ALL Species Are Endangered

said that they were all endangered. That means that any one of them
could be wiped out by the depradations of industrial society.

wont disagree with you there!

 

Hi flmkpr, (How do you pronounce that?

Oh. Is it short for "flamekeeper"?

Anyway, we don't even know how many species, or even orders, live on
this planet. We could have already wiped out species that weren't known
to science at all.

And it isn't the big and obvious species that are the most worrisome.

Living soil is the collective work of thousands of different microbes and
near-microbes. If some of those go extinct we could be in trouble like
you wouldn't believe.

Littlefoot

 

Within the framworks of their limiting beliefs. And within
the political and economic restraints of this System.

The vast majority of scientists are employed, directly or
indirectly, by the Corporations.

Those Corporations are interested in selling more and more
goods and services. In this economy you grow or you die.

That's why you don't see the scientific establishment telling
us to cut back on consumption, when obviously the only
way to save the Earth is to quit trashing it, and the only
way to do that is to cut back on consumption profoundly.

Littlefoot

 

That simply isn't true. Most scientists are sponsored through government funded agencies such as NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc. I am not directly or indirectly responsible to any sort of corporation, nor are any of the people I know or work with. Of course, business does need consultants, and generally there is an obvious agenda that the business pushes for under such circumstances. Everyone I know that has ever worked in industry has eventually gotten out of it for that reason.

Actually, there is strong sentiment within the scientific community and everyone that works on any topic related to resourse usage (natural or otherwise) that we are currently unsustainable and degrading almost every available resourse and that we must reduce consumption and degradation of these resources to prevent ruining them. If people don't see the scientific community saying to cut back consumption then, frankly, they aren't looking.

Chris

 

Hello Chris,

Let's take NASA. Without the corporations, they wouldn't exist, would they?
It's the corporations who make all of their hardware.

So they effectively control NASA for that reason.

Who controls the government? Lobbyists. Who finances the lobbyists?

Where does all the tax money come from? Directly or indirectly, from
the corporations.

They finance the schools you attended. They make all of your equipment. They
control the publishers that produced the texts (etc.) that you studied. And the
scientific journals.

How can get out of something that provides all of your hardware? That controls
the government that controls your funding?

There are also the Foundations, which provide grants to scientists. Where
does that money come from? Investments in the corporations.....

I am well aware of the fact that many scientists have opinions that are quite
at odds with the published opinions of the scientific establshment.
It's always been that way.

And they keep their heads down because they _are_ effectively controlled
by the corporations, and they don't want to lose their jobs/funding and reputations.

People aren't looking because the scientific establishment tells them that
the scientists with contrary opinions are nutcases and fools and eccentrics.
Like they always have.

The corporations control this entire civilization. How could the scientists
be an exception?

And anyone telling people that should radically cut back on consumption
is an enemy of the corporations.

Can't tell you how many ScD scientists I have met checking groceries
and the like. They are still scientists, and they generally work in that
capacity for good causes. But they don't have much equipment or any
significant funds for travel and assistants...Or much time to work
at their true craft.They have been castrated for daring to contradict the corporate-controlled scientific establishment.

There was no great public display involved. It's all very subtle. Their
applications for grants are just denied, ostensibly for other reasons.
They are denied tenure. The big publishing houses and the scientific
journals and the university presses won't publish their work. Ad naseum.


Littlefoot

 

Yes, I am that evil, amoral geologist who is going to destroy the world w/ my beliefs that life will survive humanity's extinction and my work on WMD's (if you have read any of this thread). Well, I guess some of those other evil corporate scientists agree w/ my idea that humanity's main threat is to humanity itself. The History Channel made a show about what would life be like 10,000 years after the extinction of humanity- here's a link: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=57517

I am sure the History Channel is trying to destroy the world w/ this video- or perhaps there is another view that doesn't involve every species dying out, all plants, animals, fungus, eukaryotes, and prokaryotes going extinct.

Peace and love

 

They were not killed by guns I assure you. Thier extinction coincided with the alliance of Dog and Man.

 

Back to the Iron age.

How much of our current population will be lost with this change?

 

If we get to be too much of a problem the Earth will just shake us off. The Earth has been through worse stuff than us.

 

(I just realized this is a real real old post.. lol)

You are a raging radical.

So wait, the government is going to use peons to build walls, use the military to kick the peons out of the walls, then kick the military outside the walls next?

And human power is the most efficient form of power? Sorry, but you are brainless.

Water buffalo eat grass and are 1000x stronger than a human. Humans have to eat a pyramid of foods and we're not that strong.

Using our brains we're able to capture the mechanical energy of rushing water and turn it into electrical.

The only issue is balance. And a simple truth is that our world social/economic systems are not in balance with the Earth system. As our world systems expand the Earth systems detract. We could have both systems increase, but it would take a total turnaround of our world systems.

And *no* animal products? That's ludicrous. The key is BALANCE. Eskimos aren't going to destroy the Pacific food chain by eating a couple seals.

No trading?....No earth friendly industries? If you believe that then YOU are clueless.

Titling a thread as "ALL (capital) Species Are Endangered" is like typical fearmongering. Instead of spelling doom and gloom, why not do something productive?

Show how much land it would take to feed a person for a year. Show how many hours worked, health benefits, etc. Teach people how to be the truth. Don't hop on some forum and spout crazy visions of doom and facts we know like the backs of our hands. We need people to give us a true vision of the future. To show us a model of a way to live that. If you're someone who truly wants to make a change in the world then you're using the power of the internet and these blessed forums in the wrong way.

You also act like people will run a faucet till the last drop, and that THAT is the very first moment they've ever realized that our system isn't sustainable. Sorry to ruin your apocalyptic fantasy, but we will adapt long before it gets that bad. Things will get bad, but people aren't THAT stupid.

Nobody here denies that we are killing the earth. You are just sittin on your little Green Throne spouting that everybody is a mindless drone who is oblivious to what's going on. Do you expect people to just starve, have their uninformed families become destroyed, and squat on some forest land and hope what you eat isn't poisonous? People have to ADAPT. Maybe you started learning when you were 4 years old. But not all of us came to this path at such a convenient age.

You also confuse HippieChick's "life will go on" for having no empathy. Saying that one day I'm going to die is not saying that I"m trying to have an early death. Just like I believe that although 99% of life may die, there will be SOMETHING that lives. That doesn't mean I dont give a shit about what's happening to the earth. You're just demonizing people.

 

Haha, what a post! :cheers2:

 

Since the readers here are maybe already upset and alarmed as they should be, I don't recommend you read National Geographic's April 2007 article, "Still Waters - The Global Fish Crisis". It will only depress you more. If you insist, here's the link:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/global-fisheries-crisis/montaigne-text
Humans are taking 100 million tons per year in fish and other marine catch. That's 270,000 tons per day or 3 tons per second. This is in no way sustainable, and may lead to famine among the very people who are doing the overfishing.

My own take is that, supposing for an instant there is a God that concerns Itself with earthly affairs, this same God would be working overtime on HIV mutations or flu pandemics that would wipe out humanity before humanity ruins the rest of Its creation. Needless to say this is not the type of God that you would pray to in order to straighten out your own little human affairs...

 

My smattering of atomic physics tells me that so-called subatomic particles are not particles in the same sense as we think of objects in the macro physical world. For example, electrons are said to have ZERO radius. Neutrinos have ZERO mass.

Q: What did the photon say to the electron?
A: He didn't say anything. He probably waved!

 

Wow. I sense a lot of conviction in those arguments right there. Does anyone have any insight as to how invading species affect those arguments?

http://blog.babyganics.com/

 

Actually, the sacrificial fires of metabolic investment require 100% mortality.

 

I agree. Humans have done so much damage, it leaves them awe-struck.