On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:

> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> years.

You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable 
planet?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> For most of the earth's history plants and animals have invaded
> neighboring areas whenever the opportunity has presented itself, and the
> global climate shifts of the past indicate that the present warming
> trend signals a return to normal conditions, and not a departure from them.

yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...

> If man is changing the earth, big deal; Mother Nature was changing the
> earth for millenia before we showed up, has done so during our time
> here, and if she outlasts us will continue to do so when we are gone.

so we should continue adapting to new environment conditions -- this time around
largely contributed by us -- rather than plan and adapt our environment to our
needs?

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?

no petroleum and precious metals means less greed, at least. :)

I hope your apple seedlings grow.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
> global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...

  I highly doubt there was ever as many dinosaurs big enough to produce
as many greenhouse gases as cars (plus people) today.

  The worst case scenario is that we could be facing an ice age, which
would not be very nice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the 
>future.
> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will 
> life be
> like?

I'm sure there will be both metal and salt in a thousand years,
where would it go away to? Beyond a few diminished salt flats that is.

> ...The fascinating thing is I wonder if there's even the slightest chance 
> of those
> apple seeds feeding anyone ever in any moment in all time.

Johnny "Appleseed" was a real guy, they still have trees descended from
trees he spread through the USA. Though it's hard to get the story really 
correct
when mythos has attached itself.

> ...I even wonder if
> there's some scenario where it could do some kind of harm. (Besides 
> offending
> property owners who figure it out or the green's gripe with invasive 
> species.)

Apple core -> Tree + windstorm = *splat* dead baby.
It's the butterfly effect, you can't predict if a small change will do real 
harm
someday.

> If humanity is to survive here 1000 years after petroleum and platinum is 
> used
> up, will pine forests serve an ecological purpose that apple forests 
> won't.

Platinum is an element, there's no way to really use it up, it'll just be 
reclaimed
eventually, if someone is willing to pay for it.

If oil runs out they'll switch back to paper bags, made out of
firs and pines, but it looks to me like gas in some form is here to stay,
since they've figured out how to turn cellulose into sugars with bacterial
enzymes occurring naturally in geysers. That may be part of the
reason behind the recent increases in corn and wheat prices lately...

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> > years.

> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
> planet?

No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
are religious nonsense.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

**From a verifiable standpoint.  You can't prove God exists, and you 
can't prove his nature.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> If oil runs out they'll switch back to paper bags, made out of
> firs and pines, but it looks to me like gas in some form is here to stay,
> since they've figured out how to turn cellulose into sugars with bacterial
> enzymes occurring naturally in geysers. That may be part of the
> reason behind the recent increases in corn and wheat prices lately... 

It's greatly behind it, and in fact is a contributor to global warming.

1) Corn used for fuel now
2) Increased demand for corn, prices go up
3) More corn harvests going to fuel
4) Shortage of corn on foreign markets
5) Local forests in SE Asia and SA slashed to make room for corn fields

Note that I read this in the local paper, so I can't vouch for its 
accuracy, but the statement was made that this is already a real effect.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:27:23 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

No it's not.

>-- 
>...Ben Chambers
>www.pacificwebguy.com
>
>*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
>any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
>that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

Just as likely? Is it not obvious if He, She or It does exist?

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
>> global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...
> 
>   I highly doubt there was ever as many dinosaurs big enough to produce
> as many greenhouse gases as cars (plus people) today.

But there were volcanoes, the natural decay of vegetation, the 
weathering of carbonate rock, and other natural processes.  Those 
processes exist today, as well.  And that's just for carbon dioxide.

The number one greenhouse gas, more potent and existing in far greater 
quantities than anything we make, is water vapor.  Water vapor is 
responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.

It must also be remembered that doubling the concentration of greenhouse 
gases will not double the amount of radiation absorbed and/or scattered 
by the atmosphere; at most frequencies in the IR band absorption and 
scattering by the atmosphere is already at 100%, and no increase in gas 
concentrations will have any effect at those frequencies.

>   The worst case scenario is that we could be facing an ice age, which
> would not be very nice.

The geological data indicates that for most of its history the Earth has 
been about three to five degrees warmer then it presently is now.  There 
was a Little Ice Age that began sometime from 1200 to 1600 and ran until 
about 1850, and it substantially and negatively impacted the quality of 
life in both Europe and North America.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message