Environmental hysterics

[HAL 9000 96]

Also agreeable. When we let the drama queens/kings dominate the public discourse of what is going on, we (and science) lose to the actual problem we are causing.

That was really one of the points I was trying to make the other day. I can't say with authority one way or another if man is causing global warming or indeed if we are even having global warming at this point. Of course I have my doubts as I already spelled out but the final point was we are listening to the alarmists about doom and gloom and then making policy on that. I would rather let science come to a real conclusion as to our current condition and then make decisions based on that. To me the hysteria about GW is just that, hysteria. In a few years I fully expect for this "crisis" to pass and some other doomsday scenario will be dominating our headlines.

Well, a thorough understanding of the science behind the current set of conclusions that get speculated by hysterians (and used as an excuse by "debunkers" in lieu of actual science) is necessary. I think you are trying to get it better than others.

The scientific reality, given all the variables, is that this doomsday that is being painted in flying colors will not come as quickly as some decry, but it will gradually succeed in occurring due to a domino effect that can be understood if all factors are considered. Hence the alarmism from some, not all.

[joelunchbox 0]

I think the best way to consider this topic is to simply ask ourselves: Do we want polluted air, polluted water, polluted food. That is the simplest way to see this. People present extreme views to generate excitement. Hopefully it will also generate useful dialogues.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree that the overdramatic rhetoric is a bit much.

Politicians have a propensity for exaggerating the truth.

Kinda like you?

That's out of line, Marc. Please stop comments such as these in the future. Thanks.

What is out of line is how you guys, the moderators, conveniently turn a blind eye to Alex+R, VJ Troll, Jenn, #6, Fancy Pants etc.

I can post 1,000 personal attacks, TOS violation, by the above that have gone unchecked. You guys should just come out and post that if you are a liberal here you can say what you want. Bullying is also acceptable. On the other hand, if you have contrary views you are allowed to be attacked but the second you say something back you are warned, banned etc etc. Getting a little tiring to be honest.

In Marc's case he never engages directly with any issue in any thread - but you can see that for yourself by clicking on the post history.

In the other case - people do and have disagreed and that's fine, but they don't go around making irrational threats against people. Were you banned for that threat you made?

[Heracles 417]

In Marc's case he never engages directly with any issue in any thread - but you can see that for yourself by clicking on the post history.

In the other case - people do and have disagreed and that's fine, but they don't go around making irrational threats against people. Were you banned for that threat you made?

I have been banned on numerous occasions and have also been warned for not toeing the line. Yet I have never ever seen Alex+R, Fancy Pants, Jenn etc or even yourself warned for any TOS violation. No matter how personal you guys get.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In Marc's case he never engages directly with any issue in any thread - but you can see that for yourself by clicking on the post history.

In the other case - people do and have disagreed and that's fine, but they don't go around making irrational threats against people. Were you banned for that threat you made?

I have been banned on numerous occasions and have also been warned for not toeing the line. Yet I have never ever seen Alex+R, Fancy Pants, Jenn etc or even yourself warned for any TOS violation. No matter how personal you guys get.

You may not have seen it, but I've been warned and get PMs from time to time.

[GaryC 7]

In Marc's case he never engages directly with any issue in any thread - but you can see that for yourself by clicking on the post history.

In the other case - people do and have disagreed and that's fine, but they don't go around making irrational threats against people. Were you banned for that threat you made?

I have been banned on numerous occasions and have also been warned for not toeing the line. Yet I have never ever seen Alex+R, Fancy Pants, Jenn etc or even yourself warned for any TOS violation. No matter how personal you guys get.

You may not have seen it, but I've been warned and get PMs from time to time.

Hell, even I got suspended once when I got carried away. No one is picking on you Boo-Ya.

[Peikko 1,575]

I've never been warned or suspended. Maybe I'm not doing this right.

[Peikko 1,575]

As for the premise of this thread - was the prediction of an over population and famine crisis overblown? I think there are rather a lot of people in Africa, China and India that might not be in agreement that it was off the mark at all.

Thousands of people are facing famine, starving today. Does anyone believe that this is because the political structures within these countries cause the problems? Or would it be more realistic to conclude that the political problems faced by these nations are often as a result of the paucity of resources?

If there was a real level playing field in every nation, they all subscribed to some democratic model similar to the US, does anyone honestly believe that world resources would stretch to give every single person a reasonable and fair standard of living? (subject as always to their 'taking responsibility' for their own lives and not stretching their hands out for government hand outs) I find this extremely hard to believe and the population is growing and the problems are growing and no one really cares that much so long as these problems don't encroach too much on their own lives.

As to the reality or not of global warming, honestly, I don't know but as someone said already, concentrating on reducing pollution would be enough in and of itself to make most people think that making changes in the way we all consume energy resources is a great idea.

[HAL 9000 96]

As for the premise of this thread - was the prediction of an over population and famine crisis overblown? I think there are rather a lot of people in Africa, China and India that might not be in agreement that it was off the mark at all.

Thousands of people are facing famine, starving today. Does anyone believe that this is because the political structures within these countries cause the problems? Or would it be more realistic to conclude that the political problems faced by these nations are often as a result of the paucity of resources?

If there was a real level playing field in every nation, they all subscribed to some democratic model similar to the US, does anyone honestly believe that world resources would stretch to give every single person a reasonable and fair standard of living? (subject as always to their 'taking responsibility' for their own lives and not stretching their hands out for government hand outs) I find this extremely hard to believe and the population is growing and the problems are growing and no one really cares that much so long as these problems don't encroach too much on their own lives.

As to the reality or not of global warming, honestly, I don't know but as someone said already, concentrating on reducing pollution would be enough in and of itself to make most people think that making changes in the way we all consume energy resources is a great idea.

PH

Then again, some folks (no examples abound here) are willing to live with known subtle amounts of teratogens, mutagens, and subtle changes that spell out huge effects down the line.

[GaryC 7]

As for the premise of this thread - was the prediction of an over population and famine crisis overblown? I think there are rather a lot of people in Africa, China and India that might not be in agreement that it was off the mark at all.

Thousands of people are facing famine, starving today. Does anyone believe that this is because the political structures within these countries cause the problems? Or would it be more realistic to conclude that the political problems faced by these nations are often as a result of the paucity of resources?

If there was a real level playing field in every nation, they all subscribed to some democratic model similar to the US, does anyone honestly believe that world resources would stretch to give every single person a reasonable and fair standard of living? (subject as always to their 'taking responsibility' for their own lives and not stretching their hands out for government hand outs) I find this extremely hard to believe and the population is growing and the problems are growing and no one really cares that much so long as these problems don't encroach too much on their own lives.

"Thousands of people are facing famine, starving today. Does anyone believe that this is because the political structures within these countries cause the problems? Or would it be more realistic to conclude that the political problems faced by these nations are often as a result of the paucity of resources?"

I do. True that there are famines that are the result of droughts but the rest of the world can step up and help those countries. The problem is those very same countries that have famine have governments that either will not allow aid to be distributed or they steal it outright. Take N Korea for example. Their climate is the same as S Korea but due to the government their people are starving. And when the world sends them food the government takes it for their army. The same thing is happening in some African countries. Famine is a political problem and less of an environmental one.

The world has a food surplus due to modern farming. If the political roadblocks didn't exist that food could be distributed to those that need it. Even without humans changing the environment there will always be parts of the planet that cannot support the population. The trick is to move those resources around to those that need it. America has been feeding the world for a long time now. We save more people from starvation than any other country does. The problem starts in when those that worry modern farming practices damaging the environment. They call for a turning back of those practices to "help" the environment. What they don't take into account is the suffering that reduction in food output causes. Now we are using our food for fuel. Already this is causing food prices to go up. The unintended consequences are fewer people have food to eat or it's price goes up to the point some can't afford to eat.

"As to the reality or not of global warming, honestly, I don't know but as someone said already, concentrating on reducing pollution would be enough in and of itself to make most people think that making changes in the way we all consume energy resources is a great idea."

I agree 100%. Reducing pollution is something we should all do. Finding ways of making energy in a responsible way can only help us. My point is that the hysteria about CO2 is misplaced and moves our attention from real problems that we can deal with.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary I commend that last post.

Be careful you don't fall into the "its not our problem/responsibility/fault" argument that seems to prevail whenever a suggestion is made for cooperation on our side of the fence to be more equitable to what we consume.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

No one's getting out of here alive. Well, except for me since I'm having my head frozen.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, I agree that there are political problems that exacerbate the problems of famine, but I totally don't agree that we have enough resources at this point in time to support the world's current population to a reasonable standard of living. I don't mean just stopping them starving to death which may or may not be possible were these corrupt governments to allow for equitable distribution of disaster aid. I mean allowing everyone who is willing and able to work to support themselves the opportunity to not only earn enough, or grow enough food to survive but to survive in comfort and with the ability to move away from the poverty line.

A quick example, how long would oil last if everyone on the planet had access to the resources to own a car or white goods? I know this is somewhat facile an argument, but my point is that many people who are living in first world countries don't really want to face the fact that they can live this way because the majority of the world population simply don't have access to the resources that we simply take for granted. So, while one could perhaps argue that strictly speaking famine need not exist I think it's almost impossible to argue that poverty need not exist with our current global population.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, I agree that there are political problems that exacerbate the problems of famine, but I totally don't agree that we have enough resources at this point in time to support the world's current population to a reasonable standard of living. I don't mean just stopping them starving to death which may or may not be possible were these corrupt governments to allow for equitable distribution of disaster aid. I mean allowing everyone who is willing and able to work to support themselves the opportunity to not only earn enough, or grow enough food to survive but to survive in comfort and with the ability to move away from the poverty line.

A quick example, how long would oil last if everyone on the planet had access to the resources to own a car or white goods? I know this is somewhat facile an argument, but my point is that many people who are living in first world countries don't really want to face the fact that they can live this way because the majority of the world population simply don't have access to the resources that we simply take for granted. So, while one could perhaps argue that strictly speaking famine need not exist I think it's almost impossible to argue that poverty need not exist with our current global population.

Once we reach our carrying capacity (artificial adjustment included), things should turn a lot uglier for those that can't back their consumption levels with the appropriate might. I think at the current rate of consumption, countries like the US will have to either adjust or suffer continued social, political, belicose, and economical consequences of our bipolar way of self-service.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I agree that there are political problems that exacerbate the problems of famine, but I totally don't agree that we have enough resources at this point in time to support the world's current population to a reasonable standard of living. I don't mean just stopping them starving to death which may or may not be possible were these corrupt governments to allow for equitable distribution of disaster aid. I mean allowing everyone who is willing and able to work to support themselves the opportunity to not only earn enough, or grow enough food to survive but to survive in comfort and with the ability to move away from the poverty line.

A quick example, how long would oil last if everyone on the planet had access to the resources to own a car or white goods? I know this is somewhat facile an argument, but my point is that many people who are living in first world countries don't really want to face the fact that they can live this way because the majority of the world population simply don't have access to the resources that we simply take for granted. So, while one could perhaps argue that strictly speaking famine need not exist I think it's almost impossible to argue that poverty need not exist with our current global population.

Once we reach our carrying capacity (artificial adjustment included), things should turn a lot uglier for those that can't back their consumption levels with the appropriate might. I think at the current rate of consumption, countries like the US will have to either adjust or suffer continued social, political, belicose, and economical consequences of our bipolar way of self-service.

At some point the natural forces will balance with the population. Most 1st world countries are no longer growing in population as fast as the rest of the world. There will be an adjustment period and it will be painful but in the end it will balance out. The trick is to minimize the suffering until that balance is achieved.