The Kintyre Forum

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=5962

Who would have thought that a picture of a moth would provoke a question on the future of the world?

Ionnsaigh stated that it took a million years for that moth to evolve and asked what the human race could do.

My own opinion (for what it’s worth) is that our lifestyle in what is known as the “developed world” is completely unsustainable, and will lead to environmental, economic and social problems within a few generations, together with the extinction of many species which are essential to the ecological balance of the planet as we know it.

Global warming has already been discussed on the forum, and this is not intended to be a repetition of that that old chestnut, but does anybody actually believe that we can continue to use the world’s resources ad infinitum without having any effect on our future?

Any views?

I agree Emdee.......I think the world, as we know it, is done for. I can't see how our present civiliazation will exist in 100 years...maybe 50. Best we can hope for is some kind of Mad Max scenario.

It's back to" yab a dab a doo" time with the Flintstones, at least they were happy .

Fortunately and unlike the moth - humans are aware that they can make changes - either positive or negative to their environment. The moth throughout the course of it's development - has evolved to the creature we see today - without the capacity of knowledge. It would seem that any creatures development - has little or nothing to do with the acquisition of knowledge. They will develop regardless - the need to survive by defence - has been the principal aspect of development - concerning the moth - hence the remarkable camouflage. So it would seem that we have a distinct advantage over all life forms - in that we can actively change our environment to achieve best results.

How one achieves this is another matter. The problem I have is the use of the term we. Yes it can reasonably stated that we humans collectively have responsibility for our planet - Furthermore damage limitation - could only be tackled effectively with a united front - and common goal. How best to achieve a new world order - is another matter.
The use of limited - and dwindling resources is a common concern. Carbon bearing fuels - appear to have an established negative impact on the environment. Nuclear energy is I'm afraid to say - our only alternative choice. One that has - an undoubtedly dangerous - a future problem for mankind. In my mind it is easier to contain nuclear waste - than to contain the carbon type waste that is currently destroying our environment. A bit of a choice between the devil - and the deep blue sea I know. However any port in a storm.
I find great difficulty in using the term we - and applying it to - the three people I see on a bicycle somewhere in the southern hemisphere. As far as driving big gas guzzlers - four wheel jeep type things - when juxtaposed with one of the multinationals like Shell - then the gas guzzler becomes only another guy on a bike.
In this world some have more than others. The rich have more of the earth's limited resources - than the poor. Should the poor take collectively ownership of responsibility - when they have been denied use of these very resources - that are being rapped and pillaged from our dear planet by the greed of some - at the expense of us all. Have the poor to except that collective we ?.

We must study and learn from what happened on Easter Island....they knew what was happening and kept on doing it.

Some say Easter Island was sent to warn us.........we better take heed.

Referring to the moth again, the natural world can select genetic traits that need to be conserved for the benefit of the species and ultimately in a complex way, the entire biosphere. These are generally beneficial because of the underlying forces that drive natural selection, and the individual organism is not even aware of them.

The difference between this and the human race with its ability to change and manipulate resources outwith their natural biological remit, is that there is an ambitious trait in the human mind that needs to acquire things, which comes at a cost to other individuals, species and the environment.

The developed world has exploited third world countries for centuries, creating widespread poverty on a massive scale, without having any apparent conscience.

This extends to the use of the world’s resources. Historically, the human race has used resources as it saw fit, and with a complete lack of scientific knowledge on the possible long term effects of these actions, or a belief that resources were so massive that they could be treated as infinite. Now that we know this not to be the case, it is very difficult to change old habits, as it would have a substantial impact on the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

The Easter Island example as a microcosm of the world in general shows us that there are forces in nature that will limit the amount of exploitation that can be done. In the case of Easter Island, these forces eliminated a huge proportion of the population of the island, and altered the entire ecosystem. We need to remember that we are not the inheritors of the Earth, but custodians, and if our tenure of custody is inappropriate and operates against the forces of nature, then we will ultimately be the losers.

Ionnsaigh’s point about the collective responsibility and the use of the word “we” when talking about the human race is very valid. Most of the damage done throughout the world is the responsibility of the developed world.

It’s very difficult to find answers for many of the potential problems, as the human world is essentially run by politicians, who have to be elected, and any measures that impact on peoples’ lifestyles could be unpopular, as we have already seen with the iniquitous “green” taxes on fossil fuels which impact on necessary, as well as unnecessary use of fuels.

The future of the world....

Humanity will be culled, whether natural disaster, a supervolcano or meteor, or manmade, by design or mistake.

We have genetically altered plants made to resist insects. We don't have any idea in the world the long-term effects on humanity, or on the environment as a whole. A large percentage of the bee population is disappearing. Why? Is it because of genetically altered plants made to resist insects? Is it because of cell phones or viruses? Is it a natural culling?

We have protected ourselves and our livestock with antibiotics and vaccines, to the point where nature is bypassing our safeguards and giving us bacteria and viruses that we don't have much control over; MRSA, for instance. It is inevitable that some day whole populations are going to be brought down by a superbug or virus, and the few with natural protection and resilient souls will survive and carry us on.

I see that a report has been released today by the World Wildlife Fund giving details of the Living Planet Index, a statistic based on the fortunes of 1400 species.

Between 1970 and 2005, populations of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals have shown a decrease of 27%.

According to WWF, one of the main causes of the decline is habitat destruction.

They also state that the human race is using 25% more natural resources than the planet can replace.

The report is being published ahead of next week’s UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Cheerful stuff?

I was listening to NPR on the way to work a couple of days ago, and they were talking about the gasoline prices and alternative fuels, which were electric, garbage, etc, and wood! I couldn't believe my ears that the powers that be would consider that a good alternative! (Okay, so I'm a tree hugger. )

From one tree hugger to another - nothing wrong with loving nature.
I wonder if EMDEE could perhaps bare with me - re, the following points.
The underlying drive of natural selection is survival - this would include individual organisms to Human Beings. However unaware an individual organism may be - as it does not possess that ability - humans do have this ability.
My Brother in law worked in the renovation of a Glasgow tenement. He had to clamour up and down the side of scaffold at least twenty times a day. After Two weeks health and safety - insisted that the workers should wear hard hats at all times.
Interesting to note that the workers - all started to bang their hard hat heads against the scaffold. Why - because their brains - in an subconscious manner - had already worked out the safe distance between head and scaffold. So it would seem that we are highly adaptive creatures - who adjust quickly to external differences.

" An ambitious trait in the human mind that needs to acquire things ". I must admit to being ever so slightly puzzled by this .
When does this trait kick in ? is it an inherent need that lies dormant. When one studies a new born infant - when it is satisfying it's hunger need. The youngsters stomach capacity - tells it how much it needs - or it becomes sick. As far as everything having a cost - to other individuals species, and the environment - perhaps if you substitute cost for effect this may have a more favourable outlook - than one that merely infers take - as opposed to give and take.

As far as lifestyle is concerned - I would maintain that if resources where shared in a more equal fashion - the impact may be less than you predict.
Most of the damage done - has been at the hands of the controllers of wealth - in the so called developed world - yet again the question begs - should the poor in the developed world take equal responsibility with the rich ?.

ionnsaigh wrote:" An ambitious trait in the human mind that needs to acquire things ". I must admit to being ever so slightly puzzled by this .
When does this trait kick in ? is it an inherent need that lies dormant. When one studies a new born infant - when it is satisfying it's hunger need. The youngsters stomach capacity - tells it how much it needs - or it becomes sick.

Without getting too deeply into this, I think the work of Abraham Maslow is relevant here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

Check out the above link to see where I am coming from when I say that the human race has a need to acquire things.

It is not so much the controllers of wealth in the developed world who are causing problems, it is fact that economic and financial interests have been allowed to take precedence over environmental responsibility.

Incidentally, the reason why wood is proposed as an alternative fuel is because it is carbon-neutral, but this is only true if it is taken from a sustainable source.

Wood being carbon-neutral . Well what is it they say - you learn something new each day. That idea had never occurred to me. That wood can be classified - as being either positive negative or neutral.
By burning a sustainable supply we can classify it as neutral .
By burning a non sustainable supply we can classify negative.
By not burning any - we can classify positive.

If say for example oil or coal - could regenerate within the average lifespan of a common tree. By using the same criteria both
could be classified in the same manner as wood. As being either carbon positive negative or neutral.
Both you and I know - that supply is only part of the problem. The route of the problem lies more with pollution - due chiefly to the burning of carbon fuels - wither they come from a sustainable source or not - isn't really the question - or then again perhaps it is. Why should we be too pessimistic in terms of our outlook - when the very things that are creating the problem are in danger of running out. I for one can wait for oil to run out - because when it does - the evolutionary progress of mankind - kicks in and evolves - through change - during this period.
We have come along way from the trees and mere herbivore root scavengers. The introduction of controlled fire - changed the former into carnivorous hunter gatherers. I find it all very exciting to attempt to imagine what we will become next .

The problem with using oil, coal, etc is that these fuels have been extracted from what are effectively long-term carbon sinks. The carbon that is held in these deposits has been taken out of the earth’s short term carbon cycle, and in normal circumstances would possibly never see the light of day. They are the remains of plants that lived millions of years ago.

What has happened is that the human race comes along and finds out that these deposits can be used for the production of energy, and then unloads them into the atmosphere, thereby upsetting the carbon cycle of the whole planet. The point about sustainable sources is that the carbon being released is being re-used and going back into the cycle rather than building up in the atmosphere.

These deposits were built up over countless millions of years, and we are releasing them into the atmosphere in the space of a few decades. The supply of carbon in the atmosphere has exceeded demand from the plant world. It is a good thing to plant a tree. It is also OK to burn a tree if you plant another one in its place.

It is also OK to burn a tree if you plant another in it's place.

I would rather have a nuclear reactor any day.

ionnsaigh wrote::D It is also OK to burn a tree if you plant another in it's place.

I would rather have a nuclear reactor any day.

What about a windfarm?