| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How nature was destroyed in Asia and Europe
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


How nature was destroyed in Asia and Europe

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 10:55
Can I also invent words?Wink  Or do I need a "DOCTORIAL"  to do so?Cool
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 12:53
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Can I also invent words?Wink  Or do I need a "DOCTORIAL"  to do so?Cool
 
No, you only need a better dictionary and knowledge of word formation given that even the Penguin understood the reference--but then he has an advantage seeing that his species predates the Ice Age and consorted with the cavernicolas. Speleologists, Paleontologists and Naturalists would not have had a single problem with meaning...think of noun forms and not adjectives as with cavernicolous [which by the way the on-line OED has problems with but the last published multivolume OED does not in its volume 3].
 
As for word-play with language, opuslola, get used to it since all of us have literary licence for that is how language evolves [or degenerates, if one so wishes]. Besides, if your cavil is to be taken seriously then I feel that I have been granted permission to take a rather heavy red pencil to your proseEvil Smile!
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 28 Feb 2011 at 13:25
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 13:07
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

When the ignorance surpasses him, Dr. Gonzaga feel free to invent words.
Indeed, the word doesn't exist, as the Webster dictionary on line says:

cavernicular

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

  1. cavernicolous

 
Speaking of ignorance...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 22:40
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Absolutely. This thread has nothing to do with the original question.

The question was how was Europe (and Asia, particularly China) tranformed to fit human needs and development. Certainly, we know that Holland was made almost from scratch, taking little by little land from the sea. It is less known that most of the modern European environment is artificial.
Channels, cleanning wetlands, burning or cutting whole forests, etc.

That's what I wanted to discuss, and also why if Europe and China did it, Brazil shouldn't do the same with the Amazon? 
 
The fact that some countries in Europe and Asia already destroyed parts of their biodiversity does not mean that Brazil has to do the same. After all, times changes and we grow more and more aware of the importance of protecting natural environments and biodiversity.
 
And in todays Europe and Asia there are in fact also people that protests against destruction of natural habitats also in their own countries.


Edited by Carcharodon - 01 Mar 2011 at 00:03
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 06:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Absolutely. This thread has nothing to do with the original question.

The question was how was Europe (and Asia, particularly China) tranformed to fit human needs and development. Certainly, we know that Holland was made almost from scratch, taking little by little land from the sea. It is less known that most of the modern European environment is artificial.
Channels, cleanning wetlands, burning or cutting whole forests, etc.

That's what I wanted to discuss, and also why if Europe and China did it, Brazil shouldn't do the same with the Amazon? 
Some possible answers could be (though I think You should be able to think for Yourself!):
1: We may ask if it was for the best Europeans and Chinese made such changes, or destruction as You call it. If not, why should Brazil copy errors made by others? 2: Europeans and chinese may "not have known better" in the past, while whe today should, since science and klnowledge has grown in many fields. 3: The "overall" human impact were much less in the past.  Then  much of it happened in Europe and East Asia, but at a more "local" scale. Today it is more global. That makes at least three possible answers.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 09:47
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Some possible answers could be (though I think You should be able to think for Yourself!):
1: We may ask if it was for the best Europeans and Chinese made such changes, or destruction as You call it. If not, why should Brazil copy errors made by others?


If it was for the best or for the worst is irrelevant. They did it. That's what counts.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


2: Europeans and chinese may "not have known better" in the past, while whe today should, since science and klnowledge has grown in many fields.


Also irrelevant. They did it, and that's why they develop, and what counts.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


3: The "overall" human impact were much less in the past.  Then  much of it happened in Europe and East Asia, but at a more "local" scale. Today it is more global. That makes at least three possible answers.


Indeed, but why East Asia or Europe can do anything with theirs environment, and every single European hippie is protesting in South America to stop any development? What right have those intruders even to open theirs mouth in the topic?



Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 18:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Some possible answers could be (though I think You should be able to think for Yourself!):
1: We may ask if it was for the best Europeans and Chinese made such changes, or destruction as You call it. If not, why should Brazil copy errors made by others?


If it was for the best or for the worst is irrelevant. They did it. That's what counts.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


2: Europeans and chinese may "not have known better" in the past, while whe today should, since science and klnowledge has grown in many fields.


Also irrelevant. They did it, and that's why they develop, and what counts.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


3: The "overall" human impact were much less in the past.  Then  much of it happened in Europe and East Asia, but at a more "local" scale. Today it is more global. That makes at least three possible answers.


Indeed, but why East Asia or Europe can do anything with theirs environment, and every single European hippie is protesting in South America to stop any development? What right have those intruders even to open theirs mouth in the topic?



It seems then our popints of view differs radically!  First:You are not at all right there is that many european "hippies", neither do they come in hordes to South America. (I know noone). Do they have "any right to open their mouth"? If there is what is often labelled "freedom of expression" then of course they have. Another thing, though it is not a major point: Lots of South Americans are themselves, or are descendants of "intruders". You also ask "why can East Asia and Europe do anything with their environment" .Then I may ask if You envy or admire destruction?  Your statement points in that direction. I find Your answers to one and two "it is irrellevant" remarkable.
In the first case You effectively say it is irrellevant if what people do is for the worst or better, what matters is only what europeans and asians do or did! Would You defend say gladiator games or slavery the same way: "We have the right to have such games, since the romans had them in the past. And it is irrellevant if they are for the better or not!"
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 19:09

One condition we can have this very thread about "How nature was destroyed in europe and Asia" is that we are allowed to discuss problems all over the planet. Had it been a criminal offense, the thread should be imediately closen, and threadstarter brought to trial.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2011 at 23:03
Fantasus, as you should know by now the thematic here has little to do with environmental transformation or ecological adaptation as a function of human survival. Instead, it is but another platform for the pursuit of riposte to eco-freak agiprop by the remodeling of nationalist propaganda writ large on a regional base. in this instance South America. It's little more tha an encounter between Peck's Bad Boy and Miss Grundy suited more for Vadeuville than Academia. Needless to say, you should have grasped the ad absurdum driving this thread by the capricious declarations put forth such as "it is less known that most of the modern European environment is artificial". To respond in kind with other gibberish like this, "...and we grow more and more aware of the importance of protecting natural environments and biodiversity", merely re-enforces the tendency toward circular caterwauling.
 
Imagine all the possible fun one could have by discussing the ecological disasters caused by the draining of the Pontine Marshes--why we could relish assaulting historical figures from Augustus to Mussolini! 


Edited by drgonzaga - 01 Mar 2011 at 23:04
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:02
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

It seems then our popints of view differs radically!  First:You are not at all right there is that many european "hippies", neither do they come in hordes to South America. (I know noone).


There are many in Patagonia, trying to stop the development of dams to generate electricity.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Do they have "any right to open their mouth"? If there is what is often labelled "freedom of expression" then of course they have.


I was thinking in the "look who is talking" idea. So, Europeans destroy theirs environment but they don't want we destroy ours? Confused

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


 Another thing, though it is not a major point: Lots of South Americans are themselves, or are descendants of "intruders".


Baloney. We are natives.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


You also ask "why can East Asia and Europe do anything with their environment" .Then I may ask if You envy or admire destruction? 


I envy theirs development. Also, it seems they have some rights that are denied to us. Freedom to use our countries, for instance.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Your statement points in that direction. I find Your answers to one and two "it is irrellevant" remarkable.
In the first case You effectively say it is irrellevant if what people do is for the worst or better, what matters is only what europeans and asians do or did! Would You defend say gladiator games or slavery the same way: "We have the right to have such games, since the romans had them in the past. And it is irrellevant if they are for the better or not!"


What matter is that our environment is our internal business. Nothing else.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Instead, it is but another platform for the pursuit of riposte to eco-freak agiprop by the remodeling of nationalist propaganda writ large on a regional base. in this instance South America. ...


Nope, Dr. Ego. You are wrong. It is just to establish the principle of "look who is talking".
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:25
Ego emi, PH.D. I like the sound of that Penguin. Not too heavy with the incense please.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 00:36
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


There are many in Patagonia, trying to stop the development of dams to generate electricity.
--
I was thinking in the "look who is talking" idea. So, Europeans destroy theirs environment but they don't want we destroy ours? Confused
---
Baloney. We are natives.
---
I envy theirs development. Also, it seems they have some rights that are denied to us. Freedom to use our countries, for instance.
---
What matter is that our environment is our internal business. Nothing else.
 
1. Well, at least in Brazil the majority of those who protest against the dams there are people from Brazil, both amerindians and others.
 
2. Well, just because Europeans have destroyed a lot of theirs and others environment does not mean that others have to do the same. Today we are more aware of the importance of not destroying our world and its biodiversity.
 
3. The real natives are ofcourse the amerindian peoples. Most others descend from invaders.
 
4. Europe and Asia have made (and still make) big errors when it comes to environmental issues. It would be crayziness of others to make similar mistakes and thus deplete our earth of even more resources and living beings.
 
5. In todays world environment and biodiversity is noones internal business. To protect the environment and the biodiversity is a matter for everyone.


Edited by Carcharodon - 02 Mar 2011 at 00:42
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 01:01
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

5. In todays world environment and biodiversity is noones internal business. To protect the environment and the biodiversity is a matter for everyone.
 
The environment is one thing. the protection of biodiversity is a totally different one. Mankind benefits from reducing biodiversity; it does not benefit from harming the environment in certain ways (though that doesn't mean that changing environment is necessaily bad. It's frequently good, just as the elimination of the smallpox and polio viruses would be.)
 
Your trouble is that you paint misty religious slogans on your banners with no concern for your fellow humans, and expect everyone else to follow you, without your giving any justification.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 01:08
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The environment is one thing. the protection of biodiversity is a totally different one. Mankind benefits from reducing biodiversity; it does not benefit from harming the environment in certain ways (though that doesn't mean that changing environment is necessaily bad. It's frequently good, just as the elimination of the smallpox and polio viruses would be.)
 
Your trouble is that you paint misty religious slogans on your banners with no concern for your fellow humans, and expect everyone else to follow you, without your giving any justification.
 
We are all depending of a rich biodiversity in a lot of ways. Reducing biodiversity can create serious side effects that many times are not predictable, creating unforseen problems for us. Also biodiversity is an enourmous resource for humanity. To decrease biodiversity is to deprive ourself and future generations of a lot of options and potentially valuable resources. We are all part of a complicated ecological web, and the more we destroy the web, the more it will effect us negatively.
 
To destroy biodiversity is indeed to deprive future generations of the richness of life itself. It ought to be a criminal offense.


Edited by Carcharodon - 02 Mar 2011 at 01:09
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 01:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

It seems then our popints of view differs radically!  First:You are not at all right there is that many european "hippies", neither do they come in hordes to South America. (I know noone).


There are many in Patagonia, trying to stop the development of dams to generate electricity.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Do they have "any right to open their mouth"? If there is what is often labelled "freedom of expression" then of course they have.


I was thinking in the "look who is talking" idea. So, Europeans destroy theirs environment but they don't want we destroy ours? Confused

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


 Another thing, though it is not a major point: Lots of South Americans are themselves, or are descendants of "intruders".


Baloney. We are natives.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


You also ask "why can East Asia and Europe do anything with their environment" .Then I may ask if You envy or admire destruction? 


I envy theirs development. Also, it seems they have some rights that are denied to us. Freedom to use our countries, for instance.


What matter is that our environment is our internal business. Nothing else.
I will start again where You end:try to see it from another point of view. I do not see Latin Americans, or anybody else, are or should be "deprived of their freedom". What is really the case is no land or continent can any longer reasonably be seen as an "asteroid of its own" - and isolated entity that noone else has an interest in. "Closed countries" like North Korea are the closest. All others (or in effect all)are in some degree inter-dependent. It has consequences for the chinese and europeans how other parts behave, and of course the natural "systems" do not know of national borders. Latin Americans can as anybody else try to get some influence especially upon some issues, like the situation of their own "expatriates" especially in North America but also in Europe. The same with international trade or even environmental issues: South Americans may have "legitimate interests", even how other countries manage their environment (again really borders are irrelevant from  the "earth perspective"). So again I disagree: What is relevant for others in a "global society" can not be limited that way. If anybody think so then think stopping all trade, exchange of money, participating in common fora for humanity. That is not the same as saying we should engage in any minor issue at the opposite end of the planet, only that we can, if there are major issues at stake.
You also write You envy the development of European and Asian countries. Then be aware, that some countries in the "top" are rather sparsely populated, like Sweden plus Norway ( area and population not so different from Chile, perhaps a bit fewer people), and Finland and Iceland(untill recently). All some of the most prosperous European countries, (more so in many respects than the "larger" powers of Britain, Germany, France etcetera) and less populated than most of contemporary Latin America.
Last: I do not see how You can deny a large part of the South American populations descend fully or partially from immigrants, especially from parts of Europe (Spain, Italy, some places Germans and others).
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 01:31
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The environment is one thing. the protection of biodiversity is a totally different one. Mankind benefits from reducing biodiversity; it does not benefit from harming the environment in certain ways (though that doesn't mean that changing environment is necessaily bad. It's frequently good, just as the elimination of the smallpox and polio viruses would be.)
 
Your trouble is that you paint misty religious slogans on your banners with no concern for your fellow humans, and expect everyone else to follow you, without your giving any justification.
 
We are all depending of a rich biodiversity in a lot of ways.
Yet again, name some. <sighs and yawns> Another misty slogan.
Quote
 Reducing biodiversity can create serious side effects that many times are not predictable, creating unforseen problems for us.
Not reducing biodiversity would very soon starve us all to death. Which of course, being anti-human, doesn't worry you but it does worry other people.
 
And again - name some of these myterious side effects that might occur if, unpredictably, there might be unforeseen (and apparently unkown) problems. With that attirtude we'd all be still livng in Africa as hunter gatherers, which I suppsoe though would be your ideal existence. But you don't go off and do it. I wonder why. (Remmeber you cannot have agriculture without reduciing biodiversity; in effect it is what the word 'agriculture' means.
Quote
 Also biodiversity is an enourmous resource for humanity.
No it isn't. The useful animals and plants are but the others aren't, except I guess for aesthetic purposes. The rest aren't a 'resource for humanity' at all, and many of them are directly harmful to humanity.
 
I suppose you'll be agitating for the shut down of all medical research and treatment on the basis that killing germs and viruses reduces biodiversity, whereas letting the odd million or so humans die doesn't matter.
Quote
To decrease biodiversity is to deprive ourself and future generations of a lot of options and potentially valuable resources. We are all part of a complicated ecological web, and the more we destroy the web, the more it will effect us negatively.
In hundreds of thousands of years it hasn't.
 
Quote
To destroy biodiversity is indeed to deprive future generations of the richness of life itself. It ought to be a criminal offense.
Certainly encouraging the spread of deadly or disabling diseases the way you want to do should be.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 01:56
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Yet again, name some. <sighs and yawns> Another misty slogan.
 
Well, if you had studied some ecology you would know. We are all depending of biodiversity in so many ways it would take thick books to explain. But there are literature for those who bother to study the subject. You can start with a beginners course in ecology.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not reducing biodiversity would very soon starve us all to death. Which of course, being anti-human, doesn't worry you but it does worry other people.
 
Biodiversity is the foundation of most of the things we do. Without biodiversity we would not have any food (or even oxygen) in the first place. Also we would not have many, or any medicines and a lot of other useful substances.
And biodiversity will get more and more important. We will be able to get more and new substances, chemicals, food products, medicines. A rich variety will give us alternative foods in times of climatic changes and changing environment. Biodiversity can give us new sources of energy, or give us the means to extract energy in new ways. Even engineering does benefit from a rich variety of living organisms to draw ideas from in fields like biomimetics.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 In hundreds of thousands of years it hasn't.
 
Indeed it has, and it has also serious consequences for us today. Biodiversity is the foundation for our life here. It gives us options and resources. Without biodiversity and the resources it provides us with we would indeed starve. The more we deplete the biodiversity the less options we have, which can get us into serious trouble.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 03:05
We are the Native, Naive Viking!
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 04:22
Biodiversity is jargon! It is as simple as that and anyone employing the term rather than addressing specifics is simply engaging in exercises of obfuscation.
 
One can not escape the consequences nor the gist captured here:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 04:38
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Yet again, name some. <sighs and yawns> Another misty slogan.
 
Well, if you had studied some ecology you would know. We are all depending of biodiversity in so many ways it would take thick books to explain. But there are literature for those who bother to study the subject. You can start with a beginners course in ecology.
You copied that sales pitch from the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists and the Scientologists, didn't you? Just read our holy book and everything will be revealed to you!
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not reducing biodiversity would very soon starve us all to death. Which of course, being anti-human, doesn't worry you but it does worry other people.
 
Biodiversity is the foundation of most of the things we do. Without biodiversity we would not have any food (or even oxygen) in the first place. Also we would not have many, or any medicines and a lot of other useful substances.
Not true at all. True that we need different plants and animals to get by, and indeed enjoy life, but there are hundreds and thousands of species that don't contribute to anything at all.
Quote
And biodiversity will get more and more important. We will be able to get more and new substances, chemicals, food products, medicines. A rich variety will give us alternative foods in times of climatic changes and changing environment. Biodiversity can give us new sources of energy, or give us the means to extract energy in new ways. Even engineering does benefit from a rich variety of living organisms to draw ideas from in fields like biomimetics.
Dream on. I wish you'd shut up about it thought. Or prodcue some kind of evidence to back up what you're claiming.
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 In hundreds of thousands of years it hasn't.
 
Indeed it has, and it has also serious consequences for us today. Biodiversity is the foundation for our life here. It gives us options and resources. Without biodiversity and the resources it provides us with we would indeed starve. The more we deplete the biodiversity the less options we have, which can get us into serious trouble.
That's ridiculous. 'Biodiversity' in anyone sane's language means the variety of life forms on the planet. There's no benefit to be got from simply maximising that number. Some life forms are beneficial, some are harmful and most are irrelevant. Maximising biodiversity means fostering the development and growth of lethal bacteria and viruses. Which is about as callous an attitude towards your fellow man that I can imagine.
 
I prefer the Christian Scientists, the Mormons and even the Jehovah's Witnesses: least they have some respsct for human beings.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 04:43
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Biodiversity is jargon! It is as simple as that and anyone employing the term rather than addressing specifics is simply engaging in exercises of obfuscation.
 
One can not escape the consequences nor the gist captured here:
 
The trouble is, some people will read that and take it seriously. Which drives me to consider other approaches to the problem of biodiversity at the intraspecies level. Cry
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 10:30
Nature goes against biodiversity quite often, and life has never perished. Even more, biodiversity can be increased by simply introducing foreign species! For example, today we have more biodiversity in plants and animals in my country than in pre-Columbian times, simply because many species have been introduced, like wheat, rice, pines, eucaliptus, roses, etc., and in the fauna we have cats, cows, horses, pigs, boards, ostriches, emus, goats, beavers, ect. I don't think those intruders make our environment better. Just think about the mutant Brazilian bee, which is invaded the Americas!
So, please, don't use the term biodiversity like something sacred. It can be altered, even increased, artificially.

Edited by pinguin - 02 Mar 2011 at 10:30
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 10:50
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Ego emi, PH.D. I like the sound of that Penguin. Not too heavy with the incense please.


Dr. Selfrefference sounds better to you? LOL

Dr Strangelove, could be better, my PHD friend. Big smile
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 21:12

 

Biodiversity is the foundation of most of the things we do. Without biodiversity we would not have any food (or even oxygen) in the first place. Also we would not have many, or any medicines and a lot of other useful substances.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

  Not true at all. True that we need different plants and animals to get by, and indeed enjoy life, but there are hundreds and thousands of species that don't contribute to anything at all.

 

You are totally wrong. With improved methods of analyze, improved technology and improved biological and chemical knowledge we all the time learn us more ways of utilize different life forms, plants, animals, microorganisms, fungi. To abstain from all the possibilities that biodiversity gives us is to rob future generations of the possibilities of utilizing biodiversity in good and ingenious ways. Thats why destroying biodiversity is such a foul crime. It robs ourselves and our descendants of enormous possibilities.

It really should be deemed as a serious crime against humanity.

 

 

 

 

Indeed it has, and it has also serious consequences for us today. Biodiversity is the foundation for our life here. It gives us options and resources. Without biodiversity and the resources it provides us with we would indeed starve. The more we deplete the biodiversity the less options we have, which can get us into serious trouble.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That's ridiculous. 'Biodiversity' in anyone sane's language means the variety of life forms on the planet.

 

A great variety of lifeforms increases (as I have explained) the number of possibilities for us to utilize those lifeforms and to adapt to changes in climate and environment. A high biodiversity also reduces vulnerability in ecological systems and our own vulnerability against unwanted ecological problems.

 

As I said, just take some introductory course in ecology and you will understand these issues somewhat better.

 

Also read the homepages of such organisations as Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN. You can also read Edvard Wilsons book Biodiversity for an introduction.

  

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nature goes against biodiversity quite often, and life has never perished.

 

Perhaps life itself will survive, but if we will survive we have better to take into considerations the laws of nature and to nurture the ecological systems and the variety of life of our planet. We can already see climatic changes, collapsing fish stocks, overgrowth in lakes, rivers and seas (this is also connected with depletion of fish stocks, among other causes), ruptures in the cycles of water (one of the results of deforestation), disturbances in distribution of sediments and nutrients, increase of some diseases and so on and so on. To disrupt ecological systems and deplete biodiversity have both direct and indirect consequenses, some easy to grasp and directly discernible, others more dificult to foresee.

 

Please learn something about ecology and about biodiversity before you speek.

 

 

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 21:59
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 

Biodiversity is the foundation of most of the things we do. Without biodiversity we would not have any food (or even oxygen) in the first place. Also we would not have many, or any medicines and a lot of other useful substances.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

  Not true at all. True that we need different plants and animals to get by, and indeed enjoy life, but there are hundreds and thousands of species that don't contribute to anything at all.

 

You are totally wrong. With improved methods of analyze, improved technology and improved biological and chemical knowledge we all the time learn us more ways of utilize different life forms, plants, animals, microorganisms, fungi. To abstain from all the possibilities that biodiversity gives us is to rob future generations of the possibilities of utilizing biodiversity in good and ingenious ways. Thats why destroying biodiversity is such a foul crime. It robs ourselves and our descendants of enormous possibilities.

It really should be deemed as a serious crime against humanity.

While killing people or letting them die shouldn't be? That shoould be what? A sacrifice 'to an unknown God'?

Quote  Indeed it has, and it has also serious consequences for us today. Biodiversity is the foundation for our life here. It gives us options and resources. Without biodiversity and the resources it provides us with we would indeed starve. The more we deplete the biodiversity the less options we have, which can get us into serious trouble.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That's ridiculous. 'Biodiversity' in anyone sane's language means the variety of life forms on the planet.

 

A great variety of lifeforms increases (as I have explained) the number of possibilities for us to utilize those lifeforms and to adapt to changes in climate and environment. A high biodiversity also reduces vulnerability in ecological systems and our own vulnerability against unwanted ecological problems.

It also increases the number of possibilities of us running into an epidemic disaster like AIDS, which is a good example of an increase in biodiversity. Another one is the use of gene manipulation to increase biodiversity, thereby introducing the possibility of harming food sources. Reducing biodiversity reduces our vulnerability to disease. Not only that it positively feeds us, by allowing us to grow useful plants rather than permit the biosphere to become a wasteland of weeds, as you would like.  
Quote  

As I said, just take some introductory course in ecology and you will understand these issues somewhat better.

Take an introductory course in thinking rationally and you might understand many things better, and be able to see the truth beneath the shimmering veil of self-righteousness .

Quote  

Also read the homepages of such organisations as Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN. You can also read Edvard Wilsons book Biodiversity for an introduction.

There must be an introductory book or two to logical analysis around for you to read also. Try Weldon's Vocabulary of Politics, for instance. Old, but sensible.
Quote  

Please learn something about ecology and about biodiversity before you speek.

Please study something on the use and abuse of language before you think. And then think before you write. And maybe we could discuss something on a sensible and rational basis instead of one of religious dogmatism.


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Mar 2011 at 22:03
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 23:18

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It also increases the number of possibilities of us running into an epidemic disaster like AIDS, which is a good example of an increase in biodiversity. Another one is the use of gene manipulation to increase biodiversity, thereby introducing the possibility of harming food sources. Reducing biodiversity reduces our vulnerability to disease. Not only that it positively feeds us, by allowing us to grow useful plants rather than permit the biosphere to become a wasteland of weeds, as you would like.  

 

Actully it is many times so that a reduced biodiversity and disturbed ecological systems give rise to more diseases and also increases the susceptibility to pests and vermin. A high biodiversity and a rich variety reduces vulnerability in ecological systems and our own vulnerability against unwanted ecological problems.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

There must be an introductory book or two to logical analysis around for you to read also. Try Weldon's Vocabulary of Politics, for instance. Old, but sensible.  

 

We were talking about biodiversity and ecology, just study some books about that so you can learn something. It seems that you just like to discuss for the sake of discussion itself, without knowing anything about the subject at hand.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Please study something on the use and abuse of language before you think. And then think before you write. And maybe we could discuss something on a sensible and rational basis instead of one of religious dogmatism.   

 

Well, since it seemed that Penguin did not have any clue about ecology I just encouraged him to study the subject before writing a lot of meaningless rubbish.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 23:55
Rubish is your idea that ecosystems must be preserved pristine and "natural" to survive.
That's not science, but your personal religion to Mama Nature.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2011 at 23:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Rubish is your idea that ecosystems must be preserved pristine and "natural" to survive.
That's not science, but your personal religion to Mama Nature.

 
We use nature all the time, and have done so for millennia, but that do not mean that we shall not strive to preserve its biodiversity and variation.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2011 at 01:01
Biodiversity again, Carcha? You don't have idea what is it and for what is worth. Nature hates diversity. That's what natural selection and evolution is all about: destroying diversity.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.