97%, would like practical solutions to the folly of the idea of individualism. In other words, it's not about "us" vs "them".

Your head seems to be wrapped around disaster. You seem prepared for disaster. it may be wise for us all to prepare for disaster, but to my mind, we are in this together and my needs are not different from my neighbors, friends, family, and ultimately, community.

I am an individul, like you are, and we are both living in this matrix of community - an interconnective whole. What good is individual survival if it does not include others? Even the less intelligent than the 3%? Is there a way for us all to get along regardless of whatever IQ tests one has been subjected to or have been subjected to? (I've NEVER been subjected to such a test - (thank God or Goddess).

~~~~ Animal Friendly

The UN FAO is full of crap if they think the world can sustain growing enough for 8 billion to live.
With the rise from sustainable in 1910 to the 6.9 billion of now, soil depletion has been at an average of 1" loss per 10-12 years and significant humus/micronutient loss. That is 2/3rds of what there was back when humans were at a sustainable population. It is at a rate of 100 times average regeneration rate. It is similar with the use of aquifer water----2/3rds gone and being used at 100 times recharge rate, with major aquifers known to be gone by 2040 or before. It is also known that irrigation yields 6 times the amount of dry farming.
If the world were at a sustainable population, there would be no resource use over natural recharge and regeneration rates. But there has been, and since 1910.
Look at the percentage of people who are living on green power, having only one or no children to reduce population to sustainable, growing their own food with complete nutrition or getting it locally, and look at the percentage that are composting to make up for the soil loss.
People are not all the same happy family, but are interconnected through the global biosphere being polluted as a function of overpopulation. The overpopulation is being driven by the lowest spectrum of IQ, and those of even over average IQ but still too low to see the consequences of their actions in the future. Still too low to not be influenced by religious or cultural effects, or common selfish greed.
So what is the percentage of the population not having more than one child? What is the percentage of population living on solar or wind power? How about self built/installed independent systems? What is the percentage of the population who are the inventors of complex devices, scientists? What is the percentage of producers, to the percentage of service and non-producing people?
The world is full of sick, out of balance societies, with too few actually living sustainably in all ways. Various population groups are not equal at all, or anywhere near alike, except, unfortunately, genetically. Over-compassion is a human weakness, as is over-tolerance (like allowing a literal invasion of over-breeding, generally low IQ, hordes which will collapse a once great nation). Crowd tolerance is a negative genetic trait induced by crowded living over time. Ten thousand years ago only the crowd intolerance gene was present. The population was well below maximum sustainable, and when people felt crowded, they would move out to form another village. Now, there has been a vast increase in the human overcrowding syndrome, characterized by increased hostility, increased depressive illnesses, increased anxiety disorders, to the point of medications for them being pollutants in waterways (along with hormones for birth control trying to stem the cancerous growth). The developed crowd tolerance (which used to be a mainly Asian trait) has led to extreme overshoot of long term sustainable population, and with it, the attendant pollution and depletion of resources on a global scale.
Sustainability, and sustainable living, along with advanced biology and ecology are very difficult to teach to those of below 100 IQ. Even those with a modicum of knowledge about ecology most often do not apply the principles to themselves or humanity in general. The dumbing down of America has been documented and shows itself in fewer now "believing in" global warming (a scientific demonstrable fact) than just a few years ago.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Yikes, that is some hefty debate!

I am sorry to stick my head in the sand but I just hope that I am not around when the planet descends into environmental chaos.