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 often eat an apple during my half-hour commute to work down semi-rural roads.
I live in a county that 50 years ago was probably purely rural and is turning
into one giant suburb.  Also on the east coast of the US, every patch of
untended property ultimately turns into a forest.

I think about what those people 1000 or 10000 years from now will eat. It's said
that modern man is eating petroleum.   So when I'm through with my apple, I
throw the core out the window into a section of unkempt trees I pass by. I'm
guessing most of it is ultimately private property, whether a 10-acre plot of
forest owned by a real estate company or a single-family homeowner with a big
lot, but I try to stay clear of anyone's actual living space where children
might play.

Now I'm sure the Sierra Club probably wouldn't be entirely happy that I'm
spreading a non-native plant into the woods.  I'm sure militant property rights
folks wouldn't be happy that I'm deciding how someone else's property should be
landscaped.

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.   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.)
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.

Post a reply to this message

Seems like Andrew is not the only one making blog posts here... ;)

  (No, don't get me wrong. I liked your post. There's nothing wrong
with it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> 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.   I even wonder if
> there's some scenario where it could do some kind of harm. (Besides offending
> property owners who figure it out

It's just another weed if the space is tended, and ignored if it's not.

> or the green's gripe with invasive species.)

I never could understand the logic behind the insistence that ecosystem 
of the world, which has shifted radically in the past, should either 
globally or locally remain in any particular fixed state.  It is as 
unrealistic as demanding that your wife not grow old.

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.

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.

Regards,
John

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?

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

Post a reply to this message

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