Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   The Sixth Extinction (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19851)

Neil 03-05-2014 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214521)
The religion of Arrogance

Doing more with less and decreasing throughputs is the religion of arrogance?

I don't see us all plowing fields with horse-drawn plows. Things like computer controlled in-ground drip by drip irrigation tubes and super efficient solar collectors are going to be used increasingly and will only get more efficient as the years advance. That's technology not arrogance. Technology began when the first proto-human picked up a club and clobbered his supper with it. Or, why not when the first cell captured the energy in an excited magnesium electron from a chorophyll molecule and used it to split water.


World population won't stabilize and begin decreasing til 2050 according to the folks who wrote Limits to Growth (their 30 year update is a good read). Most of the worlds standard of living only has one way to go-up. Doing more with less to improve standards of living sustainably can only be achieved with technology. Not quick and dirty techno-fixes.

l'oiseau 03-05-2014 07:59 PM

I think that companies will use technologies which they think they can make money on. How do I know this? Because the technologies already exist to increase efficiency but no one will just implement it willy nilly. Companies in transport tend to be very conservative.

Government regulations and grants from the DOE drive a lot of the actual development. So in essence our tax dollars pay for development of technologies that may or may not be implemented. They are only used if there are profit margins.

In terms of impossibilities, there are limits. The laws of thermodynamics aren't easily broken, actually never, even in the quantum world AFAIK (other than realizing that mass is energy). When dealing with heat engines, which is what every fossil fuel (and nuclear) powered power plant, jet, car, truck, generator, etc is, you deal with that fundamental efficiency up front. And it's all downhill from there. Every improvement has just been minimizing those losses.

You want to know the really odd thing? Almost all of the technology that is used on fossil fuel powered machines was thought of in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The rest has just been the technical challenge of implementation, manufacture, and materials.

So if you are expecting miracles, I suggest you get a college level Thermodynamics book and calculate out the efficiency of a Carnot, Brayton, Otto and Diesel Cycle. I could tell you what the numbers are but they aren't what you might think. That is the best we can do without going in a completely different direction.

redhawk 03-06-2014 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 214522)
Doing more with less and decreasing throughputs is the religion of arrogance?

I don't see us all plowing fields with horse-drawn plows. Things like computer controlled in-ground drip by drip irrigation tubes and super efficient solar collectors are going to be used increasingly and will only get more efficient as the years advance. That's technology not arrogance. Technology began when the first proto-human picked up a club and clobbered his supper with it. Or, why not when the first cell captured the energy in an excited magnesium electron from a chorophyll molecule and used it to split water.


World population won't stabilize and begin decreasing til 2050 according to the folks who wrote Limits to Growth (their 30 year update is a good read). Most of the worlds standard of living only has one way to go-up. Doing more with less to improve standards of living sustainably can only be achieved with technology. Not quick and dirty techno-fixes.

NO, the religion of Arrogance is assuming that technology is always going to be able to fix what we screw up.

Here's an opinion. I firmly believe that these corporations who are polluting the air as well as denying the existence of climate change damn well know that they are lying. I am equally convinced that they justify their behavior by rationalizing that when it gets real bad, we'll be able to fix it.

That's what my point it.

Neil 03-06-2014 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214574)
NO, the religion of Arrogance is assuming that technology is always going to be able to fix what we screw up.

Fair enough. :thumbs:
How about, some people will develop and apply technology to in an attempt to undo the harm done by others. Then those "others" seize the opportunity provided by the new technology to make more money for their shareholders.

Case in point. In Quebec we produce a lot of pork, like a whole a lot. We all know what comes out of the back end of a pig. Well, the producers were held to a limit as to the amount of pig crap they could spread on the fields. Then someone came up with a technology that would decrease the environmental impact by 50%. The spokesperson for the pig farmers said in a newspaper interview that this was great news because now the pig farmers would be able to double their production.

cityboy 04-27-2014 07:09 PM

[QUOTE=vtflyfish;214327]This is the title of a remarkable new book by Elizabeth Kolbert. If you are interested in the near and long term fate of our species this is a thought provoking read. And to any (hopefully few) climate change disbelievers, this should be mandatory reading.
QUOTE]

vtflyfish, can you give us some information about the author's qualifications?
Sounds interesting. Is this fiction or non-fiction?

Hobbitling 04-27-2014 08:44 PM

Kolbert is a journalist. She mostly allows people with qualifications to speak for themselves.
You should read it before you criticize it.

cityboy 04-28-2014 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbitling (Post 216727)
Kolbert is a journalist. She mostly allows people with qualifications to speak for themselves.
You should read it before you criticize it.

I wasn't criticizing it. I usually like to know something about the author and the book first. Unless it is fiction then I might read it. I like world ending themes. Any zombies in it?

Neil 04-28-2014 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216731)
I wasn't criticizing it. I usually like to know something about the author and the book first. Unless it is fiction then I might read it. I like world ending themes. Any zombies in it?

251 customer reviews if you click here.

cityboy 04-28-2014 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 216737)
251 customer reviews if you click here.

Thanks I read some reviews. For the most part it seems to be just another man bad everything else good theory.

I am interested in the following topic:

"She describes the extinction of Neanderthals as another, much earlier, example of human-driven extinction (Chapter XII) relying on the notable research by Svante Paabo and his team, noting the importance of the "Out of Africa" theory in explaining Homo sapiens' global dispersal, while also discussing Paabo's "leaky-replacement" hypothesis that accounts for Neanderthals' eventual replacement by Homo sapiens through interbreeding, resulting in hybrids whose descendants include all non-African populations of humanity, contributing between 1 and 4 percent within the genomes of non-African populations, remnants of the Neanderthal genome."

I often wonder what happened to them. I don't doubt we (homo sapiens) played some role in their demise. When two different cultures meet it usually doesn't turn out well for one of them.

I'll check to see if my library has a copy.

vtflyfish 04-28-2014 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216742)

I often wonder what happened to them. I don't doubt we (homo sapiens) played some role in their demise. When two different cultures meet it usually doesn't turn out well for one of them.

I'll check to see if my library has a copy.

She's an interested and informed journalist and well worth reading. In the case of the Neanderthals, there were specific traits that the experts think doomed them. It's a very good read, well worth the money. My copy has made the rounds in my family and beyond.

cityboy 04-28-2014 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtflyfish (Post 216750)
She's an interested and informed journalist and well worth reading. In the case of the Neanderthals, there were specific traits that the experts think doomed them. It's a very good read, well worth the money. My copy has made the rounds in my family and beyond.

It must be popular. All four copies and one audio are out in my library.

Glen 04-28-2014 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216757)
It must be popular. All four copies and one audio are out in my library.

It's probably just a climate alarmist conspiracy. First the climate, now the books!

cityboy 04-28-2014 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 216768)
It's probably just a climate alarmist conspiracy. First the climate, now the books!

If I get it and the pages are still wet than you're probably right. Of course strong laughter also elicits tears too.

As I mentioned I'll be reading Chapter 12 since its something I'm interested in.
I've already had my fill of the other topic. No point in further discussion. I'm content to wait and tell you I told you so.

Commissionpoint 04-28-2014 06:21 PM

My boss just gave me his copy. Said he enjoyed it. Thought I would too. I put it in my backpack. Rainy day lean-to fodder. Based on my initial perusal, I estimate I won't enjoy it. Looks a lot like alarmist pseudo-science to me.

redhawk 04-28-2014 10:53 PM

I keep seeing the word "alarmist".

Perhaps there is something to be alarmed about?

redhawk 04-28-2014 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216781)
I keep seeing the word "alarmist".

Perhaps there is something to be alarmed about?

In 1941 there were quite a few "alarms" about the possibility of an attack on the Pacific Fleet. The Admirals and the Department of the navy said they were "alarmist", nothing that could happen. Then on Dec 7, 1941..........

After the 1993 bombing of the World trade Center , John O'Neil an FBI counter terrorism expert warned about a group called Al Qaeda and a man named Osama Bin Laden and warned officials that there could be another attack on the World Trade Center. He was considered an "Alarmist" and was transferred to Boston. Frustrated, he resigned and became head of security at the World trade Center. Then came 9/11.

Perhaps people should pay attention to the "alarmists"

Commissionpoint 04-28-2014 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216783)

Perhaps people should pay attention to the "alarmists"

I know several other words that describe "alarmists" much better. I was trying to be polite.

redhawk 04-29-2014 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commissionpoint (Post 216786)
I know several other words that describe "alarmists" much better. I was trying to be polite.

They called O'Neil some of those words too. As it turned out, it best described them, not him. Had they listened, WTC would still be standing.

"Alarmist" is a word that is used to discredit people, especially when they have a strong argument on their side.

There was a time when "liberal" was not a "bad" word. Ronald Reagan hoodwinked millions of people by using it in a disrespectful matter. It was the only decent acting role he ever did.

redhawk 04-29-2014 01:49 PM

I guess I'm out of step with most. Perhaps it's cultural. I was taught to nurture the Mother (Earth) and to never take more than what was needed. Today that translate that we shoud not be putting all of the things into the air, land and water that we do. Nor should we be stripping the land of it's resources. It make no difference whether it can lead to a catastrophic event or not. It has to do with having respect for the world that we and billions of others live in. It's about respect and decency as well as all the other implications.

randomscooter 04-29-2014 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216806)
I guess I'm out of step with most. Perhaps it's cultural. I was taught to nurture the Mother (Earth) and to never take more than what was needed. Today that translate that we shoud not be putting all of the things into the air, land and water that we do. Nor should we be stripping the land of it's resources. It make no difference whether it can lead to a catastrophic event or not. It has to do with having respect for the world that we and billions of others live in. It's about respect and decency as well as all the other implications.

Out of step... perhaps. Wrong... nope.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.