Apocalypse & Science & WAAGNFNP Posted by Kiera, 31 Aug 2007 06:18 am

Conservation – Us versus Them?

I had what you might call a rude awakening on a recent trip to San Diego where I enjoyed my first trip ever to the San Diego Zoo.

During the visit, we took the bus tour that gives you highlights of all of the species the zoo boasts, and provides what turns out to be a great deal of information on endangered species and conservation. I was shocked out of my complacency when the guide spoke about one critically endangered species that they had brought back from the brink of extinction. She said that they now had 14 breeding pairs that they would love to return to their natural habitat…if that natural habitat still existed.

These animals (some kind of grazing mammal that resembled a cross between an antelope, a goat, and a cow – I was so surprised by her statement that I’ve totally spaced on the name) are living in a tiny re-creation of their original ecosystem, and to keep the herd viable, are traded back and forth between other zoos, wild animal parks and refuges. There is no available habitat that they can be returned to because of the encroachment of man.

I’d always thought that the biggest danger that man posed to this planet was through pollution, waste of natural resources, and the byproducts of technology. Not so. Even if we managed the absolute miracle of “living green”, we’d still be the ultimate destruction of our world.

How? Through sheer numbers and our shamefully wasteful use of space. Elsewhere in nature (unless it’s an area in which we’ve destroyed the balance), overpopulation is resolved by predators, disease, or starvation.

The number of animals never gets to be more than the amount their environment can support…and when it approaches overload, nature compensates. Short of a massive plague, nature can no longer compensate for mankind’s overpopulation. We can feed the starving masses (when we want to), we’ve eliminated the bulk of our predators, and we’ve eliminated or controlled other mitigating factors, including disease and aging. More people are being born and many of them are living decades longer than they did less than a thousand years ago.

Since 1950 alone, the world population has jumped from over 2,535,093,000 to 6,740,025,000…and is climbing by the second, literally. By 2050, a mere one hundred years from the two and a half billion mark, experts are projecting the population will reach 9,191,287,000…assuming the Giant Nuclear Fireball has not yet called us home in a wave of firey Glory.

So, what do we do about this conundrum? I invite your comments and suggestions, both serious and tongue-in-cheek, (we are, after all, the Party of the Giant Nuclear Fireball), on how we can save the planet from ourselves. After all, we want the GNF to come on our terms, not because we can’t stop breeding like rabbits and our greed knows no bounds.

Trackbacks

Responses to “Conservation – Us versus Them?”

  1. on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:21 am 1. Seattle said …

    “Logan’s Run”
    Death on your 21st birthday.

  2. on 31 Aug 2007 at 9:40 am 2. James Killus said …

    “Destruction of habitat” has been known to be the largest single cause of species extinction since I was working in mathematical ecology in graduate school, over 30 years ago.

    Number two is “invasive species,” i.e. the introduction of non-native species that wipe out the locals. That is also primarily due to the globe-hopping propensities of humans.

    But never fear, “pollution” in the sense of greenhouse gas emissions, has the potential to cause such massive shifts in ecosystem conditions that it will dwarf all other habitat changes. So in that sense, it will no longer be a mistake to blame pollution for the problems.

    In a previous comments thread, I suggested that waterboarding Exxon executives should be “on the table.” I was not joking.

  3. on 31 Aug 2007 at 10:25 am 3. Seattle said …

    They’ll be getting even with us…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/us/31spider.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

  4. on 31 Aug 2007 at 11:15 am 4. Oaktown Girl said …

    First, thanks for this post, Kiera. Wow - we’re saving some animals, but now have no place to set them free. I knew things were bad, but I never even considered that as one of the consequences. How depressing.

    James - I remember that “on the table” comment. I agree with what you said there, and I wanted respond, but I was just to tired and pressed for time. We should definitely have that conversation (in earnest, in full-post mode), if for no other reason than that I (we) can vent some frustration and expose some hypocrisy.

    Seattle - thanks for the link…not. I hadn’t really thought about the impact global warming would have on the insect/bug population except for mosquitoes, which is unpleasant enough (I think there should only be just enough mosquitoes to feed the bats and frogs, etc, and not one mosquito more!). But if we’re now looking at the prospect of monster spider colonies and who knows what-all else, all bets are off, and I’m ready to step-up my efforts to bringing about the GNF ASAP… even if that means backing some Rethuglican nut job, because everything, and I mean everything would be the table at that point.

    Because while 9/11 didn’t “change everything”, monster spider colonies most certainly will.

  5. on 31 Aug 2007 at 11:43 am 5. Kiera PSI said …

    It’s extremely depressing. No matter how good a job we do from now on, we can’t really “fix” things. Not without draconian measures that affect millions of people and where and how they live.

    Seattle, I immediately thought of “Logan’s Run” when I was considering what extremes might eventually be absolutely required. The age in the book was 21, but they upped it to 30 in the film to accommodate the fact that the stars couldn’t pass for 20.

    Another “solution” is mandatory limits on the number of children. However, that brings on the problems China has experienced with illegal and dangerous late term abortions, child abandonment (they call it “disappearing pregnancies“), and outright infanticide because of the ingrained preference many people have for male offspring.

    Many people feel that we extend life artificially to no good purpose. People live in severe discomfort and sometimes outright pain for years because their family and physicians continue to insist on preserving their lives, such as they are, at all costs…even to the detriment of the patient’s quality of life and emotional well being. Jack Kevorkian went to jail for helping people die with dignity. Personally, after watching what my parents went through, I think he should have been given a medal.

  6. on 31 Aug 2007 at 12:56 pm 6. Oaktown Girl said …

    Damn…check out Kiera getting those html links in. Nicely done!

    Based on nothing but my own opinion, it seems to me that to start talking about mandatory population controls before we’ve meaningfully addressed and implemented use-of-space “reforms” (I’ll call them for lack of being able to think of a better term at the moment) is folly.

    Use of space is of course tied into money and greed, and something’s going to have to change, or else the only thing the greedy money-grabbers (big oil, developers, etc.) will have is the most money in their pockets when the whole thing dissolves.

  7. on 31 Aug 2007 at 1:07 pm 7. James Killus said …

    The global warming problem is not specifically a matter of excess population, or even one of “lifestyles.” It’s a matter of having developed technologies that depend on a particular kind of energy production (from coal, oil, and gas), then the political and economic rigidity that comes from the development of an authoritarian ideology in the one nation on Earth (which is to say, the U.S.) that might be able to re-direct the way the world does things.

    Similarly, habitat destruction is not a given; most of the world’s ongoing destruction of habitat comes from expanding agriculture onto increasingly marginal land, usually as a means of pre-empting land reform.

    Population control, especially authoritarian style population control (e.g. China) runs a distant third as a method of solving these issues. It’s not as if China’s slowing population growth has reduced their rate of species extinction or greenhouse gas growth, for example.

    The most optimistic scenarios would involve a strong demographic transition, educating the world’s women (the single greatest factor in reducing fertility rates), and giving them access to birth control (which is either the second greatest factor, or actually the first, depending on who you ask).

    The general fossil fuel use problem is also solvable, but not so long as the fossil fuel industry is run by scabrous troglydytes. It’s also possible that some “magic tech fix” will appear on that one, though only inventors, fools, and SF writers spend a lot of time dreaming of it.

    The pessimistic scenario notes that, after Chernobyl, the surrounding forests made a very nice ecological recovery, at least until people decided that it was safe enough to move back. So the Giant Nuclear Fireball may yet come to the rescue.

    I give it about a 1 in 10 chance before Bush leaves office.

  8. on 31 Aug 2007 at 1:16 pm 8. Oaktown Girl said …

    After a quick glance (I’m at work) at the article Kiera linked to, I didn’t see a mention of the increased abuse of women from China’s one-chile policy due to a female “shortage”. Women, both within and without China, are being kidnapped and enslaved to become “wives” because the gender balance has been thrown off so badly with people desiring boys over girls.

    And besides how impractical mandatory population control would be to enforce, and how unequally it would be enforced if attempted, in our patriarchal world it’s always the women who have to suffer and make the sacrifices to their bodies and persons, not the men, even though snipping the males would be so much easier (and now, largely reversible). But god forbid we should interrupt the sacred sperm flow. Much better to cut women open with major surgeries, or severely disrupt their hormonal systems with sometimes deadly consequences.

  9. on 31 Aug 2007 at 1:36 pm 9. Seattle said …

    That did it. How many of my pet peeves could you hit in one post? ; )

    A few years ago my father was in the hospital. My mother, his sister, my sister and I were all there visiting him as he was dealing with deep depression. We were talking about modern medicine and I said, “How many people in this room are alive right now because of modern medicine?” The answer was, 100%.

    How many of you are alive now because of modern medicine? I’m watching my parents waver through the end of their lives downing hands fulls of medication to extend an existance that they arguably enjoy less and less.

    As for those all important boys in parts of China-not to mention India, where every village practically has an ultrasound for identifying fetal gender-who exactly will they be having their one child with?

  10. on 31 Aug 2007 at 4:41 pm 10. Kiera PSI said …

    Modern medicine certainly has its place. I would have died at age 25 without it, and I’d be heading for death again in a few short years if not for surgical intervention into a serious health issue. But both times, modern medicine saved me and restored me to a great quality of life.

    It’s not the fault of modern medicine that people hang on beyond their time. It’s our unwillingness to let go, to “guilt” our loved ones who are more than ready to die into taking extreme measures that do not make them happy and give them an intolerable “quality” of life just so they “don’t leave us” that I’m faulting. My aunt rescinded a DNR order because her children begged her not to leave them…she lived another thoroughly miserable five years. Miserable for both her and for her children who have yet to get over watching her suffer. Two of them have finally come to realize that they should have let her go. The third is still stubbornly insisting that they were right to make her live five years in terrible discomfort. But then, he always was a selfish little bugger.

  11. on 31 Aug 2007 at 6:06 pm 11. christian h. said …

    Kiera, thanks for this post. I am very conflicted about many of these issues. I really don’t like to support mandatory population control measures; they seem like an extremely serious violation of personal freedoms to me.

    On the general question of global overpopulation, I don’t think it’s a big problem as such. Or maybe I refuse to believe it is one.

    At least in the eighties, when this was a far bigger topic of debate (at least in Europe) - population projections were much higher then - there was always an undertone of racism, (”those Africans are just having too many children, soon they’re gonna want to come here”).

    This makes me politically suspicious of the whole debate (not here, on this blog - I know it will be “handled with care” here.)

    Anyway, I’d agree there is a management problem, that is very much tied in with the problem of distribution of wealth and power.

  12. on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:07 pm 12. Zeus said …

    Spiders, hurricanes, droughts and floods in Texas. Coincidence, or nature having had enough of anti-eco-Bubbaism and is now mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

  13. on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:18 pm 13. Zeus said …

    We’ve engineered ourselves into this mess (with medical advancements, hydroelectric dams, profit-taking, soot-spewing industrial plants), but I doubt we can engineer ourselves out of this (forced population control a la legally or Logan’s Run, etc.).

    At root is our desire to control our environment and make it in our image as tin pot gods. At the base of this root desire is fear, fear of nature, because it is so splendid, old, powerful, unconcerned, and wise. We just can’t take the notion that we may be irrelevant and that we may be spoiled little brats, living on a planet for a couple of million years (if you count our knuckle-scraping ancestors) on a planet that has existed 100 times that long. Heck, even the dinosaurs lived for tens of millions of years.

    It’s about time we simply learn to respect and deeply learn from nature and not revile it. Nature’s rucuperative and buffering processes are really a marvel that outstrips all human ingenuity. If we pay attention to the buffering power of the ocean, the way in which chemicals are recycled, the anthem of minimalism and simplicity that has allowed such amazing diversity and tapestry of creation, then we shall begin to “get it.”

    Along with this honorable willingness to be mentored and to absorb wisdom, we may find, if we drop our fear, that we don’t need 99% of the material crap we have been gunking up our lives with, and that would go along way to eliminating the mounting of the problem, buying us both presence of mind and time to mature in a more non-material meaning and simple material living.

    Citizen Zeus

  14. on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:41 pm 14. JP Stormcrow said …

    Too tired to saying anything coherent even though I have a thousand profoundly insightful thoughts on the matter … Ha!

    So:
    1) This graph puts our population growth into perspective (more relevant might be acres of transofrmed land):

    2) A great diary. Requiem for the Human Race, from Daily Kos last year. (It is not directly pertinent to this thread, but I think that you will recognize the ending … and no it does not involve a truck.)

  15. on 31 Aug 2007 at 9:46 pm 15. Zeus said …

    Typo, correct that, the earth is 1000 times as old as we are on a good day (that is if you include our “ancestors” that were marginally D students in a class of chimpanzees). Actually its probably closer to 1500 times, since the very outside of our existence as humans is about 3 million years and the earth is around 4.5 billion years, and mere youngun compared to the known universe’s approximately 12 or 13 billion years.

  16. on 31 Aug 2007 at 11:33 pm 16. Oaktown Girl said …

    Christian, I don’t believe this post is about mandatory population control (for countless reasons), so I don’t think there’s anything to be conflicted about as far as this discussion goes.

    Like I stated in #6, I firmly believe our way out of this problem is about re-visioning our use of space, not about the head count. We can’t just keep expanding outward, first because it’s finite, second, because we’ll kill off the ecosystem that sustains human life anyway. And this, of course, means re-visioning our idea of capitalism, and very much ties in with what James said in #7 about fossil fuels. Sometimes I think that no matter how bad things get, as long as they’re making a buck, the “scabrous troglydytes” will keep doing what they’re doing, even beyond the point where they can no longer remain in denial about what’s going on. {I often wonder: don’t these people have kids? Don’t they have grand kids? Do they all really think Jesus is going to come and save them before they experience any negative impact?}

    For the US specifically and immediately, while we do need to drastically improve our public transportation (and stop giving corporate welfare to Big Oil) we also need to make it affordable for people to live in the cities where they work so they aren’t having to drive so damn far, and we could begin to think about not having to keep expanding ever-outward, and paving over every damn bit of open/green space is left our cities.

    Zeus - while you didn’t mention it directly, of course you know that a key part of our deep fear/control issues around nature is nature’s connection to the “feminine”. And we all know how scary the “feminine” is, and how it must be subjugated and controlled (for its own good, no less). As a society, once we overcome our fear of women and female power and empowerment, all that fear of nature stuff goes away.

  17. on 01 Sep 2007 at 6:57 am 17. Zeus said …

    Oaktown G,

    I think we must be reading each other’s minds, because before I inserted a line, making a connection between the fear of nature and the fear of the feminine (and really, quite frankly, the fear of women’s power to create life, the fear of life, itself the the cocommitant fear of death, the ending of life), I thought, “Well, I’m not going to steal OG’s thunder one more time. This is her bailiwick. But it does light a timely fire under my rear end to get on that rewrite of “Feminism for Real Men” I’ve been promising.

    Grins, Z

  18. on 01 Sep 2007 at 8:50 pm 18. spyder said …

    I publicly advocate for participation parity for all species. Somewhere out there, among the coral reefs that are being beseiged by toxicity and thermal pollution (also UV etc.), or in one of those tropical rainforests that are begin destroyed at a rate so astronomical that trying to keep up with the loss is seriously taxing the calculator programs, there may be a line of species development wherein lies the next great sentient lifeform who can take this planet out of the apparent climate collapse and so forth. If we humans, in our most chauvanistic anthrocentric selfishness, choose to destory all of those species before they have a chance, then we will surely doom conscious sentient existence to intense suffering. The earth will be here without us. Will it be here without diverse lifeforms and with a very narrow bandwidth of potential life??? Or will it blossom and thrive with diversity and growth beyond even our own seeming vast imagination?????

  19. on 02 Sep 2007 at 4:13 pm 19. James Killus said …

    I’ve been trying for a while to come up with an appropriate response to the opinions expressed here and I’m having considerable trouble and the realization is beginning to dawn that I may have to write a very extensive position paper-ish sort of thing on it. But maybe I can get a few outline items in.

    I’ve been an environmental scientiest for over 30 years, although I’ve spent the last decade on the sidelines, professionally speaking. My situation is that of a technocrat who has had extensive dealings with the bureaucracy on environmental matters. So naturally, in a recent discussion, I was accused of sounding like a “some 20 something student who has no knowledge of history, especially of the environmental movement.”

    This was in response to my not being “realistic,” and not understanding that global warming was going to happen and would not be stopped, because people are not going to modify their lifestyles merely to stop the most massive environmental catastrophe in human history.

    Now it so happens that I have, on occasion, expressed opinions to the effect that we are going to lose most of Florida and Louisiana (for example) to sea level rise brought on by global warming. The difference (to me at least) between that sentiment and the one expressed by my antagonist was that he was concentrating both on the draconian changes that would have to occur to completely mitigate global warming, and also making fun of the problem by citing the recent calculation by Chris Goodall that walking does more than driving to cause global warming. In addition to being a bogus calculation, this sort of crap trivializes the entire debate, not to mention pissing me off. But what really pissed me off what the implication that this is all going to somehow be optional

    I have worked on urban and regional air pollution as well as some epidemiology, with a bit of the stratospheric ozone problem thrown in. Only the last of these is a global problem, and it pales in comparison to greenhouse warming. I’ve also done some work in ecosystem modeling and aquatic eutrophication. These are also pretty small problems compared to habitat loss and species extinction, which is both local and global in scale.

    Even so, whatever progress has been made in any environmental area that I’ve ever seen up-close and personal has been as a result of government action. Even when people want to do the right thing, they need guidance in what constitutes the right thing, and a legal structure that insures that their efforts will not be thwarted by someone with a contrary agenda.

    I also know damn well that species extinction and global warming are hard problems without easy answers. I also know that the effects of both are very large and as permanent as anything ever done by humanity. I also know that our particular government of the moment is as malign a crop of assholes as we have seen in my lifetime, so it’s hard to put any credence in the idea that there needs to be a governmental part of the solution. Nevertheless, deal with it.

    When I say that everything should be on the table, I mean everything should be on the table, and not just the things we are comfortable with. I mention waterboarding Exxon executives, not because I think it’s a good idea (I do not) but to suggest that the current situation, where large organizations can carefully craft disinformation campaigns to manipulate public opinion is pernicious and should be stopped by any means that will work. And whether or not something will work is the only requirement when the times are dire.

    In WWII both the US and England made common cause with the USSR, despite animosities that ran deeper than bone. Yet “progressives” routinely turn up their noses at potential allies or potential solutions because they don’t fit into the progressive agenda. As for “the left,” my experiences in the 60’s and 70’s gave me the impression that those folks couldn’t install a light bulb in a light bulb joke.

    Will more use of nuclear power reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes. Then it’s on the table and probably should be used. Will it increase the risk of proliferation and accident? Yes, but I doubt that any species will become extinct because of that, so it’s still on the goddamn table. So ethanol fuels are just another farm subsidy? Don’t care; there’s some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to be had. On the table. Sequestration of carbon dioxide is just an ad hoc patch? Don’t care, so long as it works. On the table.

    How about PETA and the “animal rights” movement? Do they make a distinction between endangered species and lab rats? I see no evidence of it. Have they gone out of their way to alienate the scientific community? Absolutely. They are not part of the solution; they’re part of the problem. Still, maybe somebody can come up with a way to put them on the table; I’m all ears. “Monkey Wrenching,” like tree spiking or vandalizing chemical plants? That’s a bit of a tougher call, since almost every political movement in history has been underwritten by some outlaw/terrorist actions, but I’m relatively sure that the ill-will generated outweighs any positive contributions, and besides, too damn many of them are FBI agents provacateur anyway. In any case, they always seem to sabatoge the wrong guys.

    Ultimately all effective environmental actions are matters of government intervention. Extra-legal actions don’t have the leverage. But maybe that’s just me being restrictive. Convince me. But your argument had better have a species protection or greenhouse gas reduction payoff, or you’re off the table.

    See where I’m going here? These two environmental problems dwarf everything else, yet everyone I see (including myself sometimes), still keeps trying to fit them into their own agenda. They are too big for that.

    So let me try for even more clarity. Religious doctrines and “deep ecology” makes me want to barf. In my experience religious and other ideologies try to get other people to feel a certain way and I don’t give a damn about how you feel. I want people to understand that these problems are important and that they will require a lot of different solutions and that every possible (even partial) solution is “on the table,” and I don’t think we have anywhere near big enough a table.

  20. on 02 Sep 2007 at 4:43 pm 20. Bill Benzon said …

    I really don’t know much about the issues you discuss, James, but I like what you say.

  21. on 02 Sep 2007 at 4:47 pm 21. spyder said …

    Even so, whatever progress has been made in any environmental area that I’ve ever seen up-close and personal has been as a result of government action. Even when people want to do the right thing, they need guidance in what constitutes the right thing, and a legal structure that insures that their efforts will not be thwarted by someone with a contrary agenda. … “I don’t think we have anywhere near big enough a table.”

    I raise my glass and say “Aye, Sir! Aye!” If David Shearer’s most recent calculations, regarding the capacity of US citizens to substantially change their life choices to reduce their eco-footprint across the spectrum of carbon releases, water & air toxification, and the other critical issues, are relatively close (and Shearer’s scientific credentials are very solid) then JK’s points are even more important. It is heartening that James and David, both of whom have been at this work for decades, feel that human beings have the capacity to change, to adapt, to seek and develop solutions as yet unimagined. I’m a tad more pessimistic (nuclear power creates a set of nearly insurmountable obstacles to future generations of all species), but acknowledge that some humans can survive if they accept massive carbon-sequestered lifestyles that protect and encourage species diversity and proliferation.

    I put Soylent Green on the table next to a ban on any and all further cutting of trees across the planet. This ban would stop the massive habitat destruction ongoing in Canada to the boreal forest, underwhich supposed oil wealth exists in the form of tar sands. Soylent Green (and Red & Brown) needs to be considered as our oceanic supply of protein dwindles to nearly nothing and what remains is seriously polluted. We need to not ever subsidize corn production for ethanol, and reduce the daily destruction such subsidies cause to aquifers in the US and across the Americas. I could add more and more to the table, as i am sure could James. As he said the table is not big enough, and the citizens of the US will be unwilling to allow their governments to regulate them towards a healthier highly-restricted eco-footprint. I suppose we can shrug our shoulders and say “Wow” when (i don’t think there is an “If” here) China’s military dictatorship issues similar highly-restrictive orders on its population.

  22. on 02 Sep 2007 at 6:26 pm 22. Oaktown Girl said …

    James: Even when people want to do the right thing, they need guidance in what constitutes the right thing, and a legal structure that insures that their efforts will not be thwarted by someone with a contrary agenda.

    Aye, and there’s the rub. A major step toward this would be Clean Money elections, where we can at least get a whiff of a hope of having enough elected officials in office to actually serve the people (what a concept!) and not corporate agendas.

    and: where large organizations can carefully craft disinformation campaigns to manipulate public opinion is pernicious and should be stopped by any means that will work.

    Which is why media literacy and education is so vital, as well as efforts to take back (and I mean that quite literally) our airways and re-institute major restrictions on media ownership.

    See, none of these issues can be addressed in isolation. Some might say we don’t have “time” for all of that. I say, what other options do we have - immediately going to a totalitarian ruling system? Well, the folks who actually have the power to do that right now have no intention of dealing with global warming - not on their agenda in the least. So what the hell good does that do us?

    And I absolutely agree that the holier-than-thou groups (and individuals) that refuse to work with anyone who doesn’t measure up to their “purity” standard is a huge part of the problem, to say the least.

  23. on 02 Sep 2007 at 8:21 pm 23. James Killus said …

    nuclear power creates a set of nearly insurmountable obstacles to future generations of all species

    I’m not a nuclear advocate, given that I think the technology requires massive and intelligent government regulation and our current government is a collection of nimrods. Nevertheless, apart from possibly some unknown species that vanished in the Bikini tests, etc., I don’t know of any extinctions that have been caused by nuclear power, nor any mechanism for massive extinctions to take place.

    Excepting the Giant Nuclear Fireball, of course. But that genie is long out of the bottle, and a few extra terrawatts aren’t going to make a dime’s worth of difference to it.

    I’ll again voice my reservations about phraseology like “life choices.” This ultimately will not be a matter of individual choice. The polity can “choose” massive carbon use reductions, or it “chooses” coastal inundation and massive changes in habitat parameters. But it is mass action that is in question, not anyone’s individual lifestyle.

    Finally, let me voice my appreciation to everyone for letting me be so churlish and yet my receiving so little umbrage in response. There aren’t many venues so forgiving.

  24. on 02 Sep 2007 at 9:42 pm 24. JP Stormcrow said …

    There aren’t many venues so forgiving.

    So far…

    Don’t worry it’s all being noted and filed in a database and written down and sequestered for your big comeuppance(which will be completely unexpected**). … And that’s just what the NSA is doing, you should see what the MOJ has in store.

    **I will now use this assertion and several logical fallacies to prove that you will not have prior knowledge of the day of your death.
    1. You will have an “unexpected” comeuppance.
    2. Assume you have prior knowledge of the day that you will die.
    3. If you get to that day and have not had your comeuppance, then when it comes that day it will hardly be “unexpected”.
    4. Likewise it cannot come the day before you die, because of course it cannot come on the day you die, therefor if it came on the day before it would not be unexpected.
    5. And so on back to tomorrow. Therefor if you are to have an “unexpected” comeuppance, you must also have an “unexpected” death.
    6. QED, as they say in the math and logic game. A constructive proof is left as an excercise for christian.

  25. on 02 Sep 2007 at 10:34 pm 25. Oaktown Girl said …

    Finally, let me voice my appreciation to everyone for letting me be so churlish and yet my receiving so little umbrage in response. There aren’t many venues so forgiving.

    Indeed, Gojira smiles upon us.

    And that’s just what the NSA is doing, you should see what the MOJ has in store.

    Why you making me out to be the bad guy? Damn, it’s tough being the Minister of Justice. Besides, Brother James is on the “good” list. And he’ll stay that way, too, I reckon, because 3Tops has already informed him what punishment for him entails. (I won’t reveal all the details, but let’s just say “group hugs” and the “sharing of feelings” play a key component).

  26. on 03 Sep 2007 at 7:05 am 26. Kiera PSI said …

    James: our current government is a collection of nimrods

    James, James, you’re much too kind.

    JP: And that’s just what the NSA is doing, you should see what the MOJ has in store.

    MOJ: Why you making me out to be the bad guy?

    I’m sure JP had in mind those exact group hugs and sharing of feelings that 3Tops revealed. I’m sure James shudders just to think about it…a stint in the Trunk he’d just shrug off, he’d probably hunker down in there with a flashlight between his teeth, notepad and writing implement in hand, with a bandana wrapped around his forehead to ensure no sweat makes his next post unreadable.

  27. on 03 Sep 2007 at 9:13 am 27. christian h. said …

    James, you are clearly feeling strongly about this, so we make allowances (ducks).

    Seriously, though, I largely agree. There are some issues that can be seen as personal - being a vegetarian, not wanting animals to suffer so someone can wear that really nice fur coat,… and then there are issues that require collective action, or we and all life are in for big trouble. Like global warming and species extinction. It is, again I agree, a delusion to think that individual choice is a practical approach to those problems.

    Once we realize that collective, mass action - and therefore, in the final analysis, coercion (eg, “regulation”) is needed, it becomes a tactical question as to what should be done, politically. This is different from “being on the table”.

  28. on 03 Sep 2007 at 12:24 pm 28. James Killus said …

    christian, everyone has my permission at almost any time and certainly this one, to not give a damn about how I feel.

    Environmental management is a process, an organized system where individuals have roles and tasks, and it’s often a bad idea for people to try to do others’ jobs for them. Everyone elses’ jobs always seem so much easier than your own, so the temptation is there and I try to resist it.

    My own position has always been researcher and analyst. It is my role to provide options, not to select among them, nor to try to work the political process to accept any given option, nor, generally to impliment them. I have to trust others to do those tasks; that is what division of labor is about, and besides, I’m not good at the other jobs, and trying to do them also interferes with my primary task.

    Now, being semi-retired, I have more leeway, but there’s no reason to expect that my competence at the other tasks has increased.

    What I can do, however, and what I am good at, is expanding others’ awareness of the breadth of their options–and the possible consequences thereof.

    One story that I sometimes tell is of a terraced agricultural system on a tropical island, where the farm terraces were separated by forests, which were protected by religious taboo. Then colonialism came, the new owners decided that the forests were wastfull and cut them down, and because tropical soils do not retain nutrients (that was what the forests did) all the land became barren and unproductive.

    This sounds like a cautionary tale about the perils of hubris and the benefits of tradition, which, of course, it is. But one should realize that the same enforcement of taboos that protected the forests also kept the society rigid, and most certainly assigned strict social roles to women, peasants, etc.

    Similarly, in pre-industrial England, poaching in the King’s forests was a crime punishable by death. This protected the forests, at least until the pressures of shipbuilding causes the King to harvest so much forest that the first uses of the American colonies was to supply wood. In America, where the frontier was wide open to the former peasants, environmental despoilation became the order of the day.

    Environmental conservation is, as the name implies, conservative. The methods necessary deal with global environmental problems will probably result in substantial reductions in various things that are called “freedoms.” It may well result in a more rigid class structure than exists now. The protectors of the global environment may become the new aristocrats. They may become power brokers, with all the baggage that such positions imply.

    Or maybe not. The point is are you prepared to follow this project to its necessary conclusion, no matter what your own personal ideology or politics?

    I do not have an answer to that question, and I’ll probably never get to the point where I have to answer it. Maybe no one will ever need to answer it. But you might want to consider where you’d draw the line.

  29. on 03 Sep 2007 at 4:52 pm 29. christian h. said …

    James, I apologize - I do care how you feel! I was trying to riff on your distaste for, let’s say, the touchy-feely approach to protection of the environment.

    And I hear you - these are questions people have to be(come) aware of.

  30. on 03 Sep 2007 at 10:17 pm 30. JP Stormcrow said …

    Once again, not enough time to do this topic justice.

    But a couple of points.
    1) per James in 28, as I recall Trujillo in the Dominican Republic was quite the conservationist.

    2) I don’t want to push the population barrow too hard, but I do see population choices as on a par with the other significant items that would require large scale action to really move. And I do understand that there are many resource usage changes that we could do before we address population, and also that population “control” has a checkered history of use and abuse, but it is not something that should be glossed over. This graph is a complement to my earlier one - it shows yearly change in growth - you can see the very recent downward trend - but it still presents a rather breathtaking picture.

    I will just say that although most thoughtful commentators think that classifying homo sapiens as an “invasive” species is not that helpful, I think it is worth considering from time to time. (and as noted we bring all manner of associated ecological change well beyond our mere presence - at least in our current model).

  31. on 03 Sep 2007 at 10:26 pm 31. JP Stormcrow said …

    And that’s just what the NSA is doing, you should see what the MOJ has in store. [JPS]

    Why you making me out to be the bad guy? Damn, it’s tough being the Minister of Justice.

    Ok how about this:

    There may or may not be a faction in the party that - if it exists - is gathering and winnowing through all of James’s contributions. This possible faction may be letting things run their course for now, only to be preparing to exact unkown retribution at some unknown time in the future. However, given the uncertainty as to the very existence of this faction, and the mere guesswork as to its intentions re: James even if it does exist, it is probably best if everyone (especially James) continues as before like nothing is amiss. Because, who knows, may be nothing is amiss.

  32. on 03 Sep 2007 at 10:46 pm 32. Oaktown Girl said …

    JP (#31) -
    That’s more like it.

    And perhaps a reminder is overdue that the Ministry of Justice exists and serves solely for the benefit and well-being of everyone in The Party. Your Minister of Justice loves you all unconditionally, and only looks out for your best interests.

  33. on 04 Sep 2007 at 6:11 am 33. christian h. said …

    JP, rumormongering is classified as undermining party unity, so given the nature of the WAAGNFNP, I applaud your efforts!

  34. on 04 Sep 2007 at 7:59 pm 34. spyder said …

    I’ll again voice my reservations about phraseology like “life choices.” This ultimately will not be a matter of individual choice.

    My phrasing notwithstanding (poorly crafted as it was), my obscured point was that humans have the choice to collaboratively and cooperatively take mass action, or they can be forced to do so. I was not arguing for individual efforts/choices being productive or useful in the main. We do not have a great deal of time to act collectively; the latest data from this summer–the Arctic Sea–seems to indicate that the extent of the climate crisis is greater than predicted.

    The point is are you prepared to follow this project to its necessary conclusion, no matter what your own personal ideology or politics?
    I suspect that there will not be a real choice (live/die?), maybe perhaps an interior debate between one’s nihilistic selfishness vs one’s communitarian and family collective concerns????

    When the Minister of Offense and Defense returns home next week, he will authorize and investigation into the ramifications of venue forgiveness and hierarchies of feeling envy.

  35. on 05 Sep 2007 at 8:22 am 35. Oaktown Girl said …

    When the Minister of Offense and Defense returns home next week

    Well it’s about… damn… time!!!