Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
8:31:38 PM |
Thats a pretty good point EJ. Some would say carbon sequestration is doing that but it isnt putting it back really, just storing it. Soil can store carbon longterm but how much depends on management. Farmers are actually looking to get carbon credits for what they store. If the paddocks arent disturbed there is potential for that carbon to be locked into the ground but this is an incredibly slow process compared with the rate of relesase from the burning of fossil fuels. |
|||||
10:34:16 PM |
On 1/11/2007 EJ wrote: >So by all means plant trees, we certainly need them. But don't do it under >the pretense that its "fixing" the problem. Both cows and grass cycle carbon >fairly rapidly. So the cows and grass problem is largely related to the >short term carbon cycle. i think the idea is that adding a tree where there wasn't one before is removing carbon while the tree is growing. of course once its fully grown it doesn't work any more, and if you cut it down and it degrades all the "good work" is completely undone. seems like the industry is totally unregulated and is just dodgy feel good marketing, kind of like giving money attached to a string to a beggar, you can keep giving as much as you want. people will have no idea if what they are buying is completely hot air. the problem with forest offsets is that as you sell it you need to continually buy more land, and the land you have used can't be cut down. until they regulate it properly it sounds highly dubious to me. |
|||||
10:38:22 PM |
On 1/11/2007 GravityHound wrote: >Thats a pretty good point EJ. Some would say carbon sequestration is doing >that but it isnt putting it back really, just storing it. "Is doing that"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this concept is still pie-in-the-sky (or, pie-underground), isn't it? Anyone see good ol Dr Karl kicking the hell out of the wonderful sounding but so far bogus concept of "clean coal" today? |
|||||
8:39:24 AM |
I believe some small scale trials have been undertaken with success. But I will rephrase with what I should have written in the first place "Some people would say the unproven concept of geosequestration is doing that....". Good on Dr Karl for that one. Someone with a bit of public science cred debunking big policies. need more of it i say. |
|||||
11:59:43 AM |
Its great to read that people are interested and actively throwing these ideas around. IT doesn't suprise me that its people on a climbing forum. Another good book on the future of the world without cheap oil is "The Long Emergency" by a bloke called Kunstler (spelling?). He examines how different areas of our life might be changed. Though i'm a fan of George Monbiot's work ('The Age of Consent' was a great read) its important to remember that he is pushing many barrows so he may be down on certain fuel technologies as they don't head in his preferred direction for society. The simple fact is that the world can't support this many of us. The host will die if there are too many parasites. I was told the other day that my choice to not have kids was very selfish. This got me to thinking and, as far as the future of the world goes, I reckon having a kid in a wealthy westernised society is possibly the most selfish thing you can do. There are already enough people in the world today, why not support some of the existing ones instead of falling prey to the need for ownership and having my own. After all, in the era of human devolution isn't it more important that our healthy memes be passed on, rather than our dubious genes? |
|||||
1:32:13 PM |
On 3/11/2007 Take! wrote: >The simple fact is that the world can't support this many of us. The >host will die if there are too many parasites. >I was told the other day that my choice to not have kids was very selfish. >This got me to thinking and, as far as the future of the world goes, I >reckon having a kid in a wealthy westernised society is possibly the most >selfish thing you can do. i definitely disagree- if you have the values to act responsibly etc its much better that you have children, because they will be influenced to a great deal to carry those same values and share them with other people. western population is not the problem, there's far more people in other parts of the world. probably the most constructive thing you can do is to encourage having responsible people in the areas of greatest influence. this idea of the people aware of the issues sacrificing themselves for the ones who either don't care or aren't aware of their influence is just stupid. this idea of trying to educate all the people that already exist instead of having your own children is pretty silly, like its constructive to stop sustaining your own part of society to make space for people from africa with an average birth rate of 7+ children per woman, or arabs who have 30 children from the same father that only get to live with him a fraction of the time (eg osama bin laden). and yes not having children does literally make space- our immigration rate is based on the replacement rate of the population, so if you want your niche in society to be gradually replaced by people who are less likely to give a damn the best thing you can do is to not have children and to encourage others to do the same. |
|||||
9:07:07 AM |
I have chosen not to have a kid of my own (have a stepdaughter). For many reasons but the impact of another human on the planet was definitely one of the reasons. I think it would have been a bit selfish too have one. The only reason would be to fulfill my desires. Instead we are thinking of adopting a needy child or just continuing to donate money to charities who care for needy children around the world. | |||||
12:03:02 AM |
You forgot to add that they look funny anthonyk. Eat funny food too. On 3/11/2007 anthonyk wrote: >i definitely disagree- if you have the values to act responsibly etc its >much better that you have children, because they will be influenced to >a great deal to carry those same values and share them with other people. > western population is not the problem, there's far more people in other >parts of the world. > >probably the most constructive thing you can do is to encourage having >responsible people in the areas of greatest influence. this idea of the >people aware of the issues sacrificing themselves for the ones who either >don't care or aren't aware of their influence is just stupid. > >this idea of trying to educate all the people that already exist instead >of having your own children is pretty silly, like its constructive to stop >sustaining your own part of society to make space for people from africa >with an average birth rate of 7+ children per woman, or arabs who have >30 children from the same father that only get to live with him a fraction >of the time (eg osama bin laden). and yes not having children does literally >make space- our immigration rate is based on the replacement rate of the >population, so if you want your niche in society to be gradually replaced >by people who are less likely to give a damn the best thing you can do >is to not have children and to encourage others to do the same. > |
|||||
11:50:38 AM |
On 3/11/2007 anthonyk wrote: >...to make space for people from africa >with an average birth rate of 7+ children per woman, or arabs who have >30 children from the same father that only get to live with him a fraction >of the time (eg osama bin laden). and yes not having children does literally >make space- our immigration rate is based on the replacement rate of the >population, so if you want your niche in society to be gradually replaced >by people who are less likely to give a damn... > Faaark! Who let Pauline Hanson onto this forum? |
|||||
12:49:44 PM |
yep. that's why the solution to all the world's problems is for every male to have a vasectomy. if we can't pump out more humans, then in the next 100 years there wont be many of us left and the world can try to go back to 'normal'. but i suppose there is not too much difference between 100 years and 10,000 years to earth is there. maybe we should all take john's lead and do it. (putting it on youtube is optional, though preferred) i'm too gutless and selfish at the moment, but hey, maybe i'll get there one day. but i do agree with some of what anthonyk says too. hmmm. "BE" is another piece of 'contemptory' literature (well, concept album) with similar themes. |
|||||
1:49:05 PM |
On 5/11/2007 tnd wrote: >Faaark! Who let Pauline Hanson onto this forum? >You forgot to add that they look funny anthonyk. Eat funny food too. well thats a fairly typical reponse, act with prejudice instead of a rational argument. by your reasoning westerners are the problem and if you stop westerners from reproducing (ie you should feel guilty about having children), it solves everything. this fails to consider that if you put people from other cultures into a western environment they will consume just as much, and potentially have an even higher reproductive rate. you're failing to see the difference between population and consumption. western population is, i repeat, not the problem. population rate is to a large degree cultural, our values lead us to pursue individual lives which leads to a low rate of reproduction. other cultures which have different values and habits lead to higher reproduction rates. of course there's influence according to demographics etc but the cultural difference is significant. so in fact it is a better argument to say that westerners are better for managing population than other cultures, and your argument that stopping westerners having children will reduce global impact is completely wrong. if western consumption is the problem, reduce consumption. but if you are talking about population being a problem, western society is the best model around for maintaining a stable population. ps given your digs about pauline hanson etc, i haven't said anything anywhere thats racially prejudiced. comments about reproductive behaviour eg birth rate of some ppl in africa and the middle east are fair to discuss because these are largely cultural effects, thats different to racial prejudice. |
|||||
2:01:43 PM |
Population rate is not related to culture, it's education. As soon as people get educated they find better things to do with their time than reproducing. Maybe we could have a climbing led population control programme - get educated, start climbing - too busy when climbing to bonk - post climbing, too shagged out to bonk. |
|||||
2:23:44 PM |
On 5/11/2007 anthonyk wrote: >ps given your digs about pauline hanson etc, i haven't said anything anywhere >thats racially prejudiced. comments about reproductive behaviour eg birth >rate of some ppl in africa and the middle east are fair to discuss because >these are largely cultural effects, thats different to racial prejudice. pps for the record i don't really care about migration at all, just showing that your argument is wrong.. ;) |
|||||
2:36:33 PM |
On 5/11/2007 Capt_mulch wrote: >Population rate is not related to culture, it's education. As soon as people >get educated they find better things to do with their time than reproducing. yeah you're probably right. but there's still no argument for westerners to feel guilty for having children. >Maybe we could have a climbing led population control programme - get >educated, start climbing - too busy when climbing to bonk - post climbing, >too shagged out to bonk. hehe maybe you should start a program in developing countries. maybe turning people into dirtbag climbers will be enough of a contraceptive in itself ;) |
|||||
3:02:00 PM |
On 5/11/2007 anthonyk wrote: >On 5/11/2007 Capt_mulch wrote: >>Population rate is not related to culture, it's education. As soon as >people >>get educated they find better things to do with their time than reproducing. > >yeah you're probably right. but there's still no argument for westerners >to feel guilty for having children. this is pretty interesting- http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1910043.htm "there's a strong association between secularism and low fertility, and between adherence to any of the three big Abrahamic religions-Christianity, Judaism or Islam-and high fertility." "And so you have a gradual rebounding of birth rates, but what evolves through that is a much more conservative and traditional society. I would argue that the United States in the last 40 years has already seen a lot of that dynamic happen and that it accounts for the rising influence of evangelicals and religious conservatives in general... Michael Duffy: And this is because Christian conservative Americans are having more children than the secular so-called progressive ones? Philip Longman: Yes, that's right. In fact, if you look at the states that voted for George Bush in the last election, their fertility rate is 12% higher than the ones who voted for his opponent." in other words another by-product of not having children is that the political influence of that part of society gets decreased |
|||||
2:35:46 PM |
I’m sorry that my decision has the potential to make others feel guilty, truly. I’m also sorry I used the term “wealthy westernized society”, I was trying to convey societies with very high relative consumption per head of population. I think the pauline hanson remark may be because of your posts seeming inference that westerners are the only type of person capable of reasoning and capable of having a global view - that westerners somehow have a monopoly on being responsible and that the rest don’t care. I don’t think the ability to care and make good decisions is genetic. “another by-product of not having children is that the political influence of that part of society gets decreased”. This argument also seems to assume strict genetic links with higher thinking behavior, in particular - voting. This is flawed, even if there were a genetic basis - how many of us sit and agree totally with the previous generations beliefs and values? Once again I bring your attention to the theory that memes will outrun and overpower the influence of genes in a post industrial age, conscious thinking society. Education and the elimination of dogma could give less wealthy societies the chance to make decisions that might align better with the future of the world. Whether this is successful would depend how fast they ascend (or descend, depending on your view of us) through the spiral dynamics of societal thinking and which levels they pause at. There is so much to discuss here, it could become an essay. “you're failing to see the difference between population and consumption” I think the difference between the two is my reason for my choice. A child in our society will consume many times more than a child in less affable societies (there are some numbers out there - anyone). It will also do it for a longer amount of years. Even by default and with best intentions - just the bare infrastructure for ‘our way of life’ consumes many times more than other societies. This is the difference, no? "niche in society" I don’t own one, ultimately we don't own anything. To think that one does and that it can be maintained or expanded by out-breeding another tribe is not logic suited to todays circumstances. We are way beyond that stage, the planet will not suffer us learning that lesson again. Tribal thinking worked, a looong time ago. Well it never really ‘worked’ but it was part of the evolution and learning process for us. We made it through that phase simply because there weren’t that many of us around back then… “silly” Silly is being reckless with our consumption, especially when that includes the undiscerning intake of memes. |
|||||
4:15:48 PM |
its all good.. arguments tend to come out in hyperbole, its really not a big deal.. On 6/11/2007 Take! wrote: >I think the pauline hanson remark may be because of your posts seeming >inference that westerners are the only type of person capable of reasoning >and capable of having a global view - that westerners somehow have a monopoly >on being responsible and that the rest don’t care. I don’t think the ability >to care and make good decisions is genetic. hmm there's lots of things getting tied up here. i was just criticising your argument that reducing western fertility will be significant for reducing global impacts. your argument was that westerners have the greatest consumption per capita, therefore reducing westerners reduces consumption, or that producing more westerners is bad because they consume so much. my argument was that if you reduce westerners, you just take people from other parts of the world and put them in the same environment where they will consume just as much. in addition, they may also have a tendency to reproduce at an even greater rate because a) they currently do, b) they have different cultural values and will likely not have the same degree of individualism that keeps western secular fertility rates low, and c) they do not have the same cultural tradition of environmental awareness and proactiveness. c) doesn't mean they can't. it just means they currently don't, probably because they're too busy trying to eke a living and tend to concern themselves with more immediate issues. it also means they're probably less likely to concern themselves with broader issues when you put them in a stable western environment because their memes as you like to call them emphasise the immediate well being of their selves and family, and don't have the same tradition of placing global concerns ahead of immediate concerns, which is a very particular trait of certain parts of our society. > “another by-product of not having children is that the political influence >of that part of society gets decreased”. >This argument also seems to assume strict genetic links with higher thinking >behavior, in particular - voting. This is flawed, even if there were a >genetic basis - how many of us sit and agree totally with the previous >generations beliefs and values? who ever said it was about genes, its about culture. if you look at conservative american society, children of conservatives tend to be conservative and (the few) children of secularists tend to be secular. there's a degree of transition between the groups but the fertility rate of each group is statistically very significant for the size of that group in the future. this is crossing into a different issue than what we were talking about before, especially since religious/conservative affiliations are not necessarily tied to environmental issues, they just happen to be at the moment in the US because conservatives supported the bush administration and they are not environmental concerns are not high on their agenda. >Once again I bring your attention to the theory that memes will outrun >and overpower the influence of genes in a post industrial age, conscious >thinking society. again, this argument has nothing to do with genes. memes or whatever you want to call it are actually what i was talking about, and have very strong cultural and familial links. >Education and the elimination of dogma could give less wealthy societies >the chance to make decisions that might align better with the future of >the world. Whether this is successful would depend how fast they ascend >(or descend, depending on your view of us) through the spiral dynamics >of societal thinking and which levels they pause at. >There is so much to discuss here, it could become an essay. the reality is that conservative (ie religious) influence, whether christian or otherwise, is on the rise at the moment, because of factors such as fertility rate. you're also assuming that people don't share your point of view simply because they are uneducated, which is not necessarily true. but we're drifting into different territory here where i'm not sure what we're trying to show. >“you're failing to see the difference between population and consumption” >I think the difference between the two is my reason for my choice. A >child in our society will consume many times more than a child in less >affable societies (there are some numbers out there - anyone). It will >also do it for a longer amount of years. Even by default and with best >intentions - just the bare infrastructure for ‘our way of life’ consumes >many times more than other societies. This is the difference, no? yes, but reducing western fertility does not reduce western (or overall) consumption, it simply leads to borrowing people from other parts of the world who will consume the same, and will likely not have the same "memes" that we have to keep things in check and find ways to improve efficiency. an alternative view is that shifting influence out of western societies (eg if you reduced western populations to an insignificant number) simply gives greater economic power to other societies that will then consume more, again without the existing environmental/academic traditions to do a lot about it. maybe these concerns will make their way into the other population, maybe to a lesser degree, maybe not at all, but its still an assumption. >"niche in society" this is all covered earlier. its not about ownership or in-group/out-group, its a reality of how prevalent your point of view will become, because you seem to think your view is important (i'm not saying it isn't). |
|||||
8:47:21 PM |
dig dig dig anthonyk keep on digging. hyperbole tends to reveal |
|||||
5:13:25 AM |
Or alternatively, when you're in a hole stop digging...unless of course its to export coal. | |||||
9:15:12 AM |
... back on more base level of the topic of No More Overseas Travel? - Running out of oil? Here are some old bits of philthy gold off another thread to help the show along .... On 3/03/2006 Phil Box wrote: >My pride and joy is a 1944 Chev Blitz 4wd world war 2 truck. These things >were designed to take a direct hit and still be driveable. She can do the >quarter mile in under 26 minutes, score. & On 3/03/2006 Phil Box wrote re: >On 3/03/2006 matd wrote: >>Although I own a car and do drive, I am quite opposed to wasteful, overpowered >>and oversized vehicles. I prefer my bike. >> >>I can understand the appeal of our car culture but I dont aggree with >>it. >> >> >>mathew >> > >So my Hummer isn`t really the best crag road trip vehicle then. At least >I can get close to the crag. There is nothing like belaying out the back >of a truck. Hummers also make good track making vehicles in the rain forest >too. >(snip) ... I know I left out the essential bit, but it's all in good fun eh Phil? !! Heh, heh, heh. ;P |
| There are 128 messages in this topic. |
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints