New Cult of Darkness

[John Dailey]

~ Before you 3 (4?) really start going at each others' throats over disagreements about who meant what defending which point for and/or against AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and it's pre-made sequel THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, may I suggest a breather and watch the trilogy's finale:

CHICKEN LITTLE

~ ...then come back with a more rationally-oriented framework therefrom and continue the discussion in a less 'personal' fashion?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

What a relief.

About the swindle movie, I didn't find it bad. I found it less convincing than Inconvenient Truth for laypeople.

It started out with a handicap right from the get-go. Instead of presenting, it was geared toward debunking. Please remember that at the elementary level, the layperson will look at credentials. He will see good credentials on both sides and a lot of technical information that he doesn't know enough to process correctly.

So who do you think he is going to favor: the man who is making things happen, or the man who is calling that person a liar? One puts his time and resources into building something impressive. Another puts his own time and resources into destroying what the first is building, but building precious little on his own.

All other things being equal, who would you be inclined to grant more credibility to? Especially when politics is involved?

That's just for starters.

Another problem is that it presented theories like sunspots as if they were the real solutions. As I have mentioned, I think the real solution is that science is not settled and I imagine a true global warming theory includes all factors from both sides. At least measurements exist for the different possibilities from both sides.

Laypeople maybe cannot sift the facts, but they can note that good scientists disagree diametrically opposite each other in loud voices. When each one says he is right and the other is wrong, the layperson starts to think that maybe they are both right to an extent and both wrong to an extent. That is the only conclusion he can come to comfortably.

I will do a real analysis later.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Judging your posts here, and most especially your posts on the Gore thread, am I correct to surmise that you are “suspicious” of the “bias” of both sides in the global warming dispute? Would it be as thus: On the one hand—and in broad brush strokes I admit, we have the environmentalists/leftists continuum who have ideological reasons for asserting that global warming exists and that humans are the cause---and, with an equal broad brush stroke, we have the libertarians/objectivists/republicans continuum who, also, have ideological reasons for asserting that global warming doesn’t exists and that human action is irrelevant in climate change. Either way, as you see it, both are ruled by some sort of “bias” and both are charged equally with the responsibility to substantiate their claims. Is that it?

Michael, I put this to you: the fact is that there is no evidence of global warming that is caused by man's actions—and THIS is the crucial issue, not merely if there has been a case of a rise in temperature by natural causes. The eco-fanatics response is that the putative risks are so certainly great that reality does not matter---but in reality, the risks are negligible. Objectivists, it is true, do in fact permit the *possibility* that man can control nature and raise or lower the Earth's temperature. But that is a very different thing than to say that he has done so—and to great calamity. So is it possible that you have misrepresented Objectivism in this regard?

-Victor

Edited April 14, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... the fact is that there is no evidence of global warming that is caused by man's actions—and THIS is the crucial issue, not merely if there has been a case of a rise in temperature by natural causes.

Victor,

This kind of statement is what I object to. There actually is evidence and "no evidence" at all is not a fact. There are plenty of reports to read. Your statement is false. I reject rebutting one falsehood with another.

The real fact and truth is that science is not settled on the issue, neither what nor how much. Science is not even settled on whether global warming even exists. There is a great deal of controversy with oodles of evidence for all sorts of things by oodles of scientists. I prefer to let them sort it out.

In the meantime, voting for laws that govern human behavior on this issue is both stupid and arbitrary. One should not make laws based on unproven theories.

The absurdity is shown in trying to be fair. If a law is passed regulating human products and activities based on one unproven theory, then to be fair, other laws regulating human products and activities should be passed based on other unproven theories, even conflicting ones. Then you have a mess.

Notice that this logic cuts both ways and does not allow for legal privileges for either side.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

These people in Sydney are trying to save their lives - in the best way they know how. There is nothing altruistic about this! They honestly believe that global catastrophe is a reality - or at least a likely possibility. I am NOT advocating what they're doing - I am NOT advocating blackouts or suspension of human technology. Like I said before, I don't know what to think of global warming or how we can deal with it. I would think that there are other ways of going about saving the world besides an all-out shut-down of technology. I don't find anything inspiring about the coma of a city. And neither do these people in Sydney. That is WHY they're doing it. They don't want to see their lives and their homes and their loved ones lost under the unforgiving waves.

The good folks of Sidney would be much better off if they replaced all incandescent bulbs with standard base florescent bulbs. The savings in in current is about 60 percent with no loss of illumination. In addition the fluros last five times longer than incandescents.

Now to the main point: The basis for the dire predictions is so-called Climate Science. Climate Science which is based in part on physics is really not well grounded theoretically. Climate Science (so-called) is a collection of -models- (implemented by computer programs) and constructed to fit data measured from various sources. That, in itself, is not bad. When dealing with something as complicated as climate, it is unlikely that anyone is going to come up with some mathematically elegant axiomatic type model, such as we have in theoretical physics. Climate is much more complicated than the interactions of particles and fields.

The correctness of climate models is very dependent on what and how much data is gathered. There is currently a bias built into temperature data, to wit, too many measuring stations are in or near cities. Cities have become "heat islands". The steel and concrete structures of a large city heat up under sunlight during the day and radiate the heat at night. This makes the temperature readings higher than they should be. Temperature gather stations should be spread out further away from cities. Unfortunately cities are where most of the universities and weather data gathering companies are located.

The accurate collection of temperature data has no been going on long enough to accurately establish trends. That is another problem.

So we have empirical models built on biased and potentially incorrect data. In addition there is really no theoretical underpinning to climatology. Let me make an analogy: climatology is where astronomy was in the time of Kepler. Kepler was the first to -fit curves- to data gathered from Tycho Brahe's instruments, then the best naked-eye (non-telescopic) data collection enterprise in the world. That is how Kepler derived the idea that planet orbits are elliptical (which is true to the first order of approximation). However Kepler did NOT have a theory underlying the motion of the planets. His understanding was data limited and the best he could do is fit curves to data. In short Kepler constructed a model. It happened to be a good model and it was left to Isaac Newton to produce a THEORY to account for the observations. The theory consisted of force laws and differential equations. Climate Science is still waiting for its Isaac Newton.

O.K. So we do not have a well grounded -theory of climate-. All beginnings are hard. If this was the only problem it would be a matter of working smarter and thinking better until a theory is developed.

Unfortunately, major policy decisions are based on climate models of dubious quality. In addition, many of the conclusions are -politically motivated-. Governments have an interest in making a case for telling foks what to do, what not to do and charging them for the privilege of being ruled in a less than reasonable manner. The UN IPCC has a genuine ax to grind in the matter of global warming. They make quasi-dire predictions to enhance their reputations for far-sightedness. Unfortunately their sight is derived from bent and dirty lenses.

If Chicken Little is going to go around telling everyone that the sky is falling, it would behoove him to, at least have accurate data to that effect. The Chicken Littles of global warming have not yet met that requirement.

Ba'al Chatzaf -- ever skeptical of those who think themselves wiser than the rest of us

[BaalChatzaf]

Kyrel -- You're right! E=mc2. The stock of energy and matter is the stock of the universe. The only things in short supply are rational minds that can figure out how to free energy at an economical price and the political freedom to do so!

Ed

In reality only a small amount of mass can be converted to energy in fusion and fission reactions. In fusion reactions about 0.007. That is 7/10 of one percent. When multiplied by c squared that is one humongous can of whoop-ass. HOO-RAH! But being an astronomer you should know we are not going to ever convert large percentages of mass to energy. The underlying physical processes have gone to a great deal of trouble to solidify energy into mass, since the Big Bang.

Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young Ed, until all mass into energy converted is, else blue turn you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

"The problem with the global warming issue is that in popular public and political policy discussions the matter it is an ill-defined, epistemological mess. Asking 'Do you believe in global warming?' has the flavor of 'Do you believe in Jesus?' with lots of unstated implications. We need to break the matter down.

The proper way of putting that question is: Are you convinced by the models and the data so far presented that

1. global warming is largely anthropogenic and 2. said global warming will lead to catastrophic conditions?

My response to those questions would be no and no.

I have stated my reasons in another post concerning the nature an quality of climatic science and climatic modeling.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ed Hudgins]

Kyrel -- You're right! E=mc2. The stock of energy and matter is the stock of the universe. The only things in short supply are rational minds that can figure out how to free energy at an economical price and the political freedom to do so!

Ed

In reality only a small amount of mass can be converted to energy in fusion and fission reactions. In fusion reactions about 0.007. That is 7/10 of one percent. When multiplied by c squared that is one humongous can of whoop-ass. HOO-RAH! But being an astronomer you should know we are not going to ever convert large percentages of mass to energy. The underlying physical processes have gone to a great deal of trouble to solidify energy into mass, since the Big Bang.

Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young Ed, until all mass into energy converted is, else blue turn you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am aware, of course, of the relationship of energy to matter and I don't suggest that we can redo the Big Bang (it would be kind of messy anyway!) to release it all. I do say that for all practical purposes, the energy we can release through nuclear reactors and orbiting solar cells, and from wave motion, geo-thermal, wind and so many other ways and sources will more than serve our needs. What we need is a free market system and intelligent, entrepreneurial minds to figure out how to release it economically so we don't have to feel guilty -- I don't anyway -- about turning on a light!

[Ellen Stuttle]

The proper way of putting that question ["Do you believe in global warming?"] is: Are you convinced by the models and the data so far presented that

1. global warming is largely anthropogenic and 2. said global warming will lead to catastrophic conditions?

My response to those questions would be no and no.

Although Bob framed his questions in terms of just inquiring about the status of a person's convictions on the subject, I have a cavil because the wording of the questions carries the implications (a) that there is global warming; and (b ) that at least some of said warming is anthropogenic. I think there are two more-basic questions to ask first:

(1) Do you think there even is a warming trend?

(2) If yes, do you think that human production of CO2 is a factor at all in producing that trend?

My answers are that I know of no good reason yet to conclude there is a warming trend, or to think that human CO2 production is a contributing factor if there is one.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

... the fact is that there is no evidence of global warming that is caused by man's actions—and THIS is the crucial issue, not merely if there has been a case of a rise in temperature by natural causes.

Victor,

This kind of statement is what I object to. There actually is evidence and "no evidence" at all is not a fact. There are plenty of reports to read. Your statement is false. I reject rebutting one falsehood with another.

The real fact and truth is that science is not settled on the issue, neither what nor how much. Science is not even settled on whether global warming even exists. There is a great deal of controversy with oodles of evidence for all sorts of things by oodles of scientists. I prefer to let them sort it out.

In the meantime, voting for laws that govern human behavior on this issue is both stupid and arbitrary. One should not make laws based on unproven theories.

The absurdity is shown in trying to be fair. If a law is passed regulating human products and activities based on one unproven theory, then to be fair, other laws regulating human products and activities should be passed based on other unproven theories, even conflicting ones. Then you have a mess.

Notice that this logic cuts both ways and does not allow for legal privileges for either side.

Michael

Michael,

No, there is no evidence. I respectfully disagree and maintain this for these reasons: Every scientific issue is deeply rooted in a philosophical framework -- an epistemological framework. No scientific questions at all can be answered without having a valid philosophical framework for giving specific meaning to the initial methods of investigation, that being epistemological. The idea that you can widen your eyes and "just look" outward in some kind of primitive, pre-conceptual mode and have scientific fact revealed to you is erroneous. It is crucial that a proper philosophy of science be based on a proper metaphysics, epistemology and in that respect Objectivism has a great deal to say and offer.

"Global warming" (in the eco-freak sense) is a fundamentally philosophical position because the "science" surrounding it is not philosophically sound, and just as principal views of, say, sociology are philosophically wrong (being based on fundamentally false presumptions) I am arguing that "global warming science" is pseudo-science. I am waiting for factually-grounded demonstration that global warming is in fact founded on something more solid than quicksand. If your position was one of a "scientific explanations of climate change" (not this ‘end of the world’ hysteria though) I would agree with you. Michael, this is an ideological agenda. Can't you see that? The mere use of the term "global warming" in today's context automatically assumes the premise that it is caused by capitalism and that the “warming” is necessarily a thing that will lead to a biblical-like Armageddon.

Yes, the climate is changing. Is THIS where the oodles of evidence is? Yes, the climate has always changed! That is why we have had Ice Ages and periods when the climate has been much warmer than it is today – and, zowie--all of this happened previous to the "evil" Industrial Revolution came along! THAT is the issue. What causes the climate to change and what forces are in play when it does is a fascinating subject but it is a strictly scientific question and involves specialized knowledge. (I say that Objectivist epistemology adds huge amounts to the validation of scientific methods upon which to base conclusions as to whether there is a meaningful warming trend and what causes it).

Environmentalism is, as I said, a religion. It follows the story of Christianity vclosely, except it removes "God" with "Earth" and "Hell" with "Global Warming". (Both are hot stuff) ;-] According to Environmentalism, the Earth was perfect--until Men came along to devastate it. And just like Christianity, there is still time to be saved before the rapture comes and engulfs us in Hell. And just like (early) Christianity, the rapture will come soon. According to the evangel of Gore—10 YEARS! Global Warming is an ideological/philosophical issue, and a false one on that.

-Victor

Edited April 15, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The mere use of the term "global warming" in today's context automatically assumes the premise that it is caused by capitalism and that the “warming” is necessarily a thing that will lead to a biblical-like Armageddon.

Victor,

We are going to go around and around about generalities and I am not up for this. There are many scientists on the global warming side who are not "pseudo-scientists" or any of the other Objectivist bromides. Their work is and has been serious and should not be discounted in such generalities. You think differently. Fine.

I have a suggestion. Instead of discussing "today's context" or "automatically assumes" or war against capitalism or any of the other oversimplified opinions, why not take one of the leader's works, point to passages you object to and then go to town denouncing up a storm? At least you will be dealing with something specific enough that maybe someone will listen. I don't see people who believe in global warming otherwise being influenced by your "us against them, march off to war" approach.

(btw - Many of "them" I personally don't see as "them." They are just ordinary people trying to do the best they can in life. I intend to do what I can to help some of them avoid committing a bad mistake and voting for some hyper-regulatory laws where none are needed.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

There is an anti-capitalism crusade that is pervasive and I can prove this. There is a hostility towards technology and it is all over the place. How did you miss it? And more: 'They' (those who make the assertion) have affirmed that actual, scientific truth is secondary to ideological concerns.

Do you want the sources?

I maintain that "Global warming" is a fundamentally philosophical position and it is pseudo-science (and that is not an “Objectivist bromide”). The leaders of the environmentalist movement have been clearly and openly explicit in stating that they wish to see human beings dead and that they regard human beings as an affliction on the planet. By word and deed, that is their positon.

Anyway, regardless of whatever “scientific credentials” you want to draw my attention to--would you take political (or policy recommendations) from someone who wishes to see you dead on the basis that he has "credentials?" And no, just because someone subscribes to such an ideology does not mean that they are incapable of doing good science, of coure not-- but what difference does it make? Such people take part in the ideology of environmentalism - and they are actively proposing policies towards that end.

Further more, most 'global warming advocate' scientists admit that it has yet to be proven - but, they persist, we need to act as if it were true because of the allegedly calamitous consequences if it were. In this respect, ideology is trumping science. These scientist are acting as ‘good greens’ first...and as scientists in a secondary manner.

Again: yes, there are scientific explanations for climate change—but not this ‘end of the world’ hysteria though. That is an ideological agenda. The mere use of the term "global warming" IS asserted in such a way to damn capitalism---and the “warming” is necessarily, as is asserted, a thing that will lead to a biblical-like Armageddon, all thanks to man’s actions. THAT is what is being said. As you investigate further by reading the works by Environmentalist leaders you will see that what I am saying is not some “constructed Objectivist hysteria.”

-Victor

Edited April 16, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, you are putting your humanism before science, implying a conflict. There is none; science comes before humanism otherwise there can be no real humanism.

--Brant

Edited April 16, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, you are putting your humanism before science, implying a conflict. There is none; science comes before humanism otherwise there can be no real humanism.

Brant,

I agree if we are dealing with science. But as I see it, we are not. The science is being dealt with by people far more competent than me in this area and from what I have been able to gather, the scientists are not agreeing with each other.

The real issue actually is a human one (thus the humanist approach). People are getting ready to vote on severely restricting each other based on science—or more precisely, based on unproven scientific theories. I think that danger is approaching fast—it is clear and present.

All the broad sweeping generalizations damning all environmentalists as evil (capitalism haters, leftovers from socialism, etc.) have been presented over and over and over by some really good writers down the years. Maybe my perception is wrong and there really is no danger of environmental laws being passed, but from where I sit, I don't see how that line argument has made an impact on the ones who are going to do the voting. It certainly makes us feel good to know we are on the side of the right and the true-hearted, but I don't know how good we are going to feel if those laws pass.

I contend that rehashing that line over and over is useless at convincing anybody in the present situation. I base this on seeing how it has convinced precious few since, say, Reisman's essay in 1990. It only convinces people who are libertarian/Objectivist-oriented, and they are already convinced before reading the literature.

(Targeting specific people with that approach might be good at times to discredit the person. That can be useful to do if you want to tell his followers, "Look at this about at the one you are following. Are you sure you want to follow that person?" I have seen this backfire more often than not, though, and actually convince the follower that he is right and the critic is merely playing the politics of mudslinging.)

I think a new approach is needed. The most effective one I know of is the child pointing and saying the emperor has no clothes, then proving this in very simple language with information provided by the environmentalist side itself. That is speaking the language of the laypeople on the environmentalist side and hitting them with their own sources. Actually, this approach is out there. It just needs more adherents if we are going to convince anyone.

Like NB said, I don't know how you can convince anyone by telling him he is rotten.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Although Bob framed his questions in terms of just inquiring about the status of a person's convictions on the subject, I have a cavil because the wording of the questions carries the implications (a) that there is global warming; and (b ) that at least some of said warming is anthropogenic. I think there are two more-basic questions to ask first:

(1) Do you think there even is a warming trend?

(2) If yes, do you think that human production of CO2 is a factor at all in producing that trend?

My answers are that I know of no good reason yet to conclude there is a warming trend, or to think that human CO2 production is a contributing factor if there is one.

Ellen

___

In a way, I was asking if the hypothetical questionee believed that the climate models are sound. I have grave doubts on that matter. As I have stated elsewhere we really do not have a well grounded theory of earth-climate. And for good reason. It is much more complicated than, say, field and particle physics and we are lacking a great deal of the data. In addition our data collection is biased by urban "heat islands" where most of the measuring stations are located. And to top it all off, the underlying processes, insofar as we comprehend them, are non-linear and chaotic. Compared to climate and weather, quantum field theory is a trivial exercise. I would be hesitant to base public policy and zillions of tax dollars on the conclusions from models which are incomplete and probably defective.

In todays climate (sic!) this is a very un-PC attitude. That puts me at odds with (gasp!) The United Nations! Oh the horror, the horror!

Ba'al Chatzaf (Lord of Chutzpah)

[John Dailey]

~ How about that we all agree that: of all 'expert authoritative scientists', some DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER...and...that we are each picking which 'side/group' we agree with, ergo, which group we disagree with? Especially as to which has supposedly enough 'evidence' for it's view...and which doesn't...have enough?

~ Actually, re the latter point, this seems to be the lynchpin arguing spot. 'My' side has evidence; 'your' side doesn't. --- Actually, both sides have 'evidence.' The thing is, which side's arguments cancel out the worth of the other's 'evidence' for the other side's arguments.

~ I'm not asking "Can't we all 'get along'?" I'm asking "Can't we all avoid myopia?"

~ There's 'evidence' for both sides; scientists disagree, but, they have little emotional prob with such (unless one side politically shoves their view down the others' throats.) --- Let's not act here as some scientists (and politicians) have elsewhere.

LLAP

J:D

[Ellen Stuttle]

John,

Your post above -- as often happens with your posts -- makes no sense to me whatsoever. Yeah, scientists disagree. Is that what you're saying? We don't all know that? What is your point?

Ellen

___

[John Dailey]

Ellen:

~ Well, since it "often happens with [my] posts" that such "makes no sense to [you], whatsoever", there's little point in my re-phrasing what I'm arguing for...to you. It would no doubt fall in the 'often' category.

~ May I suggest that you just...scroll on by...as I do with others' which I often see the same way.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 23, 2007 by John Dailey

[Robert Jones]

Darn it, Ed, so that's it? Just an article about looney environmentalists turning off streetlamps? I was hoping from your title for your take, finally, on Death Metal, how Richard Wagner is the spiritual great-grandfather of Type-O Negative, Marilyn Manson, Mercyfull Fate and Slayer ;) :devil:

[Ed Hudgins]

Perhaps reading this thread will inspire someone to start a metal band named "Techno-Valkyries and the Guitar Gods of Valhalla," though I suspect there probabaly already is one!

[Judith]

Today's Wall Street Journal had a link to this article:

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/edit...l_070504_1.html

Yeah, we know they mean it, but it's still shocking to see them say it.

Judith

---------------------------------------

05/04/2007

The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?

There is a Biocentric Solution.

Commentary by Paul Watson

Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Does humanity have a future?

We are presently living in what conservation biologists refer to as the Holocene extinction event. This is the sixth global mass extinction event in last 439 million years.

The previous five extinction events wiped out between 50 to 95 percent of species each time. The most recent event was 65 million years ago at the end of the Jurassic period, a cataclysmic occurrence that exterminated the dinosaurs, the dominant group of species at of that period.

Evolution addresses the diminishment of biological diversity through speciation, but it takes at least ten million years to build up diversity of species to the level prior to a mass extinction event.

The world ten million years after the Jurassic crash was radically different than the world of the dinosaurs. The world after the Holocene extinction event, the one we are in now, will be as radically altered and most likely one of the species that will not survive the event will be the present dominant species – the human species.

In a way, the Holocenic extinction event could also be called the “Holocenic hominid collective suicide event.”

After all, we Homo sapiens are the last survivors of the hominid line, a group that has been on its way out for some time. The beetle family, for example, has some 700,000 species by comparison. Odds are many of the beetle species will survive the event, whereas we will not.

But the reality is that what is happening now is the result of the collective actions of us hominids. We are the ruthlessly territorial primates whose numbers have soared far beyond the level of global carrying capacity for the deadly behavioural characteristics that we display.

This did not happen yesterday because we suddenly became aware of the dangers of global warming. It began 50,000 years ago when a relatively hairless primate stumbled out of equatorial Africa and began wiping out the megafauna of the time. Wherever this creature (our ancestor) went, their arrival was followed by large die-outs of megafauna. Primitive hominids were well-organized, efficient, slaughter crews. As they advanced, the mammoth, sabre-toothed cats, cave bears, giant sloths, camels, horses, and wholly rhinos fell to their stone weapons and deliberately set fires. The extinction of all of these great mega-species is directly attributable to “primitive” human hunters. The hunting down of the mega-fauna was followed by the advent of agriculture and the domestication of selected animals. Domesticated cows, goats, sheep, and pigs grew in numbers and denuded large areas of grasslands. Irrigation systems began to toxify land. Then agriculture was followed by industrial activities, and finally, by the burning off of vast amounts of fossil fuels.

As an example, consider Australia. There were incredible creatures that once lived and foraged in the wilds of Australia more than 50,000 years ago. They vanished.

They were victims of widespread fires set by the first human inhabitants, the ancestors of modern day Aboriginals. The fires were set to burn the brush, either to assist in hunting or to clear the land. Whatever the reason, the fires were devastating and the result was a massive extinction of species, primarily the majority of the incredible mega-fauna of the continent.

Some fifty millennia ago, the entire ecosystem of Australia was disrupted and transformed by humans. The fires wiped out food sources for browsing animals like the 200-pound flightless bird called the Genyornis. Marsupials the size of grizzly bears were obliterated. Also destroyed were tortoises twice the size of those in the Galapagos today, and snakes and lizards in excess of twenty-five feet.

In all, some 85 percent of the mega-fauna was removed because of human intervention.

According to research by scientists at the University of Colorado, the Australian National University, and the University of Washington, the analysis of organic material in some 700 fossil eggshells laid over centuries by the enormous bird Genyornis newtoni revealed that the birds lived among an abundant array of vegetation that suddenly became very scarce. This scarcity coincides with the period of colonization of Australia by humans from Indonesia.

“It was systematic burning that caused the catastrophic collapse of the largest animals.'' This according to Gifford Miller in an interview from the Australian National University in Canberra.

“The widespread fires altered the environment so drastically that what had been forest turned into a dry landscape of small scrubby shrubs and grasses, where smaller animals that could thrive on much more varied diets were able to survive while the megafauna vanished,'' he said.

“It can happen anywhere at any time: Humans are a part of any ecosystem, so when you introduce people into the system, they're bound to alter it – often so rapidly that other parts of the ecosystem don't have any time to adjust. The result is extinction,'' Miller said.

It has been a case of steady diminishment for thousands of years followed by a rapidly accelerating ecological downward spiral.

Today, escalating human populations have vastly exceeded global carrying capacity and now produce massive quantities of solid, liquid, and gaseous waste. Biological diversity is being threatened by over-exploitation, toxic pollution, agricultural mono-culture, invasive species, competition, habitat destruction, urban sprawl, oceanic acidification, ozone depletion, global warming, and climate change. It’s a runaway train of ecological calamities.

It’s a train that carries all the earth’s species as unwilling passengers with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake pedal.

The latest reports from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List (IUCN) – a database measuring the global status of Earth's 1.5 million scientifically named species – states quite confidently that we will lose half of them by 2150.

This is a cataclysmic prediction, yet it is strangely absent from the world’s media. No one wants to hear about it. It’s depressing. We would rather collectively deny ecological realities.

I’ve heard from some denialists that species extinction is natural. Yes it is, but the normal extinction rate over millions of years has been about one species per year and the niche vacated is readily filled by another species that begins to specialize in filling that niche.

But, we are now losing species faster than they can be replaced and entire ecological niches are being vacated permanently.

Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the IUCN assessed, one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one in three conifers, and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction. The peril faced by other classes of organisms is less thoroughly analyzed, but fully 40 percent of the examined species of planet earth are in danger, including perhaps 51 percent of reptiles, 52 percent of insects, and 73 percent of flowering plants.

Extinction of marine wildlife is considered to be even more severe with only 4% of the Northern cod remaining and sharks being removed from the sea at a rate of one hundred million a year.

By the most conservative measure – based on the last century's recorded extinctions – the current rate of extinction is 100 times the background rate. Harvard conservation biologist Edward O. Wilson estimates that the true rate is more like 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate. We are losing about 200 species a day and remember that the norm is one species per year.

Wilson predicts that our present course will lead to the extinction of half of all plant and animal species by 2100.

The trends are all around us and in the process of rapid escalation. Of course, it is easy to dismiss this and go about our business which is the ignorance-is-bliss-school of thought.

But, would we do this if we were diagnosed with a terminal disease? No, as depressing as that revelation would be, we would address possible remedies. We would look for a cure. We would try to survive.

The planet’s ecosystem is a collective living organism and operates very much like the human body. Water is the blood of the earth. It provides the same function in the body as it does for the earth. Water transports nutrients to the land and transports waste to the sea or more specifically the estuaries and salt marshes that function as the liver for the earth, cleansing the water of the toxins. Water circulates through the ecosystem from the sea into the clouds falling back onto the land and returning to the sea again. It is pumped by the energy of the sun, the heart of the earth. It’s a continuous cyclic movement of nutrient bearing, waste removing action that keeps the land fertile.

A river is an artery and a vein, and streams and brooks are capillaries. Put a dam on a river and you cut off an artery preventing nutrients from moving downstream and you cut off the vein preventing the waste from the land from being removed and cleansed.

Plankton, plants, and especially forests are the lungs of the earth, removing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. Overfishing, plankton harvesting, and deforestation is literally diminishing global lung capacity.

Species work interdependently to develop mutually beneficial strategies that maintain and strengthen ecosystems. Every species removed diminishes the system and weakens the collective body of the biosphere.

Humans are presently acting upon this body in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system.

A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet’s life support system. We are killing our host the planet Earth.

I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the “AIDS of the Earth.” I make no apologies for that statement. Our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves. We are both the pathogen and the vector. But we also have the capability of being the anti-virus if only we can recognize the symptoms and address the disease with effective measures of control.

John Muir once wrote that when you tug on any part of nature, you find that it is intimately connected to every other part of nature.

The symptoms are right here before our eyes. Bee diminishment is causing diminishment in plants dependent upon bee pollination. Army ants support 100 known and identified species from beetles to birds. Grey whales are returning to Mexican lagoons under-nourished. Shark and large predatory fish populations have been reduced to between 65 to 95 percent in our oceans. Entire fish species are in a state of rapid collapse, especially the commercially valued species like cod, wild salmon, swordfish, and tuna.

Seventy species of South American frogs have been declared extinct in the last two decades. Thousands of species of insects are going extinct in the rainforests that have not even been discovered and classified.

I remember walking along the beaches in Vancouver harbour a few decades ago. Every single stone overturned sent a flurry of disturbed baby crabs scurrying to find new cover. I was fascinated by the sheer number of tiny crustaceans that I observed on those walks. Today, I have not found a single young crab under a single rock on those beaches. They were picked clean by Vietnamese immigrants that descended like locusts onto those beaches and stripped them clean. And criticism of that exploitation immediately elicited accusations of racism.

Today racism, cultural rights, and the right to exploit nature for commercial gain are the weapons used to defend gross over-exploitation of species and the destruction of natural habitats.

An extinction event is a quickly accelerating process. The number of species removed will rise relevant to the rising number of host species.

There is only one cure, only one way of stopping this rising epidemic of extinctions. The solution requires an extraordinarily immense effort by all of human society but it is achievable.

We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.

This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human realities.

But the alternative is unimaginable. Unless we address the problem, we will be faced with the complete transformation of the planet from one of diversity to ecosystems shattered, weakened, and destroyed by mass extinction and the collapse of bio-diversity.

One hundred and fifty years ago, Henry David Thoreau wrote that “in wildness is the preservation of the world.”

We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.

In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.

Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.

All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.

Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We need to live with them in mutual respect.

We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower populations of domestic housecats and dogs. Already the world’s housecats consume more fish than all the world’s seals and we have made the cow into the largest aquatic predator on the planet because more than one half of all fish taken from the sea is converted into meal for animal feed.

We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Amish survive without cars and so can the rest of us.

We can retain technology but within the context of Henry David Thoreau’s simple message to “simplify, simplify, simplify.”

We need an economic system that provides all people with educational, medical, security, and support systems without mass production and vast utilization of resources. This will only work within the context of a much smaller global population.

Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.

This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources.

There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our past ecological folly.

Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach

It won’t be easy but then it’s better than the alternative.

[BaalChatzaf]

Elizabeth,

There’s a lot that I could say about this thread, but I would rather ask questions for now.

For example: Would you say that there are certain Environmentalist types who don’t want a more “perfect society” because they view human beings as a plague---and they would, if they had the power, see to the alienation of mankind?

More like the -elimination- of mankind. We are no more a plague than the ants or the bees or weeds for that matter. We are a species of animal doing our thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Ba al,

This post makes me forgive the post about the so-called "drug war".