Ecosystems (edge effects and related environmental issues)

[myrkul]

Instead, the important issue is that humanity, it's behavior, it's inexorable population growth, and the ignorance of the mechanics of the Earth are the problem.

This is accurate. We clearly disagree about the solution, but we do agree on the problem.

Oh, and regarding beavers:

Beaver behavior and beaver dam building are part of nature because their activities change very slowly. Thus, nature has coevolved with them, and adapted.

Humanity, and its technologies advance at a rate that is ever faster, and affects nature at a rate which doesn't allow nature to adapt in a way that losses don't occur. It is fundamentally important to see the distinction, and recognize that humanity has a mostly negative and continuous impact on the richness that the Earth offers.

No, the difference is that beavers started making dams long ago, and nature has had a chance to adapt. We started making dams (at least at the scale we are now) less than 100 years ago. Nature's had no time to adjust.

Just because this hypothesis of yours is more convenient for your political ideology doesn't mean it's an accurate assessment of reality.

Once again, you're making stuff up, and the only people who buy it are you're ideological buddies. But you don't need to convince them. I don't see this dialog as being very productive if you keep throwing random and incorrect assertions.

Why would you think the issue is how long ago beavers started making dams instead of how quickly or slowly they evolved the habit of doing so and how quickly this habit spread?

You cut out the part that made the point. Luckily, it's still there, so I can repeat it:

When the first plants evolved, suddenly there was this new, toxic chemical in the atmosphere: Oxygen. Life adapted, it changed. Now, without Oxygen, most of the life on earth would die.

You are looking at that first die-off from the advent of Oxygen and screaming "We have to kill the plants!!!"

[1715618045]

1715618045

[FirstAscent]

Instead, the important issue is that humanity, it's behavior, it's inexorable population growth, and the ignorance of the mechanics of the Earth are the problem.

This is accurate. We clearly disagree about the solution, but we do agree on the problem.

Oh, and regarding beavers:

Beaver behavior and beaver dam building are part of nature because their activities change very slowly. Thus, nature has coevolved with them, and adapted.

Humanity, and its technologies advance at a rate that is ever faster, and affects nature at a rate which doesn't allow nature to adapt in a way that losses don't occur. It is fundamentally important to see the distinction, and recognize that humanity has a mostly negative and continuous impact on the richness that the Earth offers.

No, the difference is that beavers started making dams long ago, and nature has had a chance to adapt. We started making dams (at least at the scale we are now) less than 100 years ago. Nature's had no time to adjust.

Just because this hypothesis of yours is more convenient for your political ideology doesn't mean it's an accurate assessment of reality.

Once again, you're making stuff up, and the only people who buy it are you're ideological buddies. But you don't need to convince them. I don't see this dialog as being very productive if you keep throwing random and incorrect assertions.

Why would you think the issue is how long ago beavers started making dams instead of how quickly or slowly they evolved the habit of doing so and how quickly this habit spread?

You cut out the part that made the point. Luckily, it's still there, so I can repeat it:

When the first plants evolved, suddenly there was this new, toxic chemical in the atmosphere: Oxygen. Life adapted, it changed. Now, without Oxygen, most of the life on earth would die.

You are looking at that first die-off from the advent of Oxygen and screaming "We have to kill the plants!!!"

My point stands. The event you allude to also occurred on a time scale that is not analogous to the advance of humanity's technology. In fact, you've made my point eloquently for me: life did indeed adapt with the introduction of oxygen. Life flourished.

[myrkul]

My point stands. The event you allude to also occurred on a time scale that is not analogous to the advance of humanity's technology. In fact, you've made my point eloquently for me: life did indeed adapt with the introduction of oxygen. Life flourished.

First, English lessons:
allude: to refer casually or indirectly

I'm not alluding to it, I'm referring to it directly.

But still, I fail to see how I've made your point. Oxygen was toxic to early life. Yet, it adapted and changed, and eventually flourished. Any changes humanity introduces will be similarly adapted to.

[FirstAscent]

My point stands. The event you allude to also occurred on a time scale that is not analogous to the advance of humanity's technology. In fact, you've made my point eloquently for me: life did indeed adapt with the introduction of oxygen. Life flourished.

First, English lessons:
allude: to refer casually or indirectly

I'm not alluding to it, I'm referring to it directly.

But still, I fail to see how I've made your point. Oxygen was toxic to early life. Yet, it adapted and changed, and eventually flourished. Any changes humanity introduces will be similarly adapted to.

Most all your thoughts with regard to this subject are sloppy, and thus casual, at best. But whatever.

I've made my point unless you demonstrate that the event you're sloppily referring to happened within the time span of a human lifetime, and is an event that a human could live through. Once again, this immediate discussion is non productive due to the obvious flaws in your analogy. I'll be happy to engage in intelligent and meaningful debate with you if you so choose. Otherwise, feel free to start another thread to promote your silly analogies.

[myrkul]

My point stands. The event you allude to also occurred on a time scale that is not analogous to the advance of humanity's technology. In fact, you've made my point eloquently for me: life did indeed adapt with the introduction of oxygen. Life flourished.

First, English lessons:
allude: to refer casually or indirectly

I'm not alluding to it, I'm referring to it directly.

But still, I fail to see how I've made your point. Oxygen was toxic to early life. Yet, it adapted and changed, and eventually flourished. Any changes humanity introduces will be similarly adapted to.

Most all your thoughts with regard to this subject are sloppy, and thus casual, at best. But whatever.

I've made my point unless you demonstrate that the event you're sloppily referring to happened within the time span of a human lifetime, and is an event that a human could live through. Once again, this immediate discussion is non productive due to the obvious flaws in your analogy. I'll be happy to engage in intelligent and meaningful debate with you if you so choose. Otherwise, feel free to start another thread to promote your silly analogies.

Very well, then I withdraw from this debate, that you may continue your education. Do you need reminded of where you were when you stopped?

[myrkul]

I guess you don't want to continue?

Tsk... So many of our conversations end this way. Clue-by-four: Flipping the table and running off is not "winning".

[FirstAscent]

I guess you don't want to continue?

Tsk... So many of our conversations end this way. Clue-by-four: Flipping the table and running off is not "winning".

Let me give you a clue. I don't wish to educate you anymore in this thread currently because you seem to like to argue with scenarios and analogies that are absurd, and I find it unproductive to spend my time disputing such material unnecessarily. If you were generally interested in the material and wished to learn it, you would take some combination of the following actions:

1. Read books on the subject. I have recommended some.
2. Listen to what I have to say and ask questions.
3. Evaluate the absurdity of your objections with greater depth before committing to them.
4. Try wholeheartedly to disconnect the science from your ideology. Remember, the science does not have to agree with your ideology.
5. Or, of you disagree with (2), then stop requesting my time to educate you.

[myrkul]

2. Listen to what I have to say and ask questions.

How can I do that, if you don't say anything?

You started this thread to educate people. Go on, I'm not stopping you. In fact, I'm asking you to continue!

[benjamindees]

A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.

Which do you think causes more ecosystem destruction, 10 million extra Mexicans, or a fence?

[myrkul]

A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.

Which do you think causes more ecosystem destruction, 10 million extra Mexicans, or a fence?

Oh, in a few years, it won't be keeping Mexicans out that will be the problem.

[hashman]

A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.

Which do you think causes more ecosystem destruction, 10 million extra Mexicans, or a fence?

Not sure I understand your joke.

Is that, 10m People + fascist wall as compared to 10m people without the wall?   

Do you want me to include in my calculations the staggering cost in time of bothering millions of people with totally useless and solely motivated by mental illness wastes of time and money? 

Or are you implying that this kind of general welfare for evil and proof of stupidity is a good thing because it reduces the population?       

[FirstAscent]

A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.

Which do you think causes more ecosystem destruction, 10 million extra Mexicans, or a fence?

Assuming your goal is to prevent immigration, then using the knowledge about edge effects and fences, you can then focus your policy and research efforts into devising a solution that does not use a fence, but some other method. It's not necessarily a tradeoff. Instead, it's about effective use of knowledge to guide your search for a solution into an area that will let you achieve what you want to achieve without wasting your efforts seeking solutions that are demonstrated to have damaging effects.

[AntiCap]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.
Will humans? Uncertain. We live within a very narrow temperature interval and have other rather specific requirements as we are rather complex organisms.

[myrkul]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.
Will humans? Uncertain. We live within a very narrow temperature interval and have other rather specific requirements as we are rather complex organisms.

Yeah, you want to worry about megafauna preservation, worry about that species, first.

[benjamindees]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.
Will humans? Uncertain. We live within a very narrow temperature interval and have other rather specific requirements as we are rather complex organisms.

Yeah, you want to worry about megafauna preservation, worry about that species, first.

Anyone who has kept fish will know that humans and "mega" anything can tolerate huge temperature differences compared to bacteria, and that tipping the scales on the precise mix of ocean bacteria that supports the entire ecosystem will kill us all deader than anything.



http://www.amazon.com/Under-Green-Sky-Warming-Extinctions/dp/006113791X

[myrkul]

Anyone who has kept fish will know that humans and "mega" anything can tolerate huge temperature differences compared to bacteria, and that tipping the scales on the precise mix of bacteria that supports the entire ecosystem will kill us all deader than anything.

Heh. Good point. Life will survive just about anything we do to it, but we may not survive it's adaptations.

[FirstAscent]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.

Please, don't make statements like this. You really don't understand the full cascade of effects. Edge effects actually play a major role in this. And ecosystem services will be affected. Yes, life will adapt, but at the cost of vast extinction and serious ecosystem service loss.

Read the full article, as it summarizes issues I'm sure you're 100 percent unaware of: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

[FirstAscent]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.
Will humans? Uncertain. We live within a very narrow temperature interval and have other rather specific requirements as we are rather complex organisms.

Yeah, you want to worry about megafauna preservation, worry about that species, first.

Anyone who has kept fish will know that humans and "mega" anything can tolerate huge temperature differences compared to bacteria, and that tipping the scales on the precise mix of ocean bacteria that supports the entire ecosystem will kill us all deader than anything.



http://www.amazon.com/Under-Green-Sky-Warming-Extinctions/dp/006113791X

You do know that Peter D. Ward also wrote The Call of Distant Mammoths, which explores the overkill hypothesis, an idea originally proposed by Paul S. Martin in Twilight of the Mammoths, and the idea is summarized eloquently in Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life. The one thing megafauna can't tolerate is the advance of human civilization.

[AntiCap]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.

Please, don't make statements like this. You really don't understand the full cascade of effects. Edge effects actually play a major role in this. And ecosystem services will be affected. Yes, life will adapt, but at the cost of vast extinction and serious ecosystem service loss.

Read the full article, as it summarizes issues I'm sure you're 100 percent unaware of: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

What I'm saying is, to paraphrase the great George Carlin: The planet will be fine. Life will continue. Humans however, are fucked.
I'll go read the article, but I doubt it'll tell me much more than that.

[FirstAscent]

Will life adapt with regard to the CO2 (and other pollutants) we're releasing? Yes, it will.

Please, don't make statements like this. You really don't understand the full cascade of effects. Edge effects actually play a major role in this. And ecosystem services will be affected. Yes, life will adapt, but at the cost of vast extinction and serious ecosystem service loss.

Read the full article, as it summarizes issues I'm sure you're 100 percent unaware of: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

What I'm saying is, to paraphrase the great George Carlin: The planet will be fine. Life will continue. Humans however, are fucked.
I'll go read the article, but I doubt it'll tell me much more than that.

It'll tell you the opposite of that, to some degree.