NationStates Jolt Archive

A new development today, where an exhaustive study, was undertaken by the UN, to study damages to the world's ecosystems. Link below to the article.

clicky (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13803&Cr=ecosystem&Cr1=)

This is related to the recent debate on greenhouse emissions. I want to get your feedback, on whether you think we have damaged the environment, specifically ecosystems, to the extent that they will never be able to recover.

I will post my comments later.

Please, be courteous to your fellow poster!

Well to late to worry about it now. We might as well party like it is 1999 (again).

woohooo!!

We delayed doing anything until it's too late... and I don't want to have kids anyway!

At least the dinosaurs will be happy it is warm out when we bring them back. The wooly mamoths will probably be shedding everywhere and leaving big hairballs everywhere though.

I have a feeling we have...Things are allready changing at an alarming rate.

Good, I want the apocylpse to come.

Twas already discussed. Final opinion reached was that personal biases overrode scientific standards due to many of the people involved already believing the conclusion before they started. In other words, about as scientific as juggling bananas to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Irrevocably damaged? Not surprising considerring all the species we've driven to extinction. Global warming? It's here and getting worse.

tag

We're killing the planet! Mother Gaia will have revenge on all of us, even the hellbound athiests!!

Well then I guess it does not matter how much we pollute anymore, we're already screwed. Let's have a polluting party! :)

damn you have discovered my master plan

Twas already discussed. Final opinion reached was that personal biases overrode scientific standards due to many of the people involved already believing the conclusion before they started. In other words, about as scientific as juggling bananas to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

and who, exactly, decided this?

That's alright, Mother Nature is getting back at us with AIDS. Piss her off anymore and see what she does next.

That's alright, Mother Nature is getting back at us with AIDS. Piss her off anymore and see what she does next.

mmm, total societal collapse. rockin'!

If humans have done 'irreversable' damage, then we've been screwed for ages. Ever look into how much 'pollution' and 'greenhouse gas' is spewed up by a single volcanic erruption?

We're amateurs.

That's alright, Mother Nature is getting back at us with AIDS. Piss her off anymore and see what she does next.

I think it takes more than Mother Nature to give you AIDS! :p ;)

Ever look into how much 'pollution' and 'greenhouse gas' is spewed up by a single volcanic erruption?

quite a lot less than humans put out in an average year - even if you add up all the volcanic activity in a year they are still way behind.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

quite a lot less than humans put out in an average year - even if you add up all the volcanic activity in a year they are still way behind.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

And they've been doing it for millions of years...

And they've been doing it for millions of years...

Let's not forget forest fires, too.

That's what made the Kyoto treaty so ridiculous.. you could buy trees in a foreign country (carbon sinks) to offset your pollution.. but that adsorbtion would be lost the moment the trees burnt down, which is inevitable!

I think it takes more than Mother Nature to give you AIDS! :p ;)
It's doing all that natural stuff that gives it to you. :p

Don't blame it on the volcanoes! They're innocent I tell ya!

And they've been doing it for millions of years...

yes, and? i thought you were claiming that a single volcanic eruption pollutes more than humans can (or at least on the same level as us). was i mistaken?

It's doing all that natural stuff that gives it to you. :p

Yeah, but She gave us gravity, too.. but you've got to go out of your way for it to kill you, ordinarily. ;)

I'd like to know why time and resources were wasted into drawing the totally unexpected conclusion that "humans have irreversibly damaged world ecosystems".

Anyone who cares about the environment already knows it, and anyone who doesn't - ie 90% of the population - still won't care.

Let's not forget forest fires, too.

That's what made the Kyoto treaty so ridiculous.. you could buy trees in a foreign country (carbon sinks) to offset your pollution.. but that adsorbtion would be lost the moment the trees burnt down, which is inevitable!

of course, natural forest fires are roughly balanced by new growth of plant matter. otherwise we would become progressively less and less covered in plant life over time, which is certainly not the case.

We should be trying to replace nature and the enviroment, not protect it.

I'd like to know why time and resources were wasted into drawing the totally unexpected conclusion that "humans have irreversibly damaged world ecosystems".

Anyone who cares about the environment already knows it, and anyone who doesn't - ie 90% of the population - still won't care.

Sadly, you are spot on there. Most people don't care. Still, I'm reserving a spot on the moon, and I am so going to laugh at all those who don't care as they die.

of course, natural forest fires are roughly balanced by new growth of plant matter. otherwise we would become progressively less and less covered in plant life over time, which is certainly not the case.

I just thought it was funny that Kyoto would've allowed us to burn all the oil we wanted, as long as we bought trees to compensate, when those trees would simply burn down and be useless.

This has been coming ever since the industrial revolution. Not that im saying it was a bad thing, its just seems that we've hardly gotten away from the steam engine, now days its just faster and slightly more efficient.
Give it a hundred years, and earth will be left with grass, rats, cockroaches, and humans, and thats it.

The goal now should not be to try and save Earth, but to escape it - move to mars, and terraform. It could be liveable in just over 70 years with the proper investment and resources. Once mars has been opened up, we can begin plundering it for resources - strategic metals mainly such as iron, magnesium, boron etc. Also silver, gold, platinum.
Then once we've destroyed mars and sent the profits back to the resources black hole of Earth, move on to the asteroids, and the moons of jupiter. Move inwards, to venus and mercury even! Then eventually, we could move out of the solar system altogether - and begin plundering every planet we come across, leaving only the desolate wasteland that follows human occupation.

For this is the future... :D

That's alright, Mother Nature is getting back at us with AIDS. Piss her off anymore and see what she does next.
I highly doubt that Mother Nature is pissed at us.

She's probably getting ready to warm back up to the climate we had back during the dinosaurs--a tropical planet with no ice caps. That, i believe, is the natural environment for this planet.

She put us here so the warming process can be sped up. :D

I highly doubt that Mother Nature is pissed at us.

She's probably getting ready to warm back up to the climate we had back during the dinosaurs--a tropical planet with no ice caps. That, i believe, is the natural environment for this planet.

She put us here so the warming process can be sped up. :D

I like warm weather. You, on the other hand, should probably get your ass to Pluto pretty damn quick. :p

I like warm weather. You, on the other hand, should probably get your ass to Pluto pretty damn quick. :p

With no ice caps, a lot of us will have to like swimming too... :p

I like warm weather. You, on the other hand, should probably get your ass to Pluto pretty damn quick. :p
Well, this may be a shocker for you guys, but...

I also like warm weather, because it brings severe thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes! :D :)

Well, this may be a shocker for you guys, but...

I also like warm weather, because it brings severe thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes! :D :)
I luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvv thunderstorms. We had a hail storm two nights ago. They're cool, but it annoys me to have to bring all my plants inside.

Oh, I love spring.I have raneculas, tulips, daffodils and snapdragons blooming right now. My roommates don't understand why I could like gardening so much with my allergies.

I luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvv thunderstorms. We had a hail storm two nights ago. They're cool, but it annoys me to have to bring all my plants inside.
:cool: Maybe we can someday go storm chasing together? :D

*ahem* if we ever end up bumping into each other in RL, that is. ;) :D ;)
Oh, I love spring.I have raneculas, tulips, daffodils and snapdragons blooming right now. My roommates don't understand why I could like gardening so much with my allergies.
Well, the only parts about spring and summer I don't like are bees and wasps. I have a morbid fear of them.

Extreme heat also sucks. especially if it's uber-humid, like it often is here in Minnesota during the summer. :(

Plus, there are those pesky west-nile-carrying mosquitoes we need to worry about. :(

:cool: Maybe we can someday go storm chasing together? :D

*ahem* if we ever end up bumping into each other in RL, that is. ;) :D ;)

Well, the only parts about spring and summer I don't like are bees and wasps. I have a morbid fear of them.

Extreme heat also sucks. especially if it's uber-humid, like it often is here in Minnesota during the summer. :(

Plus, there are those pesky west-nile-carrying mosquitoes we need to worry about. :(

Hey, I live in the perfect state for stormchasing. Right in the middle of tornado alley. Do you think it's a coincidence that it's the middle of the Bible belt and tornado alley? :D

I'd rather have wasps and bees than mosquitos. The wasps and bees leave me alone if I don't bother them. The mosquitos live to bother me.

Hey, I live in the perfect state for stormchasing. Right in the middle of tornado alley. Do you think it's a coincidence that it's the middle of the Bible belt and tornado alley? :D
Maybe not: I'm sure mother nature's desparately trying to eliminate those who worship an imaginary male deity rather than her :D (j/k ;) ) :D

edit: and exactly what states are in the bible belt?
I'd rather have wasps and bees than mosquitos. The wasps and bees leave me alone if I don't bother them. The mosquitos live to bother me.
Well, on the plus side, i haven't been stung since I was 3 or 5 or something like that.

What about the fact that they sense fear in people?

Once we start hitting temperatures that were present in the peak of the hypsithermal then I'll start worrying. But that probably wont happen until the next glacial age.

Humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the last 50 years than in any other period This quotation is the most relevant response to my title.

The majority of the article talk's about a variety of other human social problems, like human hunger and general enviromental degradation.

I want to know what your're thoughts concerning human suffering, specifically in the third world countries with hunger, are you doing anything about it, and what should we do as a global society to improve living standards. The same questions applies to the enviroment. Is human suffering linked to enviromental degradation or are they seperate? And to what extent is this true?

It'd be interesting for me to see different views and solutions, from the global NS community.

I also will remain online for a while, hoping to keep this thread on topic and enjoyable. Cheers!

A new development today, where an exhaustive study, was undertaken by the UN, to study damages to the world's ecosystems. Link below to the article.

clicky (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13803&Cr=ecosystem&Cr1=)

This is related to the recent debate on greenhouse emissions. I want to get your feedback, on whether you think we have damaged the environment, specifically ecosystems, to the extent that they will never be able to recover.

I will post my comments later.

Please, be courteous to your fellow poster!

My opinion: I think that Humans as a whole are doing exactly what they were put on earth to do. Use its resources for their benefit. Now I know somebody is going to preach at me about saving something for our future generations. But, we humans are resourceful and we'll figure it out. Besides, the same people who are worried about what we need for our future generations are the same ones who don't want nuclear energy plants, don't want to dam up rivers and streams to save water resources, and sometimes don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support research to recycle some of these resources converting seawater to potable water comes to mind. So, to hell with the future, "let them eat cake."

Humans will figure out waht they need to do and the earth also makes adjustments for these things as well. Tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, etc. all are part of the earths way of making adjustments, to and including population control... :mad: :confused:

My opinion: I think that Humans as a whole are doing exactly what they were put on earth to do. Use its resources for their benefit. Now I know somebody is going to preach at me about saving something for our future generations. But, we humans are resourceful and we'll figure it out. Besides, the same people who are worried about what we need for our future generations are the same ones who don't want nuclear energy plants, don't want to dam up rivers and streams to save water resources, and sometimes don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support research to recycle some of these resources converting seawater to potable water comes to mind. So, to hell with the future, "let them eat cake."

Humans will figure out waht they need to do and the earth also makes adjustments for these things as well. Tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, etc. all are part of the earths way of making adjustments, to and including population control... :mad: :confused:

I agree with you that humans are meant to use the world's resources, but so are all living things. I think humans can reduce their consumption, particularly in the developed world, for the reason you said, for the benefit of future generations. I believe the world can be a nicer place, if we use less resources and try to narrow the gap between developed and developing countries, in terms of consumption.

and who, exactly, decided this?

The debaters of the other thread and the fact it died without proof to the contrary.

This quotation is the most relevant response to my title.

Actually, it's pretty irrelevant. That is also how long we have been studying the issue. They're ignoring the fact that humans in the 1500-1700s changed the ecosystems of three continents with their actions, including altering the spread of disease forever. The 1900s have really been pretty mild in comparison.

The debaters of the other thread and the fact it died without proof to the contrary.

ah, i see. well that's that then, isn't it.

That's alright, Mother Nature is getting back at us with AIDS. Piss her off anymore and see what she does next.

No way. AIDS was an North American military research project, and it was intentionally used to infect most of Africa with an AIDS epidemic so that they would have no choice to accept trade tarrifs. It was also used to stop the hippie movement.

They're ignoring the fact that humans in the 1500-1700s changed the ecosystems of three continents with their actions, including altering the spread of disease forever. The 1900s have really been pretty mild in comparison.

source?

Do you think it's a coincidence that it's the middle of the Bible belt and tornado alley? :D


Maybe its because with all those tornados everyone is always praying :p

No way. AIDS was an North American military research project, and it was intentionally used to infect most of Africa with an AIDS epidemic so that they would have no choice to accept trade tarrifs. It was also used to stop the hippie movement.

You forgot about using it to kill the homosexuals off.

You forgot about using it to kill the homosexuals off.

And to kill the homosexuals off.

No way. AIDS was an North American military research project, and it was intentionally used to infect most of Africa with an AIDS epidemic so that they would have no choice to accept trade tarrifs. It was also used to stop the hippie movement.


That's right, we wouldn't just go in and TAKE what we wanted from Africa. Their wicked military and voodoo would stop us. So we just send in a couple of unrestrained viruses to knock em out in 20-30 years or more. :D

source?

You familiar with the history of Columbus and later expeditions to the Americas?

Since I'm not posting it, my own rules of arguing come into affect against me this time.

Monkeys created AIDS. Damn those monkeys to hell!

http://barnt.org:81/images/random_family_guy/evil_monkey_005.gif

You familiar with the history of Columbus and later expeditions to the Americas?

Since I'm not posting it, my own rules of arguing come into affect against me this time.

ah, sorry, i wasn't clear. i'm not questioning that we had an effect on multiple continents several centuries ago. i want a source that:
1) shows that this report ignores "the fact that humans in the 1500-1700s changed the ecosystems of three continents with their actions, including altering the spread of disease forever"
and
2) shows that in terms of global ecological impact, the 1900s were mild by comparison to the 16th - 18th centuries

The debaters of the other thread and the fact it died without proof to the contrary.

I was saying that my title is not representative of the majority of the content of the article. What I am hoping to discuss, is listed below that quotation.

Actually, it's pretty irrelevant. That is also how long we have been studying the issue. They're ignoring the fact that humans in the 1500-1700s changed the ecosystems of three continents with their actions, including altering the spread of disease forever. The 1900s have really been pretty mild in comparison.

Please, read the article, the rapid spreading of diseases occurred between the 1500-1700's, the article is talking about the rapid destruction of ecosystems, such as deforestation and extensive agriculture.

ah, sorry, i wasn't clear. i'm not questioning that we had an effect on multiple continents several centuries ago. i want a source that:
1) shows that this report ignores "the fact that humans in the 1500-1700s changed the ecosystems of three continents with their actions, including altering the spread of disease forever"
and
2) shows that in terms of global ecological impact, the 1900s were mild by comparison to the 16th - 18th centuries

1) http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/papers/goodling.html
http://www.carleton.ca/~jmmiller/1705lecture0810.htm
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/columbian.htm
http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/cwk/EXCHANGE.CWK
http://www.native-net.org/alison-thesis/disease.html
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/wildlife_ESL/02_endangered.html
http://www.csuchico.edu/~sacperch/con%20bio%20readings/Con_Bio_Chap_8_introductions.html

The above is just some light reading. It is also only a very small sample of the information to be found.

2) The first site isn't actually one I would trust, just one thrown in for the fun of it.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/misuke/sac89.htm
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/illusion.htm
http://www.mlssa.asn.au/journals/2003Journal.htm
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/rwrc0.htm

Now, the last one is an example of very bad evidence. If you'll notice, all of the figures given for population extinctions are the 1900s and they conventiently forgot to include any figures from the 1800s. So that leaves open the option that far more extinctions happened in the 1800s, which means the entire case is resting on the hope you don't notice the glaring error.

Now, compare the data from those to the list of alterations in the first question. Then tell me which you think was the largest in alterations. Note that I limited it mainly to just 1800s and 1900s.

Please, read the article, the rapid spreading of diseases occurred between the 1500-1700's, the article is talking about the rapid destruction of ecosystems, such as deforestation and extensive agriculture.

I know. I also know of the people running it. Check the other thread on this issue and see what people said there. But keep in mind that diseases are a part of ecosystems, so the spread of them into ecosystems unable to handle them is also a form of destruction.

1) ...
The above is just some light reading. It is also only a very small sample of the information to be found.

uh, yeah. and what does the existence of the well known and widely discussed post-columbus biological exchange and the resulting displacements and extinctions have to do with the claim that the millennium ecosystem assessment report ignored the impact of human activity in the 1500s - 1700s? especially since as early on as page 18 of the ma synthesis report it is already noting things such as

"More land was converted to cropland since 1945 than in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries combined."

and

"Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 32% (from about 280 to 376 parts per million in 2003), primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels and land use changes. Approximately 60% of that increase (60 parts per million) has taken place since 1959."
http://www.millenniumassessment.org//en/Products.Synthesis.aspx

doesn't look like ignoring to me. looks like an assessment of total impact that found that a huge percentage of the total has happened since 1950, and that the rate of impact has been growing quite rapidly.

2) ...
If you'll notice, all of the figures given for population extinctions are the 1900s and they conventiently forgot to include any figures from the 1800s. So that leaves open the option that far more extinctions happened in the 1800s, which means the entire case is resting on the hope you don't notice the glaring error.

Now, compare the data from those to the list of alterations in the first question. Then tell me which you think was the largest in alterations. Note that I limited it mainly to just 1800s and 1900s.

which list of alterations again?

anyway, the rate of human impact has undoubtedly gone up. even just as a principle of logic. assume a standard ecological footprint per person (totally false, but just go with it). now, given that there have been way more people alive since 1950 than there had over the past couple hundred years total (hell, we could probably push that all the way back to the dawn of agriculture and still have more since 1950), we would have to assume that our ecological impact since 1950 would similarly dwarf the impact between 1500 and 1800. and that's without the magnifying effects of industrialism.

and what does that have to do with the millennium ecosystem assessment report?

come on, this is silly.

bump