Unless you eat hydroponically grown plants.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
They don't use nitrates in the water?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Surely, if we eliminate all the predators in a particular ecosystem, the herbivore animals would surely control there population growth to avoid depletion of their food supply.Superior Mind wrote:
The world is overpopulated with humans. If we acted in harmony with the rest of our ecosystem we could consider ourselves successful and adaptive. Instead we are like parasites. This is not part of the "green" ideology, this is fact.
No, we're in perfect harmony with nature...but that has nothing to do with whether or not we're being beneficial to other plants and animals.
I'd like to think that we're just a very intrusive security program being developed by the planet to save its data offsite or repel foreign elements.
I'd like to think that we're just a very intrusive security program being developed by the planet to save its data offsite or repel foreign elements.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
That's a good way to think of it, newbie.
If you compare the biotia of earth of today to that of 1-250 million years ago (with all its fluctuations and mass extinctions) the present is significantly less colorful and diverse. This doesn't really affect our human lives, but the fewer healthy populations of species, the higher the risk of permanent loss other species.
If you compare the biotia of earth of today to that of 1-250 million years ago (with all its fluctuations and mass extinctions) the present is significantly less colorful and diverse. This doesn't really affect our human lives, but the fewer healthy populations of species, the higher the risk of permanent loss other species.
You act as if evolution doesn't exist and we're locked in stasis. New mutations crop up all the time.Superior Mind wrote:
That's a good way to think of it, newbie.
If you compare the biotia of earth of today to that of 1-250 million years ago (with all its fluctuations and mass extinctions) the present is significantly less colorful and diverse. This doesn't really affect our human lives, but the fewer healthy populations of species, the higher the risk of permanent loss other species.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
How can you tell how I act from a few sentences I have written?
I have confidence that no matter how badly we fuck over the Earth/ourselves, life will persist here and elsewhere. But it's kinda sad that we are instigating a long period of bleakness for the Earth. If something on the order of the Permian extinction occurs again, there will be no more humanity. Not unless we have long surpassed the bounds of nature-- but that shit is highly unlikely-- no matter how hard we try, how deep into space we venture, there is no escaping the chaos of nature. If we do manage to survive, and live off Earth, we will no longer regard ourselves as Homo sapiens, and Earth will have been dessicated a long time before that.
I have confidence that no matter how badly we fuck over the Earth/ourselves, life will persist here and elsewhere. But it's kinda sad that we are instigating a long period of bleakness for the Earth. If something on the order of the Permian extinction occurs again, there will be no more humanity. Not unless we have long surpassed the bounds of nature-- but that shit is highly unlikely-- no matter how hard we try, how deep into space we venture, there is no escaping the chaos of nature. If we do manage to survive, and live off Earth, we will no longer regard ourselves as Homo sapiens, and Earth will have been dessicated a long time before that.
If we're around that long, I'm sure a collector will renovate the solar system.
This is just seriously untrue. Seriously, seriously untrue.Superior Mind wrote:
That's a good way to think of it, newbie.
If you compare the biotia of earth of today to that of 1-250 million years ago (with all its fluctuations and mass extinctions) the present is significantly less colorful and diverse. This doesn't really affect our human lives, but the fewer healthy populations of species, the higher the risk of permanent loss other species.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
How?
The number of extant, completely unique species has risen consistently on a long term basis throughout that time period. Each mass extinction is accompanied, in enough time, with an unprecedented explosion in variety.
You say lots of nice-sounding, clever-looking things but you need to do a bit more reading first.
You say lots of nice-sounding, clever-looking things but you need to do a bit more reading first.
Last edited by Spark (2012-09-24 16:30:58)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Because you're making stupid environmentalist arguments without actually understanding them. There's no such thing as a loss of biodiversity, because everything on this planet is constantly evolving. There is no static point where you can point and say that we achieved ideal diversity because that point doesn't exist. Yes, you can say that certain species have died out over X number of years, but at the same time, Y new species or mutations occurred. It's a stupid argument.Superior Mind wrote:
How can you tell how I act from a few sentences I have written?
I have confidence that no matter how badly we fuck over the Earth/ourselves, life will persist here and elsewhere. But it's kinda sad that we are instigating a long period of bleakness for the Earth. If something on the order of the Permian extinction occurs again, there will be no more humanity. Not unless we have long surpassed the bounds of nature-- but that shit is highly unlikely-- no matter how hard we try, how deep into space we venture, there is no escaping the chaos of nature. If we do manage to survive, and live off Earth, we will no longer regard ourselves as Homo sapiens, and Earth will have been dessicated a long time before that.
Couple this with the other retarded argument that people who push this myth make: that we would be better off if private property didn't exist. That's nice except for the whole tragedy of the commons i.e. no one gives a fuck about public property because no one is responsible for it.
I keep telling you to move out of Brooklyn, because you're surrounded by morons spouting ideas they don't understand because it's cool to be young and a socialist/communist/whateverist.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I do think we're potentially on the brink of a medium-term mass extinction tbf, and that would be a shame - but the more pressing concern is that we simply don't know.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
I'm aware of that trend. Obviously those taxa that aren't greatly impacted by humanity's presence have continued to diversify and proliferate, but just in terms of plant and animal species and populations sizes (besides insects) present on Earth since humans became a dominant species we have seen a great loss. And this wouldn't be an issue, due to the resilience of life on Earth, but we are instigating a full tilt scenario.
The most obvious losses are in terrestrial animals and forest.
The most obvious losses are in terrestrial animals and forest.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-09-24 16:48:32)
Superior Mind wrote:
I'm aware of that trend. Obviously those taxa that aren't greatly impacted by humanity's presence have continued to diversify and proliferate, but just in terms of plant and animal species and populations sizes (besides insects) present on Earth since humans became a dominant species we have seen a great loss. And this wouldn't be an issue, due to the resilience of life on Earth, but we are instigating a full tilt scenario.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilder … o-its-trueIn the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what are you talking about, jay? nothing he has mentioned even nears an anti-property argument. was that an entire paragraph to just link to some wiki article you recently discovered / did some reading on in your nonfiction shelves? cause it's a poor connection.Jay wrote:
Because you're making stupid environmentalist arguments without actually understanding them. There's no such thing as a loss of biodiversity, because everything on this planet is constantly evolving. There is no static point where you can point and say that we achieved ideal diversity because that point doesn't exist. Yes, you can say that certain species have died out over X number of years, but at the same time, Y new species or mutations occurred. It's a stupid argument.Superior Mind wrote:
How can you tell how I act from a few sentences I have written?
I have confidence that no matter how badly we fuck over the Earth/ourselves, life will persist here and elsewhere. But it's kinda sad that we are instigating a long period of bleakness for the Earth. If something on the order of the Permian extinction occurs again, there will be no more humanity. Not unless we have long surpassed the bounds of nature-- but that shit is highly unlikely-- no matter how hard we try, how deep into space we venture, there is no escaping the chaos of nature. If we do manage to survive, and live off Earth, we will no longer regard ourselves as Homo sapiens, and Earth will have been dessicated a long time before that.
Couple this with the other retarded argument that people who push this myth make: that we would be better off if private property didn't exist. That's nice except for the whole tragedy of the commons i.e. no one gives a fuck about public property because no one is responsible for it.
I keep telling you to move out of Brooklyn, because you're surrounded by morons spouting ideas they don't understand because it's cool to be young and a socialist/communist/whateverist.
also he isn't the only one who is guilty of pontificating on subjects he doesn't know much about. you're probably not the best person to give 'spouting ideas' advice to sup. every time you try to bring up some abstraction or high-minded intellectual stuff, people laugh and tell you to stop.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
Let's not forget the resorting to personal attacks in nearly every post.
Do you have anything intelligent you wanted to add to the conversation or did you just want to let us all know you're bored and hanging around?aynrandroolz wrote:
what are you talking about, jay? nothing he has mentioned even nears an anti-property argument. was that an entire paragraph to just link to some wiki article you recently discovered / did some reading on in your nonfiction shelves? cause it's a poor connection.Jay wrote:
Because you're making stupid environmentalist arguments without actually understanding them. There's no such thing as a loss of biodiversity, because everything on this planet is constantly evolving. There is no static point where you can point and say that we achieved ideal diversity because that point doesn't exist. Yes, you can say that certain species have died out over X number of years, but at the same time, Y new species or mutations occurred. It's a stupid argument.Superior Mind wrote:
How can you tell how I act from a few sentences I have written?
I have confidence that no matter how badly we fuck over the Earth/ourselves, life will persist here and elsewhere. But it's kinda sad that we are instigating a long period of bleakness for the Earth. If something on the order of the Permian extinction occurs again, there will be no more humanity. Not unless we have long surpassed the bounds of nature-- but that shit is highly unlikely-- no matter how hard we try, how deep into space we venture, there is no escaping the chaos of nature. If we do manage to survive, and live off Earth, we will no longer regard ourselves as Homo sapiens, and Earth will have been dessicated a long time before that.
Couple this with the other retarded argument that people who push this myth make: that we would be better off if private property didn't exist. That's nice except for the whole tragedy of the commons i.e. no one gives a fuck about public property because no one is responsible for it.
I keep telling you to move out of Brooklyn, because you're surrounded by morons spouting ideas they don't understand because it's cool to be young and a socialist/communist/whateverist.
also he isn't the only one who is guilty of pontificating on subjects he doesn't know much about. you're probably not the best person to give 'spouting ideas' advice to sup. every time you try to bring up some abstraction or high-minded intellectual stuff, people laugh and tell you to stop.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Btw, ready for some irony? The whole buy local, buy organic, movement is completely at odds with a desire for biodiversity. Large, efficient farms mean less land is used for agriculture. Small farms waste land. Most of that forest growth that I mentioned in the previous link is from former farms returning to forestland because they were not competitive.
Example: http://www.vtfpr.org/util/vt_forest.pdf
Example: http://www.vtfpr.org/util/vt_forest.pdf
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Snowball Earth.Jay wrote:
There's no such thing as a loss of biodiversity
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
Jay might be right.
I've heard a theory that most of Earth's biomass exists underground. Life on Earth survived the snowball periods because of those subterranean microbial species, along with and including the extremeophiles. It may be possible that Jay is right. The planet was more volcanically active in the past. The organisms that live in or near acid pits, hot springs, sulfur pools, permanent lava flows, underwater geothermic vents, glaciers, caves, and polar icecaps could have existed in greater quantities. It's possible biodiversity maintained an equilibrium in these bleak environments. If there are worms that live in glaciers today, then there must have been ice worms covering all of snowball Earth. And wompas and tauntauns.
I've heard a theory that most of Earth's biomass exists underground. Life on Earth survived the snowball periods because of those subterranean microbial species, along with and including the extremeophiles. It may be possible that Jay is right. The planet was more volcanically active in the past. The organisms that live in or near acid pits, hot springs, sulfur pools, permanent lava flows, underwater geothermic vents, glaciers, caves, and polar icecaps could have existed in greater quantities. It's possible biodiversity maintained an equilibrium in these bleak environments. If there are worms that live in glaciers today, then there must have been ice worms covering all of snowball Earth. And wompas and tauntauns.
I'd trust Spark on all sciency matters.Spark wrote:
The number of extant, completely unique species has risen consistently on a long term basis throughout that time period. Each mass extinction is accompanied, in enough time, with an unprecedented explosion in variety.
You say lots of nice-sounding, clever-looking things but you need to do a bit more reading first.
You're equating mutation with biodiversity?Jay wrote:
Because you're making stupid environmentalist arguments without actually understanding them. There's no such thing as a loss of biodiversity, because everything on this planet is constantly evolving. There is no static point where you can point and say that we achieved ideal diversity because that point doesn't exist. Yes, you can say that certain species have died out over X number of years, but at the same time, Y new species or mutations occurred. It's a stupid argument.
Couple this with the other retarded argument that people who push this myth make: that we would be better off if private property didn't exist. That's nice except for the whole tragedy of the commons i.e. no one gives a fuck about public property because no one is responsible for it.
I keep telling you to move out of Brooklyn, because you're surrounded by morons spouting ideas they don't understand because it's cool to be young and a socialist/communist/whateverist.
Please look up what those words mean.
Which is a meaningless factoid, if you really think about it.In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-09-25 06:48:03)
Fuck Israel
I'm not saying eliminate the process, hell no, just take care with it. Gene splicing might rule out the guesswork, but it also affects any GM plant's interaction with other things out in the paddock like insects, microbes & other plants, and those interactions are the factors we can't easily predict.Jay wrote:
What's the difference? Enough iterations of the other techniques and you might end up with the same result. Gene splicing just takes out the guesswork and speeds up the process. It's progress. Wanting to eliminate gene splicing is like wanting to eliminate calculators because slide rules were such a great way to do calculations.BVC wrote:
I don't have a problem with GM food in principal, just as long as a lot of care is taken to avoid various issues. And by GM I mean gene splicing in a lab, not techniques such as cross-polination and selective breeding.
What I do have a problem with is terminator seeds.
And pork in apples? A self-saucing pork chop sounds pretty good to me!
Seems timely and topical:
Engineered corn saved some farmers from disaster
Engineered corn saved some farmers from disaster
Too bad it's that evil corn and not something hipper, like quinoa.Farmers are benefiting from decades of research in plant breeding combined with a growing interest in crops that can better tolerate drought and other stress. Indeed, research has shown that vulnerability to drought is one of the chief limits to crop production around the world. Meanwhile, gene mapping and other innovations have enabled scientists to develop new varieties with much greater speed and precision than before.
The results are startling and have implications far beyond the the survival of one year’s harvest in the Midwest. In a world of rising temperatures and population, improvements in drought tolerance are especially urgent.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular