More Green Stupidity

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

More Green Stupidity

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:54 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 950442.ece

One would love to see the science backing up this conclusion! I wonder how long it will be before someone decides that this conclusion is really "beyond legitimate scientific debate." :roll:

This is the trouble when start listening to, and funding, these fruitcakes. They come up with more and more half-baked garbage like this.

Just think how wonderful the planet would be if there were no humans at all!!!

BWV 1080
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by BWV 1080 » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:15 am

OK if the UK population is 60M today that is a 50% reduction

(which is probably how the bozo got to the 30M number)

Perhaps Porritt could show some real leadership on the issue by taking a swim out into the Atlantic

Seriously Malthus was correct in his analysis and it applied more or less perfectly to pre-modern societies which had viscious cycles of population booms and busts, however since the industrial revolution, technology and capitalism have continually moved the malthusian limit beyond the growing population. Britain's population, like most of the developed world has stabilized with the marginal growth coming from immigration.

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:01 pm

BWV 1080 wrote:OK if the UK population is 60M today that is a 50% reduction

(which is probably how the bozo got to the 30M number)

Perhaps Porritt could show some real leadership on the issue by taking a swim out into the Atlantic

Seriously Malthus was correct in his analysis and it applied more or less perfectly to pre-modern societies which had viscious cycles of population booms and busts, however since the industrial revolution, technology and capitalism have continually moved the malthusian limit beyond the growing population. Britain's population, like most of the developed world has stabilized with the marginal growth coming from immigration.
Yep, but these folks could care less about whether more people could be "sustained". They only care that the added people would be using cars, turning on the lights and exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere. So they must Die!

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:32 pm

JackC wrote: Yep, but these folks could care less about whether more people could be "sustained". They only care that the added people would be using cars, turning on the lights and exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere. So they must Die!
Oh well, not sure I prefer the other side of the coin, where more people equate with more consumers to spur economic growth. Sometimes I think of the big picture, I live amid a cluster of millions of creatures, all slumped in their reclining chairs in front of the television, their distended abdomines decorated with potato chip crumbs and smudges of Coca Cola, a steady stream of currency being extracted form their credit card accounts and home equity lines. Not a far stretch from humans in their pods in The Matrix. :shock:

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Steinway » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:28 pm

Nut Job..

Great post.

Are you a newbie? Haven't seen your name before.

Stick around and join in on the festivities. :lol:

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:38 pm

nut-job wrote:
JackC wrote: Yep, but these folks could care less about whether more people could be "sustained". They only care that the added people would be using cars, turning on the lights and exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere. So they must Die!
Oh well, not sure I prefer the other side of the coin, where more people equate with more consumers to spur economic growth. Sometimes I think of the big picture, I live amid a cluster of millions of creatures, all slumped in their reclining chairs in front of the television, their distended abdomines decorated with potato chip crumbs and smudges of Coca Cola, a steady stream of currency being extracted form their credit card accounts and home equity lines. Not a far stretch from humans in their pods in The Matrix. :shock:
Yep, the people who put out these studies hate humans more than anything. If only we would just disappear and leave the planet to the rest animal kingdom.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:50 pm

JackC wrote:Yep, the people who put out these studies hate humans more than anything. If only we would just disappear and leave the planet to the rest animal kingdom.
It is not a matter of hating humans, but of appreciating that being a consumer isn't the ultimate purpose of existence, and that the world will be more beautiful and more sustainable if the diversity of live that has developed here is protected. One thing the human organism shares with the rest of the animal kingdom is that it is ultimately threatened by unrestrained domination of the world and its resources by the human organism. :mrgreen:

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:55 pm

nut-job wrote:
JackC wrote:Yep, the people who put out these studies hate humans more than anything. If only we would just disappear and leave the planet to the rest animal kingdom.
It is not a matter of hating humans, but of appreciating that being a consumer isn't the ultimate purpose of existence, and that the world will be more beautiful and more sustainable if the diversity of live that has developed here is protected. One thing the human organism shares with the rest of the animal kingdom is that it is ultimately threatened by unrestrained domination of the world and its resources by the human organism. :mrgreen:
You must be from the 60s! Welcome! :wink:

By the way, can we go tell all the billions of people in China, India and Africa who dream of an easier "consumer" life that they have not learned "the ultimate purpose of existence" and that "the world will be more beautiful and more sustainable if the diversity of live that has developed here is protected?"

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:39 pm

nut-job wrote:
JackC wrote: Yep, but these folks could care less about whether more people could be "sustained". They only care that the added people would be using cars, turning on the lights and exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere. So they must Die!
Oh well, not sure I prefer the other side of the coin, where more people equate with more consumers to spur economic growth. Sometimes I think of the big picture, I live amid a cluster of millions of creatures, all slumped in their reclining chairs in front of the television, their distended abdomines decorated with potato chip crumbs and smudges of Coca Cola, a steady stream of currency being extracted form their credit card accounts and home equity lines. Not a far stretch from humans in their pods in The Matrix. :shock:
I'm with you regarding the necessity and presumed benefits of continual economic growth, both at home and to create new markets around the world. I agree also with those who regard reducing U.S. and U.K. populations to reduce CO2 output as rediculous....far better for the health of the planet for our Governments to promote/finance population control measures by way of educating women and providing them with effective birth control measures. It's rather obvious the Papal admonition of "abstinence" is Not working!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:42 pm

JackC wrote:By the way, can we go tell all the billions of people in China, India and Africa who dream of an easier "consumer" life that they have not learned "the ultimate purpose of existence" and that "the world will be more beautiful and more sustainable if the diversity of live that has developed here is protected?"
By all means, increase in standard of living is the legitimate goal of development. I think it can done in a manner which makes much more efficient use of energy and resources, and doesn't have such a negative impact on other forms of life. In the US, for instance, a dramatic majority of old growth forest is gone. Do you think that is good? In some of the poorest parts of Africa, some of the most valuable, pristine wilderness is being obliterated because the only way indigent people can stay alive is to make charcoal and sell it to impoverished city dwellers. The habitats for a huge variety of endangered animals is disappearing for this reason. Is this a good thing?

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:58 pm

nut-job wrote:By all means, increase in standard of living is the legitimate goal of development. I think it can done in a manner which makes much more efficient use of energy and resources, and doesn't have such a negative impact on other forms of life.
We don't make their development decisions for them. They are going with what is cheapest and will get their citizens up the mountain of development the fastest. All this happy talk about what the developing world "can do" if they were as constipated with environmentalists as we are is simply wishful thinking, unless of course the environmentalists are prepared to take up arms and force the developing nations to do as they are told and not what is best for them.
In the US, for instance, a dramatic majority of old growth forest is gone. Do you think that is good?


What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.
In some of the poorest parts of Africa, some of the most valuable, pristine wilderness is being obliterated because the only way indigent people can stay alive is to make charcoal and sell it to impoverished city dwellers.


I'm sure you have no idea how arrogant that sounds. It's a "we got ours, but you can't have yours" argument, that fortunately few of them are paying any attention to. The "is it good?" question is meaningless without the context of the other more people-friendly arguments on the other side. Preservation of old-growth forests and habitat is not a self-evident or sacred good out of context.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

slofstra
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by slofstra » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:58 pm

nut-job wrote:
JackC wrote: Yep, but these folks could care less about whether more people could be "sustained". They only care that the added people would be using cars, turning on the lights and exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere. So they must Die!
Oh well, not sure I prefer the other side of the coin, where more people equate with more consumers to spur economic growth. Sometimes I think of the big picture, I live amid a cluster of millions of creatures, all slumped in their reclining chairs in front of the television, their distended abdomines decorated with potato chip crumbs and smudges of Coca Cola, a steady stream of currency being extracted form their credit card accounts and home equity lines. Not a far stretch from humans in their pods in The Matrix. :shock:
Any chance you've seen Wall-E?

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:05 pm

I'm from the camp which takes global climate change and the environment seriously, and have little sympathy for those who would place short term corporate profitablility ahead of the health of our atmosphere. Needless to say I applaud the promotion of clean energy policy included in Obama's first budget.
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

slofstra
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by slofstra » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:06 pm

I'm sure you have no idea how arrogant that sounds. It's a "we got ours, but you can't have yours" argument, that fortunately few of them are paying any attention to. The "is it good?" question is meaningless without the context of the other more people-friendly arguments on the other side. Preservation of old-growth forests and habitat is not a self-evident or sacred good out of context.
In Haiti all the trees were cut down years ago. The result was severe erosion and arable land taken out of production. I agree it's not an easy situation but Western concern isn't rooted in arrogance. The poor often have to choose between the right decision for the long term, and the decision that will put food on their table today.
Last edited by slofstra on Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:24 pm

slofstra wrote:In Haiti all the trees were cut down years ago. The result was severe erosion and arable land taken out of production. I agree it's not an easy situation but the concern isn't rooted in arrogance. The poor often have to choose between the right decision for the long term, and the decision that will put food on their table today.
And on the other side of the same island, across from Haiti, is the Dominican Republic, which has preserved its forest to a great extent and has a GDP per capita which is 8 times higher than Haiti. Managing resources to prevent environmental destruction leads to better quality of life in the long run.

DavidRoss
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:05 am
Location: Northern California

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by DavidRoss » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:26 pm

As a species, our inability to keep our peckers in our pants is the primary failing that prevents us from dealing effectively with all the other challenges we face. It's not done much good for the West to get hip to this and get our own population growth under better control, because the benefits of Western science, medicine, and agriculture have only fed population growth in the rest of the world. I figure Western culture will drown in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism long before mass starvation and viral epidemics cut us all down to size. Before then the battle for hegemony between China & Islam might prove interesting, but I doubt I'll live to see that played out.

If there's a solution to this situation, it hasn't been discovered in the 200 years since Malthus described it, and given the painful slowness to learn of the creature who ironically styles himself "the wise hominid," I doubt we'll find one before nature is forced to teach us some humility.
"Most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ~Leo Tolstoy

"It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character." ~Dale Turner

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." ~Albert Einstein
"Truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it; but, in the end, there it is." ~Winston Churchill

Image

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:43 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.
In some of the poorest parts of Africa, some of the most valuable, pristine wilderness is being obliterated because the only way indigent people can stay alive is to make charcoal and sell it to impoverished city dwellers.


I'm sure you have no idea how arrogant that sounds. It's a "we got ours, but you can't have yours" argument, that fortunately few of them are paying any attention to. The "is it good?" question is meaningless without the context of the other more people-friendly arguments on the other side. Preservation of old-growth forests and habitat is not a self-evident or sacred good out of context.
The fact that you declare that the earth "exists for man to use" strikes me as supremely arrogant. An old growth forest is a rich ecosystem where many varieties of plant and animal live. The forest that regrows after land has been clear cut (which is what we have throughout upstate New York, for instance) is very different. That forrests containing up to 2000 year old Sequoas could be clear cut to make lawn furniture strikes me as extremely short sighted.

Regarding charcoal, I understand perfectly that no one will ever decide not to eat because they hesitate to destroy a beautiful wilderness. But that wilderness is very valuable, western tourists are willing to pay large sums to visit it, but they can't because these wildernesses are overrun with poachers, war-lords, insurgent and counter-insurgent militias, etc. I don't think it is arrogant to think that with wise management the people there might have to opportunity to benefit from the pristine wilderness in their country, better than by cutting it down an burning it to make charcoal.

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Steinway » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:04 pm

What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.

Corlyss..

What a telling line that is! :roll:

Unfortunately, it's not the old trees that we nature lovers are agonizing about, but the forests of the world that are being decimated. Should that concern everyone or should we to allow this continuing destructionto go unabated, caring little for the future of the people who are still there when we are long gone??

You called me a "Twit" , which is your right, but I could come up with a few labels for you which apply very well.

Stand by!

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:18 pm

Cliftwood wrote:What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.

Corlyss..

What a telling line that is! :roll:

Unfortunately, it's not the old trees that we nature lovers are agonizing about, but the forests of the world that are being decimated. Should that concern everyone or should we to allow this continuing destructionto go unabated, caring little for the future of the people who are still there when we are long gone??

You called me a "Twit" , which is your right, but I could come up with a few labels for you which apply very well.

Stand by!
It is important to remember that we have many folks here in the U.S. who agree with Jerry Falwell of recent memory that tree-huggers are clueless, since God had told him personally that there was no such thing as "Global Warming".
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:49 pm

nut-job wrote:
JackC wrote:Yep, the people who put out these studies hate humans more than anything. If only we would just disappear and leave the planet to the rest animal kingdom.
It is not a matter of hating humans,
Obviously you don't know the literature or the intellectual roots of the crackpots that call themselves environmental activists.
but of appreciating that being a consumer isn't the ultimate purpose of existence,
A typical strawman. In reality, there are so few people that think they were born to consume at everyone else's expense that characterizing the rest of us that way is simply self-delusion. But self-delusion is a hallmark of econuts.
and that the world will be more beautiful and more sustainable if the diversity of live that has developed here is protected.


More gagging preciousness from the usual suspects!
One thing the human organism shares with the rest of the animal kingdom is that it is ultimately threatened by unrestrained domination of the world and its resources by the human organism.
Since we have never had "unrestrained domination" of much of anything, how is it even a subject for rank speculation except to hype the hysteria?
The fact that you declare that the earth "exists for man to use" strikes me as supremely arrogant.
When the trees develop civilization and the rocks create technology and amoebas produce complex societies capable of music, art and literature, I'll worry about human arrogance. In the meantime, I'm not going to go back to a primitive life style waiting for them to catch up. If you think humans living in 3rd world nations outside the suicidal West and who now for the first time in history have a serious chance to realize prosperous lives will accept a lower standard of living to humor environmentalists, you're deluding yourself.

Image
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:44 pm

Let's admit it fellow tree-huggers, an always pragmatic Corlyss reminds us God gave us dominion over the world and everything in it to be used and abused by those who make the rules.
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:25 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:When the trees develop civilization and the rocks create technology and amoebas produce complex societies capable of music, art and literature, I'll worry about human arrogance. In the meantime, I'm not going to go back to a primitive life style waiting for them to catch up. If you think humans living in 3rd world nations outside the suicidal West and who now for the first time in history have a serious chance to realize prosperous lives will accept a lower standard of living to humor environmentalists, you're deluding yourself.
Obviously the easiest way to refute a point of view is the first replace it with a silly parody that can be dismissed with a glib statement.

The variety of life on this planet took approximately 4 billion years to evolve. Once these life forms are gone they are gone for good. To recklessly and needlessly drive them to extinction does not benefit man in the long run.

I also never suggested going back to a primitive lifestyle, but going to a more advanced lifestyle which uses energy and resources efficiently and which will create sustainable prosperity. I also didn't suggest that anyone would accept a lower lifestyle to humor environmentalists, only that the advanced nations could make create technology and economic conditions which would give people in developing nations an economic incentive to build sustainable economies.

I now look forward to seeing what statements and opinions I have never held or espoused you will attribute to me in order to dismiss my comments.

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm

Please note nut-job that I've known Corlyss and her polemical style for many years, and learned long ago she can is capable of burying any apponent in a barrage of forceful rhetoric any time she gets her dander up. I've also learned her bark is worse than her bite, and no appeal to humanitarian principles will modify her strongly held opinions. I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

absinthe
Posts: 3624
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:13 pm
Location: UK

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by absinthe » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:54 pm

As far as I can see, humanity is pushing the ecology increasingly out of range of supporting it. Eventually its support will cease and humanity will die out - maybe another 100-200 years after which the ecology will rebuild itself. In 10,000 years - nothing in the cosmic scale - most traces of humanity will have been erased.

Amazing to read how few posters understand the ecological issue with tropical forests/wood. Since the trees contain the "goodness" of the forest (it isn't in the soil, believe me, if you've ever tried to machine teak or ebony you'll know from the number of machine tools you'll have to replace), the death, rotting and reabsorption of the minerals is vital to the sustaining of the forest - more than just chemicals it's process and timing. Just cut those trees down and the area has had it.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:03 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:Please note nut-job that I've known Corlyss and her polemical style for many years, and learned long ago she can is capable of burying any apponent in a barrage of forceful rhetoric any time she gets her dander up. I've also learned her bark is worse than her bite, and no appeal to humanitarian principles will modify her strongly held opinions. I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!
Believe me, Dennis, I know what I am dealing with. There is no reasoning with such a one. The only issue at stake is whether you can rally the peanut gallery to your point of view. To paraphrase what Dorothy might have said at such a juncture, "Dennis, I've a feeling we're not in Ionia anymore."

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Steinway » Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:02 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:Please note nut-job that I've known Corlyss and her polemical style for many years, and learned long ago she can is capable of burying any apponent in a barrage of forceful rhetoric any time she gets her dander up. I've also learned her bark is worse than her bite, and no appeal to humanitarian principles will modify her strongly held opinions. I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!

I have this nightmare that we will get buried in Corlyss's rhetoric and always try to temper my comments so as to never rile her up too harshly. She fancies herself as a leading authority on just about all issues and has liitle regard for any opposition that may appear.

Her comments re the environment and her amazing statement about environmentalists speak volumes about her thought processes. :roll:

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:10 pm

A point well made nut job, and I cannot tell you what warm feelings are called to mind by recalling those glorious months of chivalry in defense of our precocious young Queen and her idylic kingdom!!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:25 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:A point well made nut job, and I cannot tell you what warm feelings are called to mind by recalling those glorious months of chivalry in defense of our precocious young Queen and her idylic kingdom!!
Yes, and I can assume that our precocious young queen has by now graduated from conservatory and has a secure future working at Walmart?

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:51 pm

nut-job wrote:
Dennis Spath wrote:A point well made nut job, and I cannot tell you what warm feelings are called to mind by recalling those glorious months of chivalry in defense of our precocious young Queen and her idylic kingdom!!
Yes, and I can assume that our precocious young queen has by now graduated from conservatory and has a secure future working at Walmart?
One would hope the "Brave and daring trumpeter" has enjoyed a more productive fate! Unfortunately she's been off of the community radar screen for quite a while. A few years back I sent a card to her mailing address in Oklahoma, retrieved from a Christmas card she'd sent to me. There was no reply.
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:49 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:One would hope the "Brave and daring trumpeter" has enjoyed a more productive fate! Unfortunately she's been off of the community radar screen for quite a while. A few years back I sent a card to her mailing address in Oklahoma, retrieved from a Christmas card she'd sent to me. There was no reply.
Have you never heard of Google, man?

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by RebLem » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:20 am

I hardly know where to begin. First of all, there is a dangerous crew of "environmentalists" with a population reduction agenda that would make Hitler look like a piker. Check out Helen Caldicott as one example. She goes around the world, expending an enormous amount of jet fuel, to tell us how dangerous the world will be if every Chinese family gets a refrigerator and a car. She doesn't quite say so, but the unavoidable conclusion is that genocide is in our future--all in the interests of a more humane and sustainable world, of course.

Forests, and all plant life, Corlyss, consume carbon dioxide, which is poisonous to humans in excessive amounts. They also produce lots of oxygen, which is essential for most animal life forms, esp. mammals. They are an essential part of a sustainable ecosystem. Are old growth forests, with trees thousands of years old, necessary? Well, for mere mean survival, I suppose not. I suppose you could cut down all the forests and just have a pond of algae on top of every building, and if it were constantly watered, it could probably provide all the carbon dioxide eating and oxygen producing capacity we need, and we could survive in a landscape otherwise barren of all plant life. Why one would be eager to live like that, however, is absolutely beyond me, and I am happy about that. One might have the art and music Corlyss craves, but no more Pastoral Symphonies, or Ma Vlasts, or even another Song of the Forests. Good grief, even Stalin understood the need for reforestation, a program of which Song of the Forests was commissioned to celebrate. There are some deep, dark, ugly recesses of Corlyss's soul I would rather leave unexposed, just as I try to avoid turning over logs in the forest unless I am wearing knee boots.

The idea is not to cut down all the forests to build houses, publish books and newspapers, and provide habitat for an ever expanding humanity. The idea is to find ways of meeting some of the needs cutting down forests presently provide by other means. One of these is switchgrass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass I really urge you all to read this article, because its advantages are astounding; it offers a possibility of contributing to the solution of many of our environmental and economic problems. Switchgrass is one of a number of related tall prairie grasses native to North America. When we non-Indians got here, much of the continent was full of it and related species. It has a deep root structure which uses soil and water resources sparingly and holds on to the soil so and limits agricultural runoff. But when we got here, we destroyed most of the native prairie and replaced it with Eurasian grassland, which was short grass with a tenuous hold on soil. It was one of the great causes of a series of periodic Dust Bowls, until the CCC under the New Deal started building windbreaks--linear stands of trees, usually on property lines--to limit them. But now, we have other problems caused by our current agricultural methods, not the least of which is that every few years, most of Iowa goes under water because the rivers are silting up with agricultural runoff and not being dredged. So, here are some problems switchgrass can help with:

1. It can hold the soil, needs little fertilizer, is a self seeding and mostly self sustaining crop. It needs very little maintenance and can prevent runoff into the rivers.
2. You can make paper from it so you don't need trees to do that.
3. You can make ethanol from it much more cheaply than with corn, a product which is very hard on soil resources. Its efficiency is near that of the sugar ethanol that is now revolutionizing much of the economy of Brazil.

Haiti is not the only country with severe problems as a result of denuded forests. A few years ago, this happened in much of Central America, where monstrous mudslides destroyed many villages because of deforestation; the forests had been cut down by the eventual victims of deforestation for fuel to heat their homes and woodburning stoves.

So, here's a partial ecofriendly solution to some of our energy problems.

One of our problems is not so much we don't have enough oil, but we don't have enough refinery capacity to refine all the oil that's available to us. Why? No one wants an oil refinery in his backyard. Now, if we build the refineries in Central America and employ the locals, they can use some of the money for reforestation and restoration of human habitat, and, since living standards would be raised by the salaries of refinery workers, and they would have some domestic oil and gas available, it would involve a net economic and environmental gain for the region. Meanwhile, we reserve corn crops for food for ourselves and livestock, and eliminate its use for ethanol production, replacing it with switchgrass so we won't be quite so dependent on what refineries can produce. The Pickens Plan can take care of much of the rest.

Or, we could just wait for the Rapture to take Corlyss and others like her away, and get a population reduction that way. :wink:
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Chosen Barley
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Canada

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Chosen Barley » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:33 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.
You are full of baloney.
STRESSED? Spell it backwards for the cure.

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:44 am

Chosen Barley wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
What is this with the rampant idolatry of old trees? A tree is a tree is a tree. The earth and all its being exists for man to use, not to preserve as a museum.
You are full of baloney.
Well spoken, I'm certain she is not a vegetarian!

BWV 1080
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by BWV 1080 » Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:37 pm

RebLem wrote:I hardly know where to begin. First of all, there is a dangerous crew of "environmentalists" with a population reduction agenda that would make Hitler look like a piker. Check out Helen Caldicott as one example. She goes around the world, expending an enormous amount of jet fuel, to tell us how dangerous the world will be if every Chinese family gets a refrigerator and a car. She doesn't quite say so, but the unavoidable conclusion is that genocide is in our future--all in the interests of a more humane and sustainable world, of course.

Forests, and all plant life, Corlyss, consume carbon dioxide, which is poisonous to humans in excessive amounts. They also produce lots of oxygen, which is essential for most animal life forms, esp. mammals. They are an essential part of a sustainable ecosystem. Are old growth forests, with trees thousands of years old, necessary? Well, for mere mean survival, I suppose not. I suppose you could cut down all the forests and just have a pond of algae on top of every building, and if it were constantly watered, it could probably provide all the carbon dioxide eating and oxygen producing capacity we need, and we could survive in a landscape otherwise barren of all plant life. Why one would be eager to live like that, however, is absolutely beyond me, and I am happy about that. One might have the art and music Corlyss craves, but no more Pastoral Symphonies, or Ma Vlasts, or even another Song of the Forests. Good grief, even Stalin understood the need for reforestation, a program of which Song of the Forests was commissioned to celebrate. There are some deep, dark, ugly recesses of Corlyss's soul I would rather leave unexposed, just as I try to avoid turning over logs in the forest unless I am wearing knee boots.

The idea is not to cut down all the forests to build houses, publish books and newspapers, and provide habitat for an ever expanding humanity. The idea is to find ways of meeting some of the needs cutting down forests presently provide by other means. One of these is switchgrass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass I really urge you all to read this article, because its advantages are astounding; it offers a possibility of contributing to the solution of many of our environmental and economic problems. Switchgrass is one of a number of related tall prairie grasses native to North America. When we non-Indians got here, much of the continent was full of it and related species. It has a deep root structure which uses soil and water resources sparingly and holds on to the soil so and limits agricultural runoff. But when we got here, we destroyed most of the native prairie and replaced it with Eurasian grassland, which was short grass with a tenuous hold on soil. It was one of the great causes of a series of periodic Dust Bowls, until the CCC under the New Deal started building windbreaks--linear stands of trees, usually on property lines--to limit them. But now, we have other problems caused by our current agricultural methods, not the least of which is that every few years, most of Iowa goes under water because the rivers are silting up with agricultural runoff and not being dredged. So, here are some problems switchgrass can help with:

1. It can hold the soil, needs little fertilizer, is a self seeding and mostly self sustaining crop. It needs very little maintenance and can prevent runoff into the rivers.
2. You can make paper from it so you don't need trees to do that.
3. You can make ethanol from it much more cheaply than with corn, a product which is very hard on soil resources. Its efficiency is near that of the sugar ethanol that is now revolutionizing much of the economy of Brazil.

Haiti is not the only country with severe problems as a result of denuded forests. A few years ago, this happened in much of Central America, where monstrous mudslides destroyed many villages because of deforestation; the forests had been cut down by the eventual victims of deforestation for fuel to heat their homes and woodburning stoves.

So, here's a partial ecofriendly solution to some of our energy problems.

One of our problems is not so much we don't have enough oil, but we don't have enough refinery capacity to refine all the oil that's available to us. Why? No one wants an oil refinery in his backyard. Now, if we build the refineries in Central America and employ the locals, they can use some of the money for reforestation and restoration of human habitat, and, since living standards would be raised by the salaries of refinery workers, and they would have some domestic oil and gas available, it would involve a net economic and environmental gain for the region. Meanwhile, we reserve corn crops for food for ourselves and livestock, and eliminate its use for ethanol production, replacing it with switchgrass so we won't be quite so dependent on what refineries can produce. The Pickens Plan can take care of much of the rest.

Or, we could just wait for the Rapture to take Corlyss and others like her away, and get a population reduction that way. :wink:
Basically agree but would quibble here:

- Old growth forests (including rainforests) are not net reducers of CO2, a mature forest is about breakeven with the CO2 uptake from the trees offset by release of CO2 through decomposition and the animal population

-Cutting down old growth forests and burning the wood releases CO2 obviously, but this means that sustainable forestry practices are carbon neutral. A result of this is that wood pellets manufactured from waste material from pine plantations in the Southeast (which are not old growth and are sustainable) is being sold to European utilities to burn instead of coal, as the wood pellets are a carbon neutral fuel. There also is a use for wood cellulose as a future biofuel.

-The main problem in forestry is cutting on public land. Owners of private timberland have a strong economic incentive to preserve the value of their land by following prudent, sustainable forestry practices. A lumber company cutting on public land has an incentive to clear cut and harvest as much wood possible as they have no long-term interest in the forest.

-its a misnomer to talk about "old growth" forests most anywhere in the Northeast, as the natives actively managed the forests through fire and planting. The forests that have grown up wild in upstate NY and other regions over the past few hundred years bear little resemblance to what they would have looked like in precolumbian times

nut-job
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by nut-job » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:13 pm

BWV 1080 wrote:-its a misnomer to talk about "old growth" forests most anywhere in the Northeast, as the natives actively managed the forests through fire and planting. The forests that have grown up wild in upstate NY and other regions over the past few hundred years bear little resemblance to what they would have looked like in precolumbian times
It is a misnomer to talk about the past few hundred years in upstate NY. It is my understanding that the "timber barons" cut most of upstate NY clear by the early 20th century. Forests in more upstate areas are more or less 90 years old. Can be quite pretty, but does not have the diverse ecosystem that a mature forest would have.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:03 am

Dennis Spath wrote: I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!
Right! That's why you guys spend so much cyberink and energy making me the topic of threads and denegrating my opinions. God forbid you should learn anything, even how to rebut an argument with facts. Only a handful of you, like Rob, bother to make me work, which is one reason I'm devoted to Rob and grateful for his presence here. But then we all know these sites are not for rational discussion; they're for trash-talking and venting one's unqualified and untested prejudices.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:20 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Dennis Spath wrote: I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!
Right! That's why you guys spend so much cyberink and energy making me the topic of threads and denegrating my opinions. God forbid you should learn anything, even how to rebut an argument with facts. Only a handful of you, like Rob, bother to make me work, which is one reason I'm devoted to Rob and grateful for his presence here. But then we all know these sites are not for rational discussion; they're for trash-talking and venting one's unqualified and untested prejudices.
Prejudices? To be found here among CMG faithful like yourself? Surely you jest Corlyss!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

Chosen Barley
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Canada

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Chosen Barley » Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Reblem's long post.

Not just switchgrass, but hemp, too. Or do you think it might be inappropriate because it is not native to North America? The way I see it, WE, except for the abos, are not native to N.A., either, and some people think that even they came from elsewhere, too, and not long ago enough to be considered "aboriginal". Back to hemp, though. It has multiple uses:

http://students.ou.edu/W/Elicia.A.Walla ... ofhemp.htm

Mind you, I'd exclude the first category, "Food". I have tried some newfangled "foods" which were rarely or never so used in the distant past, and I don't think that they taste very good. Traditional peoples were not stupid, whatever else they might have been. Apparently the Asians used hemp as food only when they are starving and I can see why. :lol:

Oh, God, I love forests too. When things are not going well, there is nothing like walking into the bush, finding a large fallen log, sitting on it, and having a wail and a think. Scares the wildlife, tho, I'm sure.
STRESSED? Spell it backwards for the cure.

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6724
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by living_stradivarius » Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:36 pm

I don't see how being concerned about population sustainability is a uniquely "green" issue. The article made little mention of actual population-oriented policies but rather focused on the split among environmentalists as to how to approach population growth.

Providing economic incentives to space births or have less children are hardly "frivolous" proposals.
Image

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

I've not observed a requirement to space births for purposes of population control among those of European or Anglo-Saxon heritage in either the U.S. or EU nations. I DO recall the world population being estimated at Three Billion in 1960, with predictions of future mass starvation, and today we are dealing with 6.4 Billion projected to reach 8.5 to 9 Billion by 2050....unless the Christian Fundamentalists realize their prediction of the impending "Rapture" beforehand. It leads one to wonder what President Bush was thinking when encumbering 15 Billion in U.S. AID's prevention funding for the Third World with Abstinence Only education.
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6724
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by living_stradivarius » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:40 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:Please note nut-job that I've known Corlyss and her polemical style for many years, and learned long ago she can is capable of burying any apponent in a barrage of forceful rhetoric any time she gets her dander up. I've also learned her bark is worse than her bite, and no appeal to humanitarian principles will modify her strongly held opinions. I've found the key to appreciating Corlyss is not taking her opinions seriously!
Sift the positive from the normative and you will find much wisdom in her posts 8)
Image

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:40 pm

What an interesting thread...too bad it had to end so soon!
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:17 am

Dennis Spath wrote:What an interesting thread...too bad it had to end so soon!
Many others have supplanted it on the same topic. You gotta come around more often, Dennis. :D
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Corlyss_D » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:10 am

living_stradivarius wrote:I don't see how being concerned about population sustainability is a uniquely "green" issue. The article made little mention of actual population-oriented policies but rather focused on the split among environmentalists as to how to approach population growth.

Providing economic incentives to space births or have less children are hardly "frivolous" proposals.
Limiting population growth has been one of the Utopian goals for at least 100 years. It happens naturally as prosperity increases, but that's not enough for the whack-jobs that claim we are facing the routine "dire consequences" if World Population isn't reduced. Hysterics like the founding fathers of the green movements, e.g., Paul Ehrlich and John Holdern, were predicting in the 60s that there would be famines and devastation in the 1970s with the world convulsing in global wars over food and living space and other resources. As usual with these guys, none of that materialized because the scientist who invented the hybrid grain that caused the original "green revolution" exploded food production world-wide. Naturally, the response of the environmentalists was to do everything in their power to prevent the life-saving grains from being used. So far, they are succeeding in the most desperately poor continent: Africa.

If nature won't cooperate in producing widespread famine and death, the Greens stand ready to make it happen by any means necessary, including banning fertilizers and pesticides and deploying their corrupt leftist politics to seize land and render it incapable of producing foodstuffs. That is the history of the communist inspired decimation of key agricultural areas in Africa throughout the 70s and 80s: as a group, they are not only inherently incompetent economically and agriculturally, they are philosophically determined to destroy agriculture. It's one of their hallmarks as rulers regardless of the culture in which they operate.

People assume population reduction is in itself a worthy goal. On what basis? Some cockamamie idea that the pie is finite and more people mean less for you and me? What hogwash! It's never been true. Why would it be true now? Innovation and trade compensates for what a nation cannot produce itself. Travel permits people to leave here and go there where prospects are better. Both trade and travel have wrought globalization, which as proven the pie is limitless.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: More Green Stupidity

Post by Dennis Spath » Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:29 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
living_stradivarius wrote:I don't see how being concerned about population sustainability is a uniquely "green" issue. The article made little mention of actual population-oriented policies but rather focused on the split among environmentalists as to how to approach population growth.

Providing economic incentives to space births or have less children are hardly "frivolous" proposals.
Limiting population growth has been one of the Utopian goals for at least 100 years. It happens naturally as prosperity increases, but that's not enough for the whack-jobs that claim we are facing the routine "dire consequences" if World Population isn't reduced. Hysterics like the founding fathers of the green movements, e.g., Paul Ehrlich and John Holdern, were predicting in the 60s that there would be famines and devastation in the 1970s with the world convulsing in global wars over food and living space and other resources. As usual with these guys, none of that materialized because the scientist who invented the hybrid grain that caused the original "green revolution" exploded food production world-wide. Naturally, the response of the environmentalists was to do everything in their power to prevent the life-saving grains from being used. So far, they are succeeding in the most desperately poor continent: Africa.

If nature won't cooperate in producing widespread famine and death, the Greens stand ready to make it happen by any means necessary, including banning fertilizers and pesticides and deploying their corrupt leftist politics to seize land and render it incapable of producing foodstuffs. That is the history of the communist inspired decimation of key agricultural areas in Africa throughout the 70s and 80s: as a group, they are not only inherently incompetent economically and agriculturally, they are philosophically determined to destroy agriculture. It's one of their hallmarks as rulers regardless of the culture in which they operate.

People assume population reduction is in itself a worthy goal. On what basis? Some cockamamie idea that the pie is finite and more people mean less for you and me? What hogwash! It's never been true. Why would it be true now? Innovation and trade compensates for what a nation cannot produce itself. Travel permits people to leave here and go there where prospects are better. Both trade and travel have wrought globalization, which (h)as proven the pie is limitless.
My Dear Corlyss:

The 2d and 3rd paragraphs above lead me to wonder what was in those Brownies you received over the Holidays. Pray tell how innovation and trade are going to compensate for for the shortage of water in many parts of the world? And yes, it's true "Travel permits people to leave here [Mexico] and go there [the U.S.] where prospects are better", but how does that play out politically on the xenophobic Right??
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests