Living beyond our means: second earth needed

[Skybird]

...

[Skybird]

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf)


The recent downturn in the global economy is a stark
reminder of the consequences of living beyond our
means. But the possibility of financial recession pales in
comparison to the looming ecological credit crunch.

Whether we live on the edge of the forest or in the heart of the
city, our livelihoods and indeed our lives depend on the services
provided by the Earth’s natural systems. The Living Planet
Report 2008 tells us that we are consuming the resources that
underpin those services much too fast – faster than they can be
replenished. Just as reckless spending is causing recession, so
reckless consumption is depleting the world’s natural capital to
a point where we are endangering our future prosperity. The
Living Planet Index shows that over the past 35 years alone the
Earth’s wildlife populations have declined by a third.

Yet our demands continue to escalate, driven by the relentless
growth in human population and in individual consumption.
Our global footprint now exceeds the world’s capacity to
regenerate by about 30 per cent. If our demands on the planet
continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the
equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles. And
this year’s report captures, for the first time, the impact of
our consumption on the Earth’s water resources and our
vulnerability to water scarcity in many areas.

These overall trends have very concrete consequences, and
we have seen them this year in daily headlines. Global prices
for many crops have hit record highs, in large part due to
surging demand for food, feed and biofuels, and, in some
places, dwindling water supplies. For the first time in recorded
history, this past summer the Arctic ice cap was surrounded by
open water – literally disappearing under the impact of our
carbon footprint.

The ecological credit crunch is a global challenge. The Living
Planet Report 2008 tells us that more than three quarters of
the world’s people live in nations that are ecological debtors
– their national consumption has outstripped their country’s
biocapacity. Thus, most of us are propping up our current
lifestyles, and our economic growth, by drawing (and
increasingly overdrawing) upon the ecological capital of other
parts of the world.

The good news is that we have the means to reverse the
ecological credit crunch – it is not too late to prevent an
irreversible ecological recession setting in. This report identifies
the key areas where we need to transform our lifestyles and
economies to put us on a more sustainable trajectory.

The scale of the challenge at times seems overwhelming, which
is why we have introduced the concept of “sustainability
wedges” to tackle ecological overshoot across different sectors
and drivers. This wedge analysis enables us to break down the
various contributing factors of overshoot and propose different
solutions for each. For the single most important challenge, the
WWF Climate Solutions Model uses a wedge analysis to
illustrate how it is possible to meet the projected growth in
demand for global energy services in 2050 while achieving
significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Crucially, this model highlights the need to take immediate
action to curb dangerous climate change.

As we act to reduce our footprint – our impact on the Earth’s
services – we must also get better at managing the ecosystems
that provide those services. Success requires that we manage
resources on nature’s terms and at nature’s scale. This means
that decisions in each sector, such as agriculture or fisheries,
must be taken with an eye to broader ecological consequences.
It also means that we must find ways to manage across our own
boundaries – across property lines and political borders – to
take care of the ecosystem as a whole.

It is nearly four decades since the Apollo 8 astronauts
photographed the famous “Earth Rise”, providing the first ever
view of Planet Earth. In the two generations since, the world
has moved from ecological credit to ecological deficit. The
human species has a remarkable track record of ingenuity and
problem solving. The same spirit that took man to the moon
must now be harnessed to free future generations from crippling
ecological debt.

[Fish]

A second thread too? :hmm: ;)

[Skybird]

A second thread too? :hmm: ;)
The other is a backup. In case this one goes up in flames. :D

[Digital_Trucker]

I demand a merge:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SteamWake]

panda.org LOL seriously... LOL

[Hitman]

There's not much I can say except that I agree completely. We are going the dangerous route, we are destroying the earth, and that will have a payback sooner or later. Go put your head in a hole, or fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalala I didn't hear anything", but that will not change a thing.

[Diopos]

Second earth?

No problem! We're already messing up a Third World ...

:huh:

[Skybird]

There's not much I can say except that I agree completely. We are going the dangerous route, we are destroying the earth, and that will have a payback sooner or later. Go put your head in a hole, or fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalala I didn't hear anything", but that will not change a thing.
By our record so far, this seems to be what it most likely is coming down to. But no other mammal goes down the drain so well-entertained like we are. So keep on smiling while we fall - you are on TV!

[DeepIron]

As a good friend of mine once said, "Save the planet? More like save the humans! The planet has survived worse than us and will again."

To quote A.C. Clarke, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

And Ripley in Aliens II: "You know, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them screwing each other over for a fu*king percentage."

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/777.html) (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/777.html)Humans deserve to perish. In accordance with even the most basic tenets found in Darwinism, the successful will adapt and survive. I guess that means cockroaches...

[Oberon]

By our record so far, this seems to be what it most likely is coming down to. But no other mammal goes down the drain so well-entertained like we are. So keep on smiling while we fall - you are on TV!

Reminds me of the Romans :hmm:

One thing that has always struck me was the following quote from The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells:


And before we judge them too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit.

[Skybird]

By our record so far, this seems to be what it most likely is coming down to. But no other mammal goes down the drain so well-entertained like we are. So keep on smiling while we fall - you are on TV!

Reminds me of the Romans :hmm:

One thing that has always struck me was the following quote from The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells:


And before we judge them too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit.

Yes, and this one by Johannes Kepler:


“But who shall dwell in these worlds if they be inhabited?....Are we or they Lords of the World?....And how are all things made for man?”

[August]

As a good friend of mine once said, "Save the planet? More like save the humans! The planet has survived worse than us and will again."

To quote A.C. Clarke, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

And Ripley in Aliens II: "You know, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them screwing each other over for a fu*king percentage."

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/777.html)Humans deserve to perish. In accordance with even the most basic tenets found in Darwinism, the successful will adapt and survive. I guess that means cockroaches...
I disagree with just about everything in this post except what your good friend said.

Edit: Oh and I had some bison steak just the other night. Not bad eating for a "vanished" animal...

[DeepIron]

As a good friend of mine once said, "Save the planet? More like save the humans! The planet has survived worse than us and will again."

To quote A.C. Clarke, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

And Ripley in Aliens II: "You know, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them screwing each other over for a fu*king percentage."

(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/777.html)Humans deserve to perish. In accordance with even the most basic tenets found in Darwinism, the successful will adapt and survive. I guess that means cockroaches...
I disagree with just about everything in this post except what your good friend said.

Edit: Oh and I had some bison steak just the other night. Not bad eating for a "vanished" animal...:lol: Well my friend was waxing sarcastic at the time and he doesn't see any long-term continuation of the Human species either. Humans will come and humans will go, but the planet will continue on...

As for Clarke's observation: That certainly remains to be seen doesn't it? Our "intelligence" is at the root of the problem IMO. We "intelligently" bend nature to our will to benefit our race but we evidently don't know (or don't care as the case may be) about the long term consequences. The current belief is that we're "trashing the planet". Now, is that anyway for a truly intelligent race to act?

I just really like Ripley's quote as I believe it rings true more frequently than we'd like to admit. Exxon made record profits last quarter and US taxpayers will foot the bill for the $700B Bailout. I can't think of two more shining examples of being "screwed" over for a percentage.

Anyway, the whole point is, ummm... pointless... It's highly doubtful that any of us participating in this forum will be around to see the end of it anyway... ;)

(But personally, I look forward to Revelations 21:1-4 myself)

[August]

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.

[DeepIron]

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.
In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

The only animal that seeks to change it's environment is Man... And by the looks of things, it's not going along too well...

As for the second: The connection is that I feel I've been screwed in both instances. Concerning Exxon, I've paid much higher prices at the pump while their percentage of profit skyrocketed. In the second, while perhaps not technically a "percentage" figure, I see the bailout as a vehicle whereby someone else will profit by screwing me, and I'm sure a huge number of Americans, over for their personal gain... :shifty:

[August]

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

[DeepIron]

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.
And I agree, we have relied upon our intelligence to make up to the lack of "natural ablility" we would have needed to survive otherwise. Thinking in Darwinistic terms, our intelligence has made us the dominant species on the planet by dint of our evolution of the brain... We subjugate everything that confronts or opposes us by sheer intellect and willpower.

Here's the catch, where has this application of intelligence led us to? Certainly, Man's ability to make fire, flint tools and stone weapons and engaging in primitive agriculture would have little effect on the earth in millenia past. Man's early populations would have been a trifle to support in a natural ecosystem. But, it just wasn't enough... Man wanted more...

So, in the long run, has Man's "superior intellect" saved him from inevitable extinction? Taking the current state of affairs (social, political, ecological) at face value (for there are many arguments one might raise for and against) my position is no. We're merely prolonging the inevitable.

I love reading Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." ;)

[baggygreen]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

Now, if we had not, for example, learnt to dress warmly or control fire, we would've stayed in the warmer areas. The regions which suited us, comparable to a shark staying in water which is the 'region' which suits it. We'd probably be still around without "intelligence", but we'd be simply another type of great ape.

There is no proof on the other hand that "intelligence" will be our demise. Sure, we've created weapons that can do this, etc, but we haven't done it. There is every possibility that we have attained in Homo Sapiens the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and that we as a species will continue indefinately.

Pragmatically speaking, Homo Sapiens must eventually die out. Almost every single species has. Perhaps a new genus (is that the right word, I can't remember) of human will emerge, perhaps not. but nothing is eternal! (please don't open the religion can of worms there)

[Skybird]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Not really. Their design has not changed since millions of years. It reached perfection relatively early on. They are one of the most well-adapted to their environment lifeforms on this planet.

[August]

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.

[Skybird]

I cannot share your optimism, Baggy. We are are a test run of a blueprint very young in age, and despite our young age we managed to manouver ourselves already into a dead end. That does not sound very promising. Also, evolution is not a strictly linear process so that at any given time there is always the best of all designs so far created on display. Evolution does not have a goal, it just adds new stuff and deletes other stuff, and sometimes it is good stuff getting deleted and bad stuff added, and you certainly have samples of design studies from very different eons of earth'S history of life living simultaneously on this planet, like sharks and crocodiles and dragonflies and jellyfish living together with youngster like maritime mammals, and talking apes on land.

Man should really stop thinking of hoimself as a "crown of evolution". We are one sample amongst others. If we would understand that, maybe we would learn the modesty to save ourselves from extinction and stop messing up our life's environmental basis. Last but not least we are raping the planet becasue we think we have the right to do so: the right of the master of the house, the crown of evolution, the superior. If we are that superior I am wondering why we have so many existentially threatening problems now, all self-made. Is that a sign of intelligence? Or more a sign of a certain mental deadlock, a mental handicap that prevents true intelligence?

[DeepIron]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves. Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.Again, true enough IF Mankind can survive his own folly...

[Skybird]

Who said that higher intelligence is a goal of evolution? Homo Sapiens' current status gives the opposite argument: that tool-based intelligence prevents ongoing evolutionary developement due to premature exitus. Sharks are not thta intelligent, but have an excellent sensor suit to react to chnages in their environment automatically (by reflex). 400 million years of history are a strong aergument that sharks are the more successful design. they did not get wiped out before man starting to wipe out himself by destroying his living basis (a symptom of it being that he wipes out the sharks).

[August]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves. Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.Again, true enough IF Mankind can survive his own folly...

Of course. But the chance still exists nonetheless in spite of Clarkes negative attitude... :D

[baggygreen]

As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Its interesting to speculate :)

Suppose man had stayed in africa rather than migrate to Europe and Asia. When the European and Asian explorers started visiting africa, they found things primitive. However, this primitive lifestyle worked. It worked wonderfully well, according to the study I've done.

We can argue that had man stayed in Africa then the development of higher intelligence would have stopped just as the shark's has. In which case, if humans were to wipe themselves out, we need to blame whatever it was that caused the earliest people to migrate!:D

On a similar but different note, I wish I knew just what made our brains work differently to those of the great apes.. just to see where the difference lies!

[kiwi_2005]

Just last night i watch on NZ 20/20 current affairs of groups in NZ who believe survival of the fitness is just around the corner, in a few years according to them. They went out and spent a few days with these people filming them acting out mock battles in the bush, living off the land getting ready for the 'End of Days' drama etc., Their were two grps in different parts of NZ with the same motive - survival. The more camo wearing gun toting with a bit of right wing beliefs to go with it totally failed in the survival code in my books.

1. When hunting a pig they missed 3 times before they got it and when they did kill it, it fell down a gully where they couldn't reach it as it was to difficult for them, so that night they went without dinner :lol:.
2. Next day they're all hungry so they go off to retrieve the pig by the time they reached it they were all huffing and puffing their lungs out even though the hill they climbed didn't look all that to difficult.
3. They were all overweight. Well that might help them not starve to sooner.
4. If they had it there way they would round up all the politians and give them a trial if found guilty they would hang them all! :roll:
5. They had no form of proper shelter, tents was the answer.


The 2nd grp looked like the kind i would want to side with if had too.
They weren't gun toting idiots but they owned guns and only would use them as a last resort. They weren't out to behead the politicians or point the finger at anyone who wasn't on their side. Their livestyle was on farming the land way out in the bush, they had their own animals/veges good shelter and far away from cities as they believe city folks will bear the burden with innocents mudered over food. When a major disaster hits, cities have only 3 days food after that its an eye for an eye. The leader of this group came to New Zealand from Sweden with his family has a good education a professor in science head pretty much screw on, with the purpose to set up a survival kind of livestyle here and any other who wanted to joinup and just live of the land. Pretty simple but most likely the ones that will survive.

[DeepIron]

Suppose man had stayed in Africa rather than migrate to Europe and Asia. When the European and Asian explorers started visiting Africa, they found things primitive. However, this primitive lifestyle worked. It worked wonderfully well, according to the study I've done.Precisely, the system worked. AND, we could say it was working fairly well as those groups in Africa had potentially longer to "perfect" their cohabitation with nature. As well, the "higher" achievements of intelligence, say of writing (of a sort), art and music were in fact evident with these "primitive' people. I say this because Man would have needed the leisure time to develop non-essential skills, those skills unrelated to surviving day to day. Intelligence, in proper application and balance to nature worked... I guess the point I'm trying to convey is that these people didn't have to "over think" their lifestyles and could live full lives in harmony with the natural world.

We can argue that had man stayed in Africa then the development of higher intelligence would have stopped just as the shark's has. That really is a tough question. Personally, I think one of the strongest urges in Mankind is that of population. It seems to me that eventually the pressures of an over-populated area would drive men to seek other lands. Devastating climatic changes, famines and disease would also figure in. So, movement is inevitable. Movement would have necessitated an application of more intelligence to cope and survive in areas that were not part of their normal surroundings.

An interesting question to consider as we still find "primitive" people around the planet who have satisfactorily survived the ages. What they seem to have trouble with is the encroachment of modern, enlightened men!

[orwell]

I love these kinds of predictions, where 'if we continue on the current trend then in a minimum of 20 years, all is doomed'. Nonsense. Absolutely, and utter nonsense. How many people can predict 2012 accurately, let alone 2030. Technology and the free market assure you that there will never let the world, or at least the west, go completely to hell.

To quote Cheney "there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

The only concern I have about the future of the world is the final category. It's the stuff no one seems coming that will spell doom for humans, none of this, oh blah blah on current trends impending doom stock up on survival gear blah blah. :roll:


(And if the **** REALLY goes downhill, as long as they don't nuke where I live, I can't imagine ever going hungry or without shelter. You'd have to have lived in the city all your life, and become so grossly deformed through weight or injury as to be unable to do much for yourself in the first place to die here.)

[Rockstar]

Why waste your breath talking about evolutionary trends. Humanity is over, mankind is on the way out. Have you forgot there is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Go rob a bank it doesn't matter anymore. The planets surface temperatures are rising, polar ice caps are melting, forest fires, sea levels rising, lands disappearing.

Don't you know nobody can stop global warming now. The consensus has long been known, we are all doomed! Doomed I say HAHAHAHAHA. yes doomed HEHEHEHEHE HAHAHAHAHHA POO POO

[baggygreen]

Why waste your breath talking about evolutionary trends. Humanity is over, mankind is on the way out. Have you forgot there is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Go rob a bank it doesn't matter anymore. The planets surface temperatures are rising, polar ice caps are melting, forest fires, sea levels rising, lands disappearing.

Don't you know nobody can stop global warming now. The consensus has long been known, we are all doomed! Doomed I say HAHAHAHAHA. yes doomed HEHEHEHEHE HAHAHAHAHHA POO POO

For a moment I thought you were serious.

Then i nearly wet myself:rotfl:

[August]

I think you guys overestimate the harmonious nature of primitive life. Survival was anything but guarenteed. You limit human "range" to such a small area and you vastly increase the risk that war, overpopulation, famine, disease, climate change or any number of other disasters could wipe out the entire species in the space of a generation.

Besides, just because European and Asian explorers found Africa fairly primitive it doesn't prove that had Africans been left unmolested they wouldn't have had their own industrial revolution at some point. One might make an argument that harsh environments retard advancement but I see no evidence that it would stop altogether.

[DeepIron]

Besides, just because European and Asian explorers found Africa fairly primitive it doesn't prove that had Africans been left unmolested they wouldn't have had their own industrial revolution at some point. One might make an argument that harsh environments retard advancement but I see no evidence that it would stop altogether.No not at all. Tougher environments would compel the people to devote more time to practical survival skills and less to other intellectual pursuits like writing and art. So exercises leading to the development of greater intellect would be lacking and neglected.

But, it still begs the question; Has Man's superior intellect (at least when measured against the rest of the organisms on this planet) really proven to be a "be all , end all" tool for survival. Or, will it just be more the matter of time running out and finding that "being smarter" than the sharks eventually led to his demise after all (barring supernovas, large asteroid impacts or global natural cataclysms).

Is Man really as superior as he thinks he is? Only time will tell...

[August]

Is Man really as superior as he thinks he is? Only time will tell...

Add "...but so far it has" to that and i'd agree. :up:

[Skybird]

Technology and the free market assure you that there will never let the world, or at least the west, go completely to hell.

Ah, I almost waited for it - two of the three magical things, technology and free market, to delay, to prevent, to block, to doubt any critical analysis, any self-questioning, any self-changing - always and forever. Now we just need somebody referring to the miraculous healing power of "unlimited growth", and the trio infernale is complete again.

[Skybird]

Besides, just because European and Asian explorers found Africa fairly primitive it doesn't prove that had Africans been left unmolested they wouldn't have had their own industrial revolution at some point. One might make an argument that harsh environments retard advancement but I see no evidence that it would stop altogether.No not at all. Tougher environments would compel the people to devote more time to practical survival skills and less to other intellectual pursuits like writing and art. So exercises leading to the development of greater intellect would be lacking and neglected.

But, it still begs the question; Has Man's superior intellect (at least when measured against the rest of the organisms on this planet) really proven to be a "be all , end all" tool for survival. Or, will it just be more the matter of time running out and finding that "being smarter" than the sharks eventually led to his demise after all (barring supernovas, large asteroid impacts or global natural cataclysms).

Is Man really as superior as he thinks he is? Only time will tell...
It has been argued by historians that europe'S historical lead in developing technoloigy and science, diversity of arts, etc, came from geographical facts that separated the diffreent ribes and people inEurope for long, and then led them to trading with different things while needing to compete at the same time. the mixture of being confronted with foreign, new things while at the same time needing to compete with these, led to a climate that helped to increase creativity, original thinking, self-questioning.

I think if you have a hgarden Eden where no effort and no challenge is laid in man'S shoulder and he gets what he needs without needing to worry with how to get it, there would be little or no developement, but instead just stagnation. That'S why I am against utopias like communism and socialism that want a guarantee for everybody being seen as of the same value like any other, and getting all what he needs/wants for free. To a certain level, needing to compete is helpful in creating creativity and originality. It just shall not be allowed to go completley unregulated and unlimited in scope and reach. totally liberal free market that are run by total self-regulation only I oppose as much as I oppose socialistic utopias. the truth lies in between, and I would label it as capitalistic competition with a strong sense of social responsibility and a strong link to the social community in which it is embedded; and as a materialistic ideology that capitalism is, it must also be counterbalanced by a general awareness for the non-material value of life and non-material qualities, that can best be supoorted in the population by a general education for all that does not focus on the technical needs of the busienss world, but that trains young minds in what in the West we call the humanistic tradition of culture and education.

[CCIP]

Technology and the free market assure you that there will never let the world, or at least the west, go completely to hell.
Ah, I almost waited for it - two of the three magical things, technology and free market, to delay, to prevent, to block, to doubt any critical analysis, any self-questioning, any self-changing - always and forever. Now we just need somebody referring to the miraculous healing power of "unlimited growth", and the trio infernale is complete again.

Yup, I have to agree with you there. Faith in science and rational market forces is nice, but where it may be leading us is not a nice place.

[Von Tonner]

The one concept missing in this thread is what of the role of predator. The shark had no predator until man. Now, if through an evolutionary process it could gain the intelligence to either negate this threat or avoid it that might ensure its survival.

If one is to take the roots of mankind as being in Africa then he had many, many predators to contend with once he left the safety of the trees and walked upright. Short of acquiring the ability to run fast it could be argued that intelligence was for him the quickest route to survival. Try and negate the problem by first trying to move away from it. Hence the migration north.

The role of predator in all its forms, from the lowly praying mantis in nature to the CEO of the largest bank in modern society cannot be ignored or underplayed in the impact it has on the life course of any species - be it modern man or animal.

[DeepIron]

The one concept missing in this thread is what of the role of predator. The shark had no predator until man. Now, if through an evolutionary process it could gain the intelligence to either negate this threat or avoid it that might ensure its survival.An interesting observation... And one, IMO, that is certainly applicable to the current state of affairs of Mankind.

Seeing as we've subjugated all the less intelligent species on the planet, we prey upon ourselves. A quick glance at any newspaper headline or Internet media website lately surely confirms this. The newest developments in the Congo, the ongoing genocides in the Sudan, the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, plus numerous other incidents through history all tell the tale of Man's "intellectual" rise to world domination.

So, the question is in my mind this: Is Man intelligent enough to "reason" his way past this brutality or are we just another animal trying to survive?

[Hitman]

To a certain extent I would say that the problem also isn't just how we live, but how many of us are here. It is obvious that if the human race had less fertility and we were only, say 10 million people all around the earth, there would not be such a huge problem in abusing a bit the environment. But the problem is that we are 6000 million, and from what you can see in China and India, all hoping to burn their share.

We can use our intelligence to solve certain shortcomings and succeed in sustaining a population that would in any other species inmediately die of hunger, but we can't pretend that there are no limits. We are living in a limited world, a finite cosmos from which we can't exit, and when we reach those limits we will be subject to the same laws as all the other species: Massive extintion until balance is recovered.

It has happened many times with other species, they grew so much in number that they depleted their resources and then the majority starved. The fact that our technological intelligence allows us to put that limit higher doesn't mean that there is no limit at all.....and from up there the fall will be harder.

[Fish]

I cannot share your optimism, Baggy. We are are a test run of a blueprint very young in age, and despite our young age we managed to manouver ourselves already into a dead end. That does not sound very promising. Also, evolution is not a strictly linear process so that at any given time there is always the best of all designs so far created on display. Evolution does not have a goal, it just adds new stuff and deletes other stuff, and sometimes it is good stuff getting deleted and bad stuff added, and you certainly have samples of design studies from very different eons of earth'S history of life living simultaneously on this planet, like sharks and crocodiles and dragonflies and jellyfish living together with youngster like maritime mammals, and talking apes on land.

Man should really stop thinking of hoimself as a "crown of evolution". We are one sample amongst others. If we would understand that, maybe we would learn the modesty to save ourselves from extinction and stop messing up our life's environmental basis. Last but not least we are raping the planet becasue we think we have the right to do so: the right of the master of the house, the crown of evolution, the superior. If we are that superior I am wondering why we have so many existentially threatening problems now, all self-made. Is that a sign of intelligence? Or more a sign of a certain mental deadlock, a mental handicap that prevents true intelligence?

Wer could end like Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo neanderthalis.
Fossil's. :dead:

[Fish]

It worked wonderfully well, according to the study I've done.
What kind of study babbygreen?


On a similar but different note, I wish I knew just what made our brains work differently to those of the great apes.. just to see where the difference lies!
It started with spindle neurons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/human.html

What realy made us apart from our cousins,..... I think/hope we know in the next decade.

[Skybird]

Wer could end like Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo neanderthalis.
Fossil's. :dead:
Yes. Although I "believe" that cosmos is moving to realise itself and to increase the level to which it does so, I wonder if "intelligence" in human understanding really is a necessary ingredient of that process. We cannot recognise an intelligence that is too diffrent from ours, both in quality and nature. So whenever we philosophise about the intelligence of other life forms, we try to miagine to what degree they match the scheme we have of ourselves. In the end we do not seek new lifeforms and new intelligence, but we seek mirrors in which we can see ourselves. we seek self-affirmation, and what does not serve that purpose, at best gets ignored, but usually gets used for our interests, and destroyed. the value of other life, other intelligence, we cannot see and cannot understand to be a value in itselt. The value of creation, of evolution, always is defined by us in terms of what use it has for us. that we are the crown, the top, and set the rules for all things to be, goes as an unsaid preassumption in all that.

[orwell]

Technology and the free market assure you that there will never let the world, or at least the west, go completely to hell.
Ah, I almost waited for it - two of the three magical things, technology and free market, to delay, to prevent, to block, to doubt any critical analysis, any self-questioning, any self-changing - always and forever. Now we just need somebody referring to the miraculous healing power of "unlimited growth", and the trio infernale is complete again.

How does believing that technology will change to harvest what was previously wasted, and that business will capitalize on this new cheaper resources that finding further buried ones, mean that there is no questioning? There is no room for critical analysis? What is there to analyze here? That if consumption patterns do not change in the next 20 years, that we'll run out of resources? Gee, you really think the same pattens are going to remain around that long? Anyone who believes that is as blind as anyone who believes in unlimited growth.

Let us take the 'water' resource for example? How much of this is wasted? What areas are truly in drought, and how many are just poorly utilizing existing resources? How much more could be harvested? Some areas are truly in trouble, but many? Efficiency improvements are what is needed. And what improves that? Well certainly not a paper about impending doom on a linear course. Gee, wouldn't technology to recycle all that wasted water, or better distribution, help growers everywhere? And if there was money to be made in providing these new efficient services, uh... well, I should think that a healthy market with plenty of credit would jump in to produce those technologies. Probably one of the best things you could do to help places that will suffer from these initial crises is to get business going in a profitable manner helping the farmer use water there. Gee, and what do you know, people are already doing this.

You have quoted, bolded, and underlined it yourself. If our demands on the planet continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles. What makes you think that it will continue at the same pace? Will there be some pain as adaption to new methods come along? Yes. There are always losers when something is changed. But until you can provide any sort of evidence beyond a linear graph that says impending doom if you drive off this chart, I don't see why the beginnings of change already in motion would not correct as needed. As I read through the report, I also notice a lot about waste. Yes, there is a lot of waste. But where it is locally profitable, there have been businesses set up to harvest what was dumped for re-usable material, whether it's compost or metals. Re-use, what an idea. A profitable idea when these expenses buiild up from demand.

To CCIP: Whether technology and the future is leading us down the right path in the case of, say, a unstable nuclear state, yeah, sure that's a problem. But that's not a ecological problem. Which is what I was addressing here.

[Hitman]

Efficiency improvements are what is needed. And what improves that? Well certainly not a paper about impending doom on a linear course. Gee, wouldn't technology to recycle all that wasted water, or better distribution, help growers everywhere? And if there was money to be made in providing these new efficient services, uh... well, I should think that a healthy market with plenty of credit would jump in to produce those technologies. Probably one of the best things you could do to help places that will suffer from these initial crises is to get business going in a profitable manner helping the farmer use water there. Gee, and what do you know, people are already doing this.


That's all very nice and well, but you are forgetting an essential part of the equation: GROWTH

Even if we could solve all food, water and energy problems -which is obviously unlikely- somewhen we will hit the limits of the earth, if even the physical ones: There will simply be no room for all of us. Take a look at Japan and see what I mean. The average size of a house there is 60 m2, and a whole family has to live there .... now. But what will the size of the average house be when the populations doubles? 30 m2? And when it triples? 15 m2? And later?

It is such a nonesense to keep a pattern that is doomed to fail somewhen in the future -even if our generation or the next one doesn't see it, which is also debatable- that you have to wonder if the humans are really intelligent beings.

[Skybird]

We already live beyond our means, right now. Any attempts to distract from the need that we must change that, by arguing that we just need to refine our harvesting methods, is pointless. It would only be making sense if we were living in a state of balance at the time of that statement, but we don't. Sweet water is becoming so short that military all over the world, including the Pentagon, play wargames and set up plans for waging war - not over oil, but sweet water. The oceans are overfished already. Desertification on land speeds up rapidly. We need an economic principle of "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) getting implemented, but what we see everywhere is aiming at maximum profit in the shortest ammount of time by exploiting resources to possible maximums.

It is unreasonable to assume that all of a sudden economic harvesting of earth'S ressources will be stopped, that growth will not continue as more and more people make a demand to live in the same material conditions like Eurpeans and Americans, that there will be given a moratorium to the planet in which we harvest even less than what would be sustainable, so that the planet can recover, and just after that we would increase economic growth to the level of enduring sustainability. The examples of carmakers, energy companies and oil companies show that progress gets prevented and hindered massively to protect short-termed profit interests, and not before the damage already is done and is FUBAR, claims are made that now one wants to focus on new energy, alternative car engines etc. what is happening right now, is blind actionism. The IPCC board some months ago admitted that their studies have one major flaw even in their already pessimistic conclusions: it is too optimistic because they were basing on the assumption that from the date of publishing on all climate goals and procedures to reach them would get implemented immediately. They did not calculate the effects of what it will mean if growth rate and industrial harvesting continues at the rates that are to be expected with the growing population and the growing demand of the third world to get access to Western living style.

This madness of constant growth, unlimited growth, economic growth, always, always, always growth - that is not the remedy for our self-made desaster, it is the cause and origin of it. The complete traditional economy theory is a mess, and it has led us to where we are. The financial meltdown illustrated that the finacial dogma is a mess, too. Both need to be replaced, and I do not see that that is possible without mankind bleeding terribly at the time one starts thinking of that. the loss of life we already cause right now by our western life style may claim millions and millions already. but it is only the introduction for the things to come, and not before the agony has reached our own homelands, people will see a need to stop doing like they have done until then. and it is a reasonable estimation that then it will be too late, since long. Pain is the best teacher, but it may come too late.

Maybe it already is right now. What has been started by man has an autonomous dynamic, a swing-by-mass, that will not stop from one day to the other just becasue we switch off all coal powerplants, for example, or reduce the numbers of cars in general, and forbid fossil engines altogether. The proecesses you see right now in most scientific fields are expected to carry on for at least 50-100 years even if all input into the planet's systems caused by man would stop from one day to the other. Considering the massive revolutions of the conditions of the oceans over the past couple of decades it is reasonable to say that some of these processes may even run on for millenias from now on, with all the interactive consequences coming from that. We have accelearted the speed at which earth chnages naturall by factors in the four-digit range - and that acceleration you cannot explain with sun activity and climate macro-cycles, for earth history shows that such things take much longer time to take place .The question wether man has caused it or not, is of little moral value anymore anyway, although realising that we are responsible seem to be a precondition for us to stop acting foolishly and further speed up our civilisational suicide. payed sceptics will ignore it until hell freezes over, and even then try to relativise the new temperatures, but the correlations between when these effects started and the beginning of man's activities starting to contribute input into the global system, are massively, overwhelmingly, and stunning. The probability that a.)the simultaneity of these processes suddenly speeding up by factors of hundreds, sometimes thousands, and b.) man's spread and growing economic activity all over the planet, is by random chance only, and that it'S consequences are meaningless and nullified by sun activity and climatic macrocycles, tends to go towards zero.

Every action has reaction and what force you inflict, inevitably returns. Man's mind does not seem to be well-eqipped to understand this very fundamental lesson that is so very essential for survival, despite our clverness in using tools - an ability we only perfected becasue of the design of our hands. If we had no hands, our intelligence both in scale and nature would be a different one. You can't start messing around with a global biosphere and assume that it means no consequences feeding back on you. Clever economic theories that are not so much interested in realistic assessments but in producing excuses why to carry on with maximum exploitation at all cost - and often are also used to show what a clever dick the speaker is -, will not change that a bit. the state of our global civilisation and the state of this planet's biosphere show that these theories work towards our self-destruction and that of massive volumes of life on Earth. not becasue sun activity, and climatic macro-cycles this time - but because mankind is there.

We need to change. For Obama that is probably just a campaign slogan. For me it is the criterion that decides wether our evolutionary design will survive, or will face extinction. If we carry on like we do right now, we are doomed, we will first face civilisational agony on a planet we have bled to death, and then face the deletion of our design from the list of evolution's experiments. that alltogether may take another couple of centuries, but nevertheless it takes a lot of naivety to assume that colonizing of other planets and stellar exploration could ever become a realistic alternative within the closing time window that we are left with. and seeing what we did with this planet I doubt with determination that it is even wishable that we colonize other worlds.

there is no other hope than that we grow wise.

[CCIP]

I'll put it this way: sometime just after 2050, we're going to have 10 billion people on this planet. This is not something we can actually stop or control, realistically speaking. Most of them will be living in dire poverty. Whatever the case, we are not going to stop consuming massive amounts of resources anytime soon. The desire for these resources will be intense, and the gaps between haves and have-nots will only be bigger. Now, I'm not worried about the resources running out, actually. They're not very likely to. The real threat comes not from the strain on the resources themselves, but the strain induced by competition for these resources. Even at 6.5 billion, we have really deadly tensions for resources at all levels - from local to global. With 10 billion people, these tensions will increase geometrically.

Rogue elements of humanity - the kind that'd kill a lot of people out of ideological belief - are a danger. But they're not nearly as much of a danger as the competition over resources, a drive to be like the wealthy elements in the world by an impoverished majority. This, like the population growth, you cannot realistically stop. Combined, these two factors are going to be a serious strain on the modern world, which is pretty much an illusion by now anyway. What the post-modern world will really look like a few decades on is anyone's guess.

[Hitman]

You know, if you have ever played "Age of Empires" from Microsoft it is easy to understand how it all goes:

You start with two citizens and a vast amount of resources,

you create more population to collect more resources, and your empire grows,

new technology becomes available and helps you deplet resources faster and also make a better use of them,

but then inevitably there comes a moment when you must fight with the neighbour for those resources that become scarce

And how does the end look like? Well, anybody who has played the game to the end succesfully has been able to see his citizens standing still near a depleted forest, a depleted gold and a depleted iron mine, the fishing ships all standing still in the harbour with no fishing left to go for.

Got the idea? Still not? Then get Age of Empires and play it for yourself.....:roll:

[Skybird]

Regarding the financial system and the stellar and still growing debts of the US, as well as the deficitary life style of most European nations as well: there is another metaphor, Sim City.

Look what a great city I have build, and how lovely it looks, and so hugh buildings and so green parks, and so blue water, and so much satisfaction everywhere!

the only problem in this metaphor would be that you would have entered an unlimited money cheat at the very beginning, so that your credit counter shows $SIM 9999999999845463 even after having populated the whole map and every garden house is a skyscraper. you effectively have build it by completly ignoring the financial aspect of the game. In other wordS: you just constructed and planned. That is great fun, I did it myself that way. But in reality it simply leads to growing anger of those who have to pay for the money cheat with their real money, and anger turns into hate, and hate turns into aggression. Also, the system destabilises from within.

Or you have available a money cheat that only works once, and is limited. You start to build like crazy, you expand without taking care of sustainability of the resulting financial maintenance. Then the cheat-money is all gone, and all of a sudden you have to finance the system you created by what it creates in incomes, and you have huge red numbers only, and no more cheat-dollars to compensate for the flaws in what you have constructed, for your growth was rushed and the produced income does not cover the maintenance and future investement costs. Your town collpases, your debts grow, you see beauty turning into ugly, and things collapse and the whole place turns into rubble, with you not only not being able to maintain what is there, but being unable to build new, even needed things.

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well. Unfortunately, leaders often even get bonusses when cheating like this. Nobody kas less interest in changing the system than those who currently have profits to claim from it. After it became known that 70 billion of the 700 billion in state aid to US banks would be spend in paying top bankers bonusses for the mess they created, it became also known short time ago, that another 30 or 40 billion would be used - to pay dividends to shareholders this year.

No wonder that these people do not wish to chnage this cancer of a system, even if it consumes the whole economy and nation, even the whole globe.

[DeepIron]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.

Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!

[August]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.
Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!

The bailout the Democrats pushed into law...

[CCIP]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.
Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!
The bailout the Democrats pushed into law...

I'm pretty sure there was more than just democrats involved. Especially considering Bush pretty much initiated it and, AFAIK, McCain has voiced support for it as well (if we map it onto the election, which is obviously what this is about). Wouldn't blame just one side here, especially at this stage in the election...

[August]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.
Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!
The bailout the Democrats pushed into law...
I'm pretty sure there was more than just democrats involved. Especially considering Bush pretty much initiated it and, AFAIK, McCain has voiced support for it as well (if we map it onto the election, which is obviously what this is about). Wouldn't blame just one side here, especially at this stage in the election...

Nevertheless the main opposition to the bailout came from the Republicans.

[Skybird]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.
Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!
The bailout the Democrats pushed into law...

I'm pretty sure there was more than just democrats involved. Especially considering Bush pretty much initiated it and, AFAIK, McCain has voiced support for it as well (if we map it onto the election, which is obviously what this is about). Wouldn't blame just one side here, especially at this stage in the election...
Not to mention that the current finance minister is former chief of Golden Sacks and still has many buddies digging for gold in there. He helped to design the flaws that he now claims to repair - by allowing dozens of billions of tax dollars being payed as rewards to bankers who brought the global economy to the edge of an abyss, and feeding dividend-hungry shareholders. Strange priorities for using tax money. Now the tax payer has to pay private enterprise's dividends...?

[DeepIron]

Cheating like this is banned on many game servers, I hear. It should be banned in real world economy and real world financial market and real world politics as well.
Over here in the US we don't call it cheating, we call it a "Bailout".

Cheers!
The bailout the Democrats pushed into law...And that the Taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will pay for... :shifty:

[jpm1]

still the countries aren't unified the Human being can't prevent himself from messing around but the big danger of the globalization 's to erase the differences which are essential to a sane evolution . That's the whole Europe problem right now ..

[baggygreen]

Sorry for the late reply fish - I've skipped over this thread recently!!

When at primary school I developed a strong interest in history. Throughout high school/college, I developed that general interest into a more anthropological interest. I continued it at university when I was there, and now its tailed off in the workforce.

I found anthropology the most interesting, as to know where one is going it helps to know where one came from - and funnily enough, we still don't know our evolutionary course for certain, which makes looking at the past much more important :D :know: