You are confusing technology with resources. The main effect of technology has only been to increase the rate of exploitation of finite resources. Its a myth to assume that technology always comes to the rescue just at the point when resource depletion causes the collapse of a culture. There is no precedent for such miraculous occurrences, and i find it hard to believe our situation is any different than those that have come before us.


All cultures are defined mainly by their economics, i.e, how a culture gathers, produces, and distributes resources to its members is what creates and makes up the character of its culture. If we take as this cultures starting point the advent of agriculture and cities in the 'fertile' crescent, we can see that such a culture is defined mainly by the destruction of landbases and the murder of indigenous tribal groups who subsist on that landbase. In other words, our culture is fundamentally and necessarily geared towards hatred and violence directed against land and life. So in a way, depleting the oil for the purpose of extending the life of this culture is harmful in and of itself.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I don't believe we can destroy the system we live in. That belief is just man's arrogance about his own power.


If it weren't for erosion we wouldn't have the beautiful Grand Canyon!

Sorry, I just don't agree that a person's locus of control is external. 'Happiness' is a function of mans inner workings.

Well, The System is long damaged....Besides, the Question is not if we Destroy the System... the Question is: Does a Changing System destroy our Civilization...

And not only are there many Historic Examples on a Changing System bringing down the mighty (Check out the Maya-Culture for example) but it is also not strange at all that humans are able to change the system.

Just think about all the Animals that are extinct....

Just because all changes we have done to the natural system have not been tooooo damaging for us, does not mean that it remains this way...


To the Subject of the Thread:
That's why Global Warming is misleading... Global Climate Change is more accurate.

__________________

The Maya didn't destroy the ecosystem. Far from it. They only lived on one little corner of the earth. The Maya destroyed their OWN system because they thought their use of the natural resources was immoral. I'm sure they must have had their own version of Al Gore...........

I just gave that example to show how the system can keep working while human civilization goes down.

All it takes are massive droughts over a certain period and we have West Rome 400AD all over again... If Global Warming, Cooling or Dimming causes this is not important...

How much Human Interference effects the world you can see in Central Europe... with an quite ironic example though....
In central europe the Air Quality improved significantly due to better ecological guidelines & the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The ironic effect: The dimming of the sunlight that dirty air causes got reduced => Central Europe is heating up faster than the rest of the world.


Besides:
Something I don't understand with the "Climate Change doesn't Exist" crowd:
Why is Improving Energy Efficincy, forcing the Industry to modernize and investing in Oil-Independent energy Sources such a bad idea?

In Germany estimates say it created tens of thousands of jobs already and it covers more that 10% of the electricity production...

__________________

Define 'destroy'. We certianly could alter it enough that it would be a much less hospitable environment for us than it is now. Since we also have the ability to model and predict the effects of our actions, it would seem like a goodidea to use that and behave rationally.


Sure. Have you taken a peek at a river near an area where mountaintop removal mining has been done? Beautiful.

Entirely?
I mean, sure, once basic neccesities are met, but how happy would you be if you could never get enough to eat? Since happiness is a function of your inner workings, it woudn't matter, right?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Where have I suggested behaving IRRATIONALLY? I am just saying that the earth is greater than man. Period.



Get real. I live in Kentucky.

You have just described how my parents and siblings lived through the depression. They were hungry. The don't look at those as bad days because they were focused on having one another. Yes. Happiness is entirely internal.

You should fly sometime. You would see that MOST of the earth is undeveloped. Right now the earth feeds, clothes, and keeps us warn. I just don't see that not happening.

Where have I said any of this was a bad idea?

I remember when we heated with coal. My mother fretted over her white sheets getting coal soot on them. I remember the sulfur smell. I remember when coal dust hung over the little town where I grew up. The only time in my recent memory that I smelled that sulfur smell was when I was in China where they still use a lot of coal.

Air quality in the places I have lived isn't that bad. However, I think the entire city of Atlanta smells like a fart.

If a drought happens. I think you would be hard put to lay the blame man's door. Weather cycles have changed for eons, droughts have happened. So have earthquakes and what were once ocean beds are now deserts. Man didn't do any of that. You know populations have been decimated time and again by disease and pestilence and man had nothing to do with that either.

I think this environmental 'movement' has the flavor of some new religion and people are just as fanatical.

A reasonable model is one that fits with data and theory, and then is applicable in a prediction. I have yet to see a reasonable model in climate science that would incline me to support a policy that would surrender US sovereignty.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Who said anything about surrendering sovereignity? And who would it be to, anyway?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

I said something about it. I have no problem with addressing global warming, but I do have a problem with Kyoto. As many green fanatics will settle for no less than Kyoto, I have issues with ratifying it with the current state of the science. The fanatics concern me with this stance.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Oh, I see. I'm not really familliar with all the ramifications of Kyoto, but surely entering into treaties is something that soveriegn nations do all the time?
I also wonder, given the state of climate science (realtively young) and the fact that it consists of systems theory on a large scale we probabaly will never be able to predict with total certanty what is going to happen. How much evidence do we need to change our behavior?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

I have no problems with treaties, either. In fact, they are not enforced enough, IMO. However, I do have a problem with the Kyoto "treaty" as it goes beyond a treaty with imposed economic policies and sanctions that are in place inequitably to start.

Yes, climate science is relatively young, yet it is active and growing, thanks to money being poured into it (the feds pour great money into it). I completely support money for research to continue to grow. I also support incentives to go greener. I see both happening.

I also see public awareness and individuals having the freedom to choose to do their part to become greener. I would bet good money that most individuals are trying. That is where I like to see the emphasis, feedom of individual choice. (With a few incentives to make the choice go toward becoming greener.)

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

[quote=Sunshine;1230754]Right, but what's your point? The earth will be here when we're long gone, which is no assurance at all that it is guaranteed to support us regardless of what we do.

I saw, which made me wonder why you were sounding so dismissive about erosion. I come from coal miners, btw. My family is from eastern Ky.


Look, I agree with you, insofar as it applies to someone whos basic needs are met, but there's a world of difference between nothing extra, and not enough. Your folks were hungry, but they lived, and I'll bet they were without significant nutritional deficiencies. Compare that to areas where the greatest cause of blindless is vitamin A deficiency and children routeinly die of malnutrition. Pretty difficult to be happy at that level of (non) subsistence. Many of these places in the world are this way because they have already suffered significant ecological degradation.

Oh, I've flown; usually across the US, but I've been to Europe and Hawai'i. I wonder where you're flying? I see small patchy bits of forest, fields, cities and roads. A lot of the rockies and the Cascades are natural, but it also isn't that productive. Most of the world is undeveloped, true, but most of it is also ocean.
As far as feeding and clothing us, it dosen't always happen now; that's what famines are.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Where do you get that? Everything I've read suggests that it was a combination of overhunting, deforestation and possibly exceeding the local carrying capacity combined with a 200 year drought. Some have postulated epidemic disease and a peasant revolt as well.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin