A very meaty and real subject for SFNChat 8-08-06
OK you great minds - think about a very real and rapidly growing human crisis. There should be subject matter for some really important and creative SF novels in your thoughts about solutions to this - - or are none of you interested in very real problems?
Professor Jared Diamond Asks: “Will tourists someday stare mystified at the rusting hulks of New York’s skyscrapers, much as we stare today at the jungle-overgrown ruins of Maya cities?”
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculpture well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stampt on these lifeless things,
The hand that mockt them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
“Ozymandias.” by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1817)
Examples of total failures of societies leaving substantial ruins, but virtually no survivors:
1. Those total collapses we know virtually nothing about:
a. The Dorset people of the arctic
b. The Cahokia people (St Louis)
c. The Anasazi in our southwest
d. Mohenjo Daro ruins - Pakistan
e. Machu Pichu and Tiwanaku in South America
f. Great Zimbabawe in Africa
g. Angkor Wat and Harappan Indus Valley in Asia
h. Easter Island in the Pacific
2. Those collapses we do know some details about.:
a. The Maya in middle America
b. The Norse in Greenland
c. Rwanda in Africa
d. Pitcairn and Henderson Islands
3. Societies with difficult situations that are still thriving:
a. Iceland
b. Tikopia (small Pacific Island)
c. New Guinea Highlands d. Tokugawa Japan
e. Dominican Republic compared to Haiti
f. China
g Australia
h. Netherlands
Reasons for the collapse of societies and civilizations: Few collapses were due to a single factor as most were destroyed by a combination of these factors, all aggravated by expanding populations.
1. Environmental changes - fragility (susceptibility to damage) and resilience (potential for recovery)
a. Deforestation
b. Soil depletion and salinization
c. Water depletion
d. Wild food sources
e. Domestic food sources
f. sources for non-food goods
2. Climate change
a. temperature
b. rainfall
c. sunlight
3. Hostile neighbors (competition for resources)
a. wars
b. fighting and murder
4. Friendly trade partners
a. difficulty in transporting goods
b. availability of goods to trade
c. willingness to trade
5. The society’s responses to the first four
a. Population pressures
b. Power of the rulers
c. Willingness to cooperate.
d. Willingness to defend oneself from attack
My questions and possible subject for several great SF Novels is this:
How close is humanity to a total collapse (These collapses always happen - and usually very suddenly - immediately after great heights of material and cultural success are reached.) When will it happen? What signs and indications are already with us? How can it be prevented? (Steps and solutions)
Suggested reading: Collapse by Jared Diamond.
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-08-06
That is a very interesting question Howard, and one that I have given some consideration to before now. It is my opinion, only my opinion, that in order for the human race to survive, we must populate other world's. However in or to do so without consuming ourselves, our race must become united. A single species, a single race. Not a fractured race, trying to face the harsh environments that space has to offer, enduring hardships to the point of continual inner conflict as it stands between nations at present. So yes I do believe we are headed for collapse without the strength of, one race, one set of laws, one belief, one purpose, and finally the intent to achieve that purpose. To survive!
_______________________________________________________
8-12-06 - Rex,
I don't think the human species has to become one race, one government, one set of beliefs, one purpose, etc in order to populate other worlds (not world's, by the way). Why? Because we won't. We've always been diversified, and probably will be for a long time. Oh, we can become alike as we westernize or as technology tends to help standardization, but I don't think we need a high level of conformity in order to set up house on other planets, asteroids, habitats, etc. We just don't need that.
I think it is tempting to believe we need it because many SF writers before us have been a bit lax in detailing complicated worlds.
Diversity has tended to stimulate competition, which has helped development of new technologies. I think that will continue.
- Victory
_________________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-12-06
When you say "Because we won't." Do you mean you think we will never populate other worlds, or asteroids, or space stations, because we are diversified?
I am not knocking humanity's accomplishments, its moral and ethical growth, or its compassion for each other. But there is no denying the fact that we are emotionally volatile beings. Until such a time that we humans grow emotionally enough to succumb, subdue, and eradicate the innate nature of our greed and selfishness, we run the risk that our continuing technological advances will give means to a quick end.
Just because our country embraces technology, doesn't mean we will survive or populate the stars, there are many others that have beliefs that oppose advancement in technology. Ergo, conflict, jealousies, resentment, animosity, hatred, then war. Hey its just a thought.
_______________________________________________________
Inserted comment from HoJo:
Populating other worlds has got to be in the very distant future. (will man last long enough to do it?) First of all we will have to find another hospitable world and we are still a very long way from doing that. After we find it, we have to find a way to get there, another daunting task. After we get there????? I’m sure you know what I mean.
Many years ago I wrote a short story that I would post if I could find it in my paper archives. Basically it was the story of an interstellar expedition to a planet we discovered and that looked much like Earth. It was the right size, distance from its star, temperature and other physical attributes. It had an OK atmosphere, had proper oceans, weather, vegetation and probably animal life. When our colonizers finally landed they found a veritable paradise of beautiful plants and interesting animals different from those on Earth but much the same. Plants converted carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and animals ate the plants and each other, just like Earth. They drank the water, but when they ate the plants their digestive system didn’t change them a bit, likewise the animals. The biochemistry of the life on the new planet was just enough different form our own, that eating any life form was as nourishing as eating sand or gravel. In addition, the seeds the colonists brought would not grow in the alien soil. It was just enough biologically different that our plants could not get any sustenance and died soon after sprouting. The colony finally died out from starvation in a veritable paradise of life.
_______________________________________________________
From Gene Herron 8-12-06
Professor Jared Diamond Asks: "Will tourists someday stare mystified at the rusting hulks of New York’s skyscrapers, much as we stare today at the jungle-overgrown ruins of Maya cities?"
No. It's hard to recycle stone. Much much easier to recycle steel. Win, lose or draw, those buildings will be recycled into other forms. At the least into tools. I figure the only way they won't be recycled is if there are no more people. In which case, unless some Greater Power creates a replacement instantly, they'll crumble first.
Why oh why must we dispense with greed and selfishness? We have a name for people who are always selfless and generous - suckers and nice guys.
No, I'm not being cynical. I am a person who was very selfless and generous. Until I met enough people who like to use others, and more over, until I realized that if I didn't take care of number one nobody else would.
Incidentally, emotional volatility has only at best tangentially to do with greed and selfishness.
Also don't think we need to be "one world". IF anything we need to reduce the scope of government's power so that people can truly grow. The State has always first and foremost benefitted itself, not the people it rules, sooner or later.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
8-12-06 - In response to “Qzymandias:”
I read a writing in an antique file
Which said: "Two thousand years of upward rise
Stand only for a moment; in a little while
Our works will fall to dust before our eyes
And like so many peoples now long dead
We'll yet collapse, stampt into lifeless smear
The dreams of rockets and the paths that led
Unto the stars -- those all will disappear!"
His name's preserved, as are so many things;
Look on his words, my fellows, and be kind!
His thoughts remain, but now our system rings
With life and colonies and Intermind
And one colossal race, with different voices sings,
Diverse in thoughts and faith, still grows today,The stellar missions stretching far away
"Optimisticas" by D. Keith Howington (11:45pm) ];-)
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-13-06 in response to Gene’s message above.
Consider this; the largest proportion, and or the most advanced number of technological enhancements to the human culture, was in one way or another(directly or indirectly) was spawned by most military technological advances. They design a more efficient way of killing ourselves and we reap the benefits through the science process of developing those weapons. A new way of working with a certain material, or in its preparation or processing. We learn many new (but not by no means all) sciences from this, which in turn is applied to the everyday life of the common populace. What works with one thing can be used on another, we proliferate this in spades, through the trickle down effect, exploding our advancement in the comfort of living or to put it another way; the things that improve our everyday working environment. The thirst for ease and convenience to our daily effort to exist.
(Before going any further, I would like to clarify that I am speaking in very loosely generalized terms here, not tiring to pin down any specific instances.)
The selfishness of one race, withholding this technology from another,("Why don't they share their technology with us. We would never use it against them in anyway.") The holders view would be, ("We need to keep this to ourselves so we can maintain superiority, elevating our feeling of security against attack.")
As lame as that example is the truth still shines through, greed and jealousy, the haves and the has not. Wars have been started for far less offenses than what I have mentioned.
All of this greed and jealousy drives countries to steal from each other to even the playing field, and fear drives the need to reinvent. Hence the possibility of a technological spiraling up to the point that we are emotionally unable to contain. Given our rate of emotional growth in comparison to our technological growth.
_______________________________________________________
8-13-06 - Rex,
What's the "we" business? What do you mean by "emotionally mature"? The human race isn't some giant organism with feelings. It's an aggregate of six billion plus individuals.
I don't wish to sound harsh but too many Sci-Fi writers seem to speak in some parental voice, as if they were the ones fit to judge the whole human race based upon the decisions of a few thousand elites and the people who trust their judgements - the rest of us.
Arthur C Clarke in particular had this hectoring voice, lecturing the entire human race from his idylls in Sri Lanka about the problems of violence (in one of the most violent places on the planet, the Tamils versus the Sinhalese). Mr. Clarke, I think, needed to wheel his behind away from his pleasures and diversions and start lecturing his fellow Sri Lankans about the consequences of special privledges and setasides for the Tamils, which help lead them into a self aware sense of outrage, which the Indian Government abused by bankrolling their insurgency.
The Sri Lankan Government helped create this mess with their guilt trips and nonsense. Today they reap the rewards in some of the violent and remorseless guerilla actions on the planet.
I personally will have none of that.... each of us is responsible to act in a mature manner. We may be our brother's keeper but we are not on the dock for our brother's lack of good judgment. I don't have to answer for Bush and Co, no more than I had to answer for Clinton's bombing of Serbian civilians back in 1999.
Every day billions of people settle disputes in a peaceable way. Most people do not fight wars. Most people just go about their business, doing their thing. They work, they make things or do things that hopefully have value to others. Many folks will live their entire lives without inflicting serious pain let along lethal damage upon others. These peaceable people need not answer for the lack of empathy and judgment of their "betters".
I do know if wars create new technologies. Seems to me the biggest growth in technology has been to meet business demands - for example, IT systems. Health Care and biological research are growing far faster than military non-sense.
The current US campaign in the ME is showing that 4th Generation Warfare works against states. As does "assymmetrical warfare". These are old ideas but they are gaining new currency as people realize that the State has limits to its power and limits to its efficacy. No new technology, just an emphasis upon questioning the legitimacy of elites and their own peculiar aspirations.
In my opinion the biggest problem facing the human race today is a worship of the State. We need government, we do not need government which tries to rule every aspect of our lives. Totalitarianism failed in the Cold War. No need to relearn that tired old lesson. There must be a balance between people and rulers, or a new sense that people do not need a babysitter. That your brother does not need a keeper any more than you.
People make decisions. Among them, a decision I consider mistaken, is blind faith in one's leaders. another is anthropomorphizing the State into a collective of people. Still another is looking to war as a failing of humanity. War is a failing of a subset of humanity.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox:
Man that was fast. Okay Gene, I'm going to need just a little bit to ponder all that. I'll get back to you. Come to think of it, where the hell is Howard? After all he did start this mess. Like to hear his take on all this so far. He did ask the question.
"HOWARD!!!"
_______________________________________________________
Hey, Rex, it's just ideas. Ideas are mutable, as they have to be because the Universe is apparently in a state of pretty continuous flux. As is humanity. Don't sweat it, man.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
From Rex:
This totalitarian society that you infer I was suggesting would consist of something like this. 1. A single race; this one is easy. We already are a race, of humans. We just have to eliminate the, "this is ours and you can have any, to, that is there's and we don't want anything to do with it." type of mentality. 2. A single set of laws, (laws that a very huge portion of the population agree, to be fair and just.). 3. Belief, a desire for the betterment of mankind, spiritually, physically, and mentally. 4. Purpose, the desire to achieve something for the people as a whole, a united goal, if you will. 5. Intent; the unyielding willfulness to achieve such a goal, for the betterment of all mankind.
There are those unobtrusive people that muddle through life, unaffected by the conflicts and tribulation of others, domestic cattle. The, "I got a nice green pasture here to eat, no one's yanking on my chain, so why should I care what the world does with itself," kind of people. You said, "We may be our brother's keeper but we are not on the dock for our brother's lack of good judgment. With that mentality you could get; brother Bob, just got elected president the other day, and in his first order of business was to send a bomb over to brother Neil's house, living only a few miles away from your own home. Kaboom! This doesn't concern you? think someone else has the right to so permanently affect your life? With no neigh or say in the matter, just domestic cattle.
IT systems. Health Care and biological research. Well let's start with IT systems, the government constantly searches for and at least attempts to employ the very brightest IT specialist in the field. Or just graduating from IT school, in order to work on and develop their computer systems, satellites, communications, and abort any covert intelligence gathering systems or technology. They get the best stuff, so as to stay on top. Eventually, this technology trickles down to industry, business and economics. Health care; developing new procedures, medicines and equipment to repair injuries and/or save lives. Now days is of even greater importance to them, in or to protect the investment of training and education needed to operate their complicated war systems. And from that, we again receive the trickle-down effect. Biological research; think the CCD was created just for the monitoring of nature's natural deadly diseases. Think they're being funded by the government just for the protection and betterment mankind? Benefits in medicine have been seen from the research and development of biological warfare weapons. Two things hold heavy influences over governments: prevention and contingencies. These are the biggest drivers in the race to first place. In a manner of speaking.
As for me, I'm hanging out with the cattle.
_______________________________________________________
8-13-06 - Hi all,
I would dispute the entire idea of the collapse of civilzations, with a few notable exceptions which Howard cites. (eg. Classical Mayan civilization, Easter Island, Angor Wat are a few) But other so called collapses are more accurately supplanting of one civilzation by another. Ancient Egypt remained a world power from 3000 BCE to the end of the western Roman empire. Even as a province of Rome, it maintained a separate identity as a culture and a 'civilization. Classical Greek civilization didn't collapse, it was conquered and to a large extent adopted by Rome. Even the socalled 'collapse' of the Western Roman empire was really more of a retrenchment to the East where Roman civilzation survived as a distinct culture in Constantinople until it was supplanted by the Turks.
The "Dark Ages" in Europe were dark because written records are sparse and there was no central power. Rome was gone as a political power and constant wars filled that power vacuum, but the cultures of western Europe were not stagnant. The fuedal system shaped and directed the eventual emergence of the modern nation state based on economic power rather than land and slaves and was a very dynamic stage in the emergence of our current 'civilization'.
I believe that the invention of writing, and more importantly printing, has made 'collapse' in the sense that Howard implies all but impossible. Add to that the dissemination of information through printing and electronics and you have a powerful insurance policy against the total collapse of human civilization. That's not to say that our western capitalistic civilzation will last in its present form forever, but barring an extiction level event that eliminates ALL human life, our knowledge base is virtually indestructable, simply because it is so decentralized. And despite the environmantalists dire predictions, the Earth and its ecosystem is far more robust that we give it credit for.
Catastrophic ecologic changes have occurred in the past and life survived. Humans are more adaptable that any other life form on the planet and thrive in any environment that has existed on Earth since the emergence of multicellular life. Adaptability plus the wide dissemination of knowledge equal survival, not just of humans as a species but as a civilization.
Fair winds, Bruce
_______________________________________________________
Rex, here’s a bit more for the mix.
Bruce, I wish I shared your optimism. You said, “Catastrophic ecologic changes have occurred in the past and life survived.” Not with six billion and growing human inhabitants! Not with the scale of environmental destruction and rate of extinctions we now are experiencing.
The New Guinea Highlands are one of only nine independent centers of plant domestication in the world where sustainable agriculture has been ongoing for about 7,000 years—one of the longest experiments in sustainable food production in the world. This culture, discovered by the western world only in the 1930s who assumed the interior of New Guinea to be forested and uninhabited. Evidence suggests that people have been living sustainably there for about 46,000 years with virtually no outside influences. Until the 1930s they lacked metal making their tools instead of stone, wood and bone. “Primitive” to European explorers, they lived in thatched huts, were chronically at war with each other, had no kings or even chiefs, lacked writing and wore little or no clothing even under cold conditions with heavy rain. Yet their farming methods were so sophisticated European agronomists still don’t understand why their methods work. They controlled their population, renewed their soils, rotated their crops, preserved and replanted their forests since long before the ancient Egyptians worked the Nile. It is quite possible (though now unlikely) that they would continue for another few thousand years even if the whole of the rest of the world collapses into oblivion.
It is my belief that unless the rest of the world adopts something of the essence of the social philosophy and methods of environmental and population control similar to the New Guinea Highlanders, we will, like the Easter Islanders, destroy our forests, our environment, our food resources, and finally, ourselves in personal warfare and cannibalism. Surely there will remain a few to continue the species, but under what sort of social order and with what remaining creatures? I am not optimistic.
For more on this - and I am once more beginning seriously to study, think and write about it - here are a few related blogs I have written along with links to them:
Decimation of the Environment - Click Here!
The Last Elephant - Click Here!
Global Warming & the Gulf Stream - Click Here!
I’m not very optimistic about the future of humanity unless we get serious about population control and sustainability - and fast . We are already past our population optimum for food sustainability according to many scientists in the field. (See: Decimation of the Environment)
Ho
__________________________________________________
From Rex:
Woe, woe, woe their Howard. Just a cotton picking minute, you through all that meat and vegetables into the pot and politely turned around and left. Leading me to play the dumb Samaritan, stepped up and stir the pot while you're gone. Damn, my arms are getting tired.
And now you show back up just to throw in some more ingredients, but no help? What? I don't even get a kiss with that?
__________________________________________________
From Gene Herron:
You mean like when that big assed asteroid hit around Yucatan and ninety percent of the world's species were wiped out?
The greatest asset for human sustainability is the ability of people to take care of business. If we had used 1800s technology it would be impossible to feed everyone today.
To go back to 1800s energy sources - solar mainly - would doom millions to death by starvation. All energies called "sustainable" are basically solar energy.
No, I'm not a doom sayer, unless we go for Statist controls on energy and technology. And political solutions to technological problems. Gene
__________________________________________________
Gene’s response to Rex R. Wilcox - Rex’s words in italics:
This totalitarian society that you infer I was suggesting would consist of something like this. 1. A single race; this one is easy. We already are a race, of humans.
Yet we are different. We do not react to certain foods the same. We do have racially unique appearances which any child can discern.
Some of us, such as myself, are multi-ethnic. Others are multi racial. In this case it is harder to see where and to whom we belong. One denies these facts at their own peril.
One tries to adopt arbitrary measurements of "good" and "bad" at their peril, saying that this race is better because of this particular reason. The Nazis tried this sort of thing and tried to destroy a strong moral voice out of foolishness.
What isn't acceptable is to harm others based upon different racial characteristics. One can be tolerant and discriminating.
We just have to eliminate the, "this is ours and you can have any, to, that is there's and we don't want anything to do with it." type of mentality.
Why not? Why must we all think the same, act the same and believe the same thing? This is the old dream of Kings and tyrants, with themselves as the ruler.
2. A single set of laws, (laws that a very huge portion of the population agree, to be fair and just.).
Least common denominator..... which means we get chaos. We also should show lack of respect for particular cultural mores. These need to be respected, as they give people a sense of familiarity and identity. These are important in a world where practically everything else is in flux.
3. Belief, a desire for the > betterment of mankind, spiritually, physically, and mentally.
Who makes this call?
As a Christian I would counsel you to adopt Jesus as your personal Savior. As an old style Liberal I would insist that the State not coerce you in any way to embrace that choice. Some latter day Christian politicians would insist upon applying Biblical quotations to law, in effect adding elements of theocracy to our Republic.
A Muslim would counter that everyone should submit to Allah's will, and invite us to read the Quoran, feel Allah's will and submit to Him. Of course depending upon whether they are Sunni or Shia we would have different requirements placed upon us.
We would both look with askance at a secular humanist, thinking that they were devoid of any sense of God. We might conclude that they lack a moral compass, even though many Humanists are quite moral.
The three of us might view a Dialectical Materialist as a believer in a man-made religion. We might conclude that this person is a dangerous radical who needs to be curbed. We would hope that they kept their "faith" to themselves. The Dialectical Materialist would conclude that we were deluded by bourgeois sensibilities and counter that we need to embrace Class Struggle in order to raise our consciousness.
The Taoist would consider the rest of us to be out of touch with the ebb and flow of the Universe.
A Hindu might conclude that we will never fit into the overarching scheme of things as a non-believer.
A Buddhist would worry that the rest of us are condemned to needless pain and denial of escape from cycles of reincarnation.
So, Rex, who calls the shots on this one? Winner take all? Most Sci-Fi writers pick a war or some other awful means of getting the job done.
My counter is this - people constantly evolve belief systems. To insist upon a single belief is to deny the ability of people to evolve. Better to let people seek their own way, but curb their violence.
4. Purpose, the desire to achieve something for the people as a whole, a united goal, if you will.
Again, why? What is the purpose for a collective goal? Why the "we"? I don't see a necessity for it.
5. Intent; the unyielding willfulness to achieve such a goal, for the betterment of all mankind.
Again, who decides what is the betterment of mankind?
A Green would insist on a life in harmony with observed nature, respecting the interdependency of all living things. I would counter that as a human being I am at the apex of the food chain and will not live as a slave.
The capitalist would say "winners win, losers try again". They would state that scarce resources can be substituted with other resources. That people will adapt, improvise and overcome, this last quality being the bane of bureaucrats and control freaks everywhere.
The marxist would insist upon a permanent state of class struggle with the vanguard of the proletariat protecting workers from exploitation. Eventually a global world of socialism would allow the vanguard to whither away. Ironically, this last thesis died in the middle of the 20th century, when the marxist states began to shoot at each other.
The Muslim would insist upon dar es salaam, under sharia. Wahhabis would take this further with the caliphate ruling all people.
These ideas sound so good, until you try to practice them.
I hate to nitpick, Rex, but there are consequences to ideas. Gene
__________________________________________________
From HoJo:
I forgot one blogsite that has an important indication of why the problem can be so difficult.
It makes a very pointed and humorous commentary about our elected and selected leaders and just how seriously they can be taken. Click on Click Here!
to view.
The only sad commentary about this is that it is so very true to the nature of all politicians and particularly attorneys.
Here’s the text of that BLOG:
Government efficiency 8-12-06
I may have sent this to some of you before, but it is so true, so timely and so apropos I couldn't resist sending it once more.
What we need is more bureaucracy!
This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter first. Be sure to read the two comments I received which are copied at the end of these letters.
SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County
Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:
Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2006.
Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.
We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.
======================================================
Response sent back by Mr. DeVries:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.
Dear Mr. Price,
Your certified letter dated 07/19/2005 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two Wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.
As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?
If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of The Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
I have several concerns. My first concern is; aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.
The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names.
If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).
So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2006? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.
Thank you,
Ryan DeVries & the Dam Beavers
======================================================
Here are a few observations prompted by the above which I received recently by email:
Although a bit sideways to your point -- that climate change is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced -- there's an indirect tie-in here.
Someone updated the old Beaver Dam bit to apply to the current administration, instead of the previous one to which it actually originally applied. Someone changed the facts to fit an agenda -- and you got taken in, apparently.
There's a lot of that going around. I contemplated a novel pitting scientists against scientists on global warming misinformation[1] -- but I see how "State of Fear" was treated, and note that it only got published because of the clout (and marketability) of the author.
It makes me wonder how much politics controls what novels make it into print.
=================/ D. Keith Howington
[1] By "global warming misinformation", for example, I mean the widespread belief (1.2 million Google hits, plus movies and science "documentaries") that Greenland's ice sheet is dwindling. When pressed, even the GW enthusiasts are forced to admit that it was gaining ice when measured directly between 1992 and 2003-- though they phrase this as obscurely as possible. It's gained about 11 billion tons of ice per year, net, during that time. The new trick is to suggest that global warming *started* in 2003, just after the direct satellite height measurements stopped. People are buying it, because the news media is. ];-)
That this misinformation is SO widespread is an important indication of why the problem can be so difficult.
===================================================
It has been said that truth is stranger than fiction, to which I might add (especially in this case), truth is funnier than fiction. I will also add a serious tone to this by noting it is an example of the kind of things we Americans face at the hands of a ponderously overgrown and still growing, monstrously inept, totally self absorbed government peopled with anal retentive, busy-body lawyers with no sense of reality and far too much time on their hands. This bloated bureaucracy serves mostly its own members, many of whom couldn’t hold a productive job in the private sector because of their poor education, nonexistent work ethic, or combination of both. The only groups of sorrier, more questionable and more self-serving humans I can think of are our elected officials, and the Federal Congress in particular. This includes members of all political parties.
It is amazing to me that our republic has endured for so long at the hands of scoundrels and brigands. This is particularly true since these multitudinous, unproductive bureaucratic "Jabba the Huts" drain increasing amounts of hard-earned cash from the pockets of the ordinary, hard working, harder pressed populace who have no access to and little control over these monsters. Sadly, our supposedly watchdog media are more enthralled with ratings and promoting their own self protection, agenda, income and status than in exposing the real corruption and waste within these Frankenstein creations, the Hydras of government. I say this with due respect and apologies to the tiny percentage of government employees who actually do work, care and probably produce 99.9% of the effectiveness of government. I would wager that we could eliminate close to 99% of government jobs and the nation would move on forward with hardly a ripple noticeable by non-government individuals.
____________________________________________________
Keith:
You said, “Although a bit sideways to your point -- that climate change is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced -- there's an indirect tie-in here.
“Someone updated the old Beaver Dam bit to apply to the current administration, instead of the previous one to which it actually originally applied. Someone changed the facts to fit an agenda -- and you got taken in, apparently.”
I see the beaver dam story as applying to government officials attorneys and politicians of all persuasions. I see it as a common disease of constantly growing government regardless of the party in power.
Also, In my opinion, climate change is a minor threat to mankind. No matter how you count it, the population explosion aggravates: decimation of the environment, destruction of wild food sources, deforestation and soil depletion, along with numerous other negative factors, is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced and no one wants to talk about it.
Howard
_____________________________________________________
I've read that the rate of population growth is decreasing, Howard. Certainly in the EU and the US we'd be experiencing negative growth if it weren't for immigration. Thanks to China's "one child" policy they're probably going to start losing people. Of course they could also emigrate to the Russian Maritime provinces, once the Russians give 'em up.
India is another matter. Maybe they'll knock it down, or they'll emigrate elsewhere too.
I think the greatest threat we ever faced was when that volcano blew up in Sumatra. There were only about 10,000 of us left after a four year long dust induced winter. Gene
_____________________________________________________
Gene:
What volcano and when was that? I've never heard of that one before.
The single thing so many forget or don’t want to acknowledge is the for the last decade, total world food supplies have been shrinking, primarily because of dwindling supplies of wild protein foods - fish, sea foods and wild animal meat and despite increases in yields for grains and vegetable crops. This means we have already passed the maximum sustainable population and are still increasing fairly rapidly. Sooner or later the collapse of viable food sources will turn food net exporting countries into food net importing countries. Australia is already very close to that point and the US is not far behind. These are the two biggest food exporting nations on the planet. Imagine what will happen to world food supplies when they begin to consume more than they produce. Collapse of the international food supply system will be rapid and very painful.
A few facts from the World Bank population statistics:
Population growth rates are much higher in most low- and middle-income countries than in most high-income countries.
Population growth rates have declined in low- and middle-income countries over the past few decades but remain high because birth rates have not fallen as rapidly as death rates.
There will be more than 1 billion more people in the world in 2015 than there were in 2000 (as population grows from about 6 billion to 7.1 billion), and six out of seven of these people will live in low- and middle-income countries.
Although the population growth rate for developing countries has been decreasing for several decades, the number of people added to the population each year has been increasing because the population base has become larger.
Countries that have a large proportion of their population in their childbearing years often experience population momentum.
Even if couples have only enough children to replace themselves when they die, the population will continue to grow and will not stabilize until the younger group ages beyond their childbearing years.
Birth rates tend to fall when parents have access to family planning, health care, education and jobs.
Population growth can make it more difficult to raise standards of living in some countries and can put pressure on the environment.
Two of the most successful strategies for reducing fertility rates are providing greater access to primary health care and promoting education for girls and women
End of World Bank statistics.
Low growth, first world nations will become magnets for excess populations from high growth, third world nations such as virtually all Muslim nations, all of Latin America and most of Africa. The slowing of growth from lowered birth rates will be more than compensated by immigrations (or invasion). Europe and the US are already feeling the painful results of this. (By 2030 latinos will be a true majority in the US while Muslims will be a majority in most European nations even before then.)
With third world nation populations aspiring to first world lifestyles, (like China and India) the environmental pressures will grow even if population growth is somehow slowed substantially. (An unlikely prospect) Only a substantial deadly catastrophe will slow or stop this juggernaut. For example, the AIDS epidemic has kept the population of Africa from growing an estimated one billion people since it began. With AIDS now spreading in Asia, population growth could experience a major slowdown, painful as it may be. We should be able to utilize less painful methods than disease and warfare to control population.
Russia’s population stagnation is mostly the result of their previous horrible socialist health care system. China’s one child policy is not as effective as originally hoped for and India is a mess. Immigration is but an interim solution until the first world is overrun by third world cast offs. With the present six billion pressing the limits of our food resources, how can anyone not see the terrible consequences of eight or ten billion humans on the planet?
In the past, Only those isolated societies that controlled their populations managed to survive. We are certainly an isolated society on this island planet and unless we control our population growth, Earth will most certainly go the way of Henderson or Easter Island.
Howard
OK you great minds - think about a very real and rapidly growing human crisis. There should be subject matter for some really important and creative SF novels in your thoughts about solutions to this - - or are none of you interested in very real problems?
Professor Jared Diamond Asks: “Will tourists someday stare mystified at the rusting hulks of New York’s skyscrapers, much as we stare today at the jungle-overgrown ruins of Maya cities?”
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculpture well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stampt on these lifeless things,
The hand that mockt them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
“Ozymandias.” by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1817)
Examples of total failures of societies leaving substantial ruins, but virtually no survivors:
1. Those total collapses we know virtually nothing about:
a. The Dorset people of the arctic
b. The Cahokia people (St Louis)
c. The Anasazi in our southwest
d. Mohenjo Daro ruins - Pakistan
e. Machu Pichu and Tiwanaku in South America
f. Great Zimbabawe in Africa
g. Angkor Wat and Harappan Indus Valley in Asia
h. Easter Island in the Pacific
2. Those collapses we do know some details about.:
a. The Maya in middle America
b. The Norse in Greenland
c. Rwanda in Africa
d. Pitcairn and Henderson Islands
3. Societies with difficult situations that are still thriving:
a. Iceland
b. Tikopia (small Pacific Island)
c. New Guinea Highlands d. Tokugawa Japan
e. Dominican Republic compared to Haiti
f. China
g Australia
h. Netherlands
Reasons for the collapse of societies and civilizations: Few collapses were due to a single factor as most were destroyed by a combination of these factors, all aggravated by expanding populations.
1. Environmental changes - fragility (susceptibility to damage) and resilience (potential for recovery)
a. Deforestation
b. Soil depletion and salinization
c. Water depletion
d. Wild food sources
e. Domestic food sources
f. sources for non-food goods
2. Climate change
a. temperature
b. rainfall
c. sunlight
3. Hostile neighbors (competition for resources)
a. wars
b. fighting and murder
4. Friendly trade partners
a. difficulty in transporting goods
b. availability of goods to trade
c. willingness to trade
5. The society’s responses to the first four
a. Population pressures
b. Power of the rulers
c. Willingness to cooperate.
d. Willingness to defend oneself from attack
My questions and possible subject for several great SF Novels is this:
How close is humanity to a total collapse (These collapses always happen - and usually very suddenly - immediately after great heights of material and cultural success are reached.) When will it happen? What signs and indications are already with us? How can it be prevented? (Steps and solutions)
Suggested reading: Collapse by Jared Diamond.
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-08-06
That is a very interesting question Howard, and one that I have given some consideration to before now. It is my opinion, only my opinion, that in order for the human race to survive, we must populate other world's. However in or to do so without consuming ourselves, our race must become united. A single species, a single race. Not a fractured race, trying to face the harsh environments that space has to offer, enduring hardships to the point of continual inner conflict as it stands between nations at present. So yes I do believe we are headed for collapse without the strength of, one race, one set of laws, one belief, one purpose, and finally the intent to achieve that purpose. To survive!
_______________________________________________________
8-12-06 - Rex,
I don't think the human species has to become one race, one government, one set of beliefs, one purpose, etc in order to populate other worlds (not world's, by the way). Why? Because we won't. We've always been diversified, and probably will be for a long time. Oh, we can become alike as we westernize or as technology tends to help standardization, but I don't think we need a high level of conformity in order to set up house on other planets, asteroids, habitats, etc. We just don't need that.
I think it is tempting to believe we need it because many SF writers before us have been a bit lax in detailing complicated worlds.
Diversity has tended to stimulate competition, which has helped development of new technologies. I think that will continue.
- Victory
_________________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-12-06
When you say "Because we won't." Do you mean you think we will never populate other worlds, or asteroids, or space stations, because we are diversified?
I am not knocking humanity's accomplishments, its moral and ethical growth, or its compassion for each other. But there is no denying the fact that we are emotionally volatile beings. Until such a time that we humans grow emotionally enough to succumb, subdue, and eradicate the innate nature of our greed and selfishness, we run the risk that our continuing technological advances will give means to a quick end.
Just because our country embraces technology, doesn't mean we will survive or populate the stars, there are many others that have beliefs that oppose advancement in technology. Ergo, conflict, jealousies, resentment, animosity, hatred, then war. Hey its just a thought.
_______________________________________________________
Inserted comment from HoJo:
Populating other worlds has got to be in the very distant future. (will man last long enough to do it?) First of all we will have to find another hospitable world and we are still a very long way from doing that. After we find it, we have to find a way to get there, another daunting task. After we get there????? I’m sure you know what I mean.
Many years ago I wrote a short story that I would post if I could find it in my paper archives. Basically it was the story of an interstellar expedition to a planet we discovered and that looked much like Earth. It was the right size, distance from its star, temperature and other physical attributes. It had an OK atmosphere, had proper oceans, weather, vegetation and probably animal life. When our colonizers finally landed they found a veritable paradise of beautiful plants and interesting animals different from those on Earth but much the same. Plants converted carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and animals ate the plants and each other, just like Earth. They drank the water, but when they ate the plants their digestive system didn’t change them a bit, likewise the animals. The biochemistry of the life on the new planet was just enough different form our own, that eating any life form was as nourishing as eating sand or gravel. In addition, the seeds the colonists brought would not grow in the alien soil. It was just enough biologically different that our plants could not get any sustenance and died soon after sprouting. The colony finally died out from starvation in a veritable paradise of life.
_______________________________________________________
From Gene Herron 8-12-06
Professor Jared Diamond Asks: "Will tourists someday stare mystified at the rusting hulks of New York’s skyscrapers, much as we stare today at the jungle-overgrown ruins of Maya cities?"
No. It's hard to recycle stone. Much much easier to recycle steel. Win, lose or draw, those buildings will be recycled into other forms. At the least into tools. I figure the only way they won't be recycled is if there are no more people. In which case, unless some Greater Power creates a replacement instantly, they'll crumble first.
Why oh why must we dispense with greed and selfishness? We have a name for people who are always selfless and generous - suckers and nice guys.
No, I'm not being cynical. I am a person who was very selfless and generous. Until I met enough people who like to use others, and more over, until I realized that if I didn't take care of number one nobody else would.
Incidentally, emotional volatility has only at best tangentially to do with greed and selfishness.
Also don't think we need to be "one world". IF anything we need to reduce the scope of government's power so that people can truly grow. The State has always first and foremost benefitted itself, not the people it rules, sooner or later.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
8-12-06 - In response to “Qzymandias:”
I read a writing in an antique file
Which said: "Two thousand years of upward rise
Stand only for a moment; in a little while
Our works will fall to dust before our eyes
And like so many peoples now long dead
We'll yet collapse, stampt into lifeless smear
The dreams of rockets and the paths that led
Unto the stars -- those all will disappear!"
His name's preserved, as are so many things;
Look on his words, my fellows, and be kind!
His thoughts remain, but now our system rings
With life and colonies and Intermind
And one colossal race, with different voices sings,
Diverse in thoughts and faith, still grows today,The stellar missions stretching far away
"Optimisticas" by D. Keith Howington (11:45pm) ];-)
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox - 8-13-06 in response to Gene’s message above.
Consider this; the largest proportion, and or the most advanced number of technological enhancements to the human culture, was in one way or another(directly or indirectly) was spawned by most military technological advances. They design a more efficient way of killing ourselves and we reap the benefits through the science process of developing those weapons. A new way of working with a certain material, or in its preparation or processing. We learn many new (but not by no means all) sciences from this, which in turn is applied to the everyday life of the common populace. What works with one thing can be used on another, we proliferate this in spades, through the trickle down effect, exploding our advancement in the comfort of living or to put it another way; the things that improve our everyday working environment. The thirst for ease and convenience to our daily effort to exist.
(Before going any further, I would like to clarify that I am speaking in very loosely generalized terms here, not tiring to pin down any specific instances.)
The selfishness of one race, withholding this technology from another,("Why don't they share their technology with us. We would never use it against them in anyway.") The holders view would be, ("We need to keep this to ourselves so we can maintain superiority, elevating our feeling of security against attack.")
As lame as that example is the truth still shines through, greed and jealousy, the haves and the has not. Wars have been started for far less offenses than what I have mentioned.
All of this greed and jealousy drives countries to steal from each other to even the playing field, and fear drives the need to reinvent. Hence the possibility of a technological spiraling up to the point that we are emotionally unable to contain. Given our rate of emotional growth in comparison to our technological growth.
_______________________________________________________
8-13-06 - Rex,
What's the "we" business? What do you mean by "emotionally mature"? The human race isn't some giant organism with feelings. It's an aggregate of six billion plus individuals.
I don't wish to sound harsh but too many Sci-Fi writers seem to speak in some parental voice, as if they were the ones fit to judge the whole human race based upon the decisions of a few thousand elites and the people who trust their judgements - the rest of us.
Arthur C Clarke in particular had this hectoring voice, lecturing the entire human race from his idylls in Sri Lanka about the problems of violence (in one of the most violent places on the planet, the Tamils versus the Sinhalese). Mr. Clarke, I think, needed to wheel his behind away from his pleasures and diversions and start lecturing his fellow Sri Lankans about the consequences of special privledges and setasides for the Tamils, which help lead them into a self aware sense of outrage, which the Indian Government abused by bankrolling their insurgency.
The Sri Lankan Government helped create this mess with their guilt trips and nonsense. Today they reap the rewards in some of the violent and remorseless guerilla actions on the planet.
I personally will have none of that.... each of us is responsible to act in a mature manner. We may be our brother's keeper but we are not on the dock for our brother's lack of good judgment. I don't have to answer for Bush and Co, no more than I had to answer for Clinton's bombing of Serbian civilians back in 1999.
Every day billions of people settle disputes in a peaceable way. Most people do not fight wars. Most people just go about their business, doing their thing. They work, they make things or do things that hopefully have value to others. Many folks will live their entire lives without inflicting serious pain let along lethal damage upon others. These peaceable people need not answer for the lack of empathy and judgment of their "betters".
I do know if wars create new technologies. Seems to me the biggest growth in technology has been to meet business demands - for example, IT systems. Health Care and biological research are growing far faster than military non-sense.
The current US campaign in the ME is showing that 4th Generation Warfare works against states. As does "assymmetrical warfare". These are old ideas but they are gaining new currency as people realize that the State has limits to its power and limits to its efficacy. No new technology, just an emphasis upon questioning the legitimacy of elites and their own peculiar aspirations.
In my opinion the biggest problem facing the human race today is a worship of the State. We need government, we do not need government which tries to rule every aspect of our lives. Totalitarianism failed in the Cold War. No need to relearn that tired old lesson. There must be a balance between people and rulers, or a new sense that people do not need a babysitter. That your brother does not need a keeper any more than you.
People make decisions. Among them, a decision I consider mistaken, is blind faith in one's leaders. another is anthropomorphizing the State into a collective of people. Still another is looking to war as a failing of humanity. War is a failing of a subset of humanity.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
From Rex Wilcox:
Man that was fast. Okay Gene, I'm going to need just a little bit to ponder all that. I'll get back to you. Come to think of it, where the hell is Howard? After all he did start this mess. Like to hear his take on all this so far. He did ask the question.
"HOWARD!!!"
_______________________________________________________
Hey, Rex, it's just ideas. Ideas are mutable, as they have to be because the Universe is apparently in a state of pretty continuous flux. As is humanity. Don't sweat it, man.
Gene
_______________________________________________________
From Rex:
This totalitarian society that you infer I was suggesting would consist of something like this. 1. A single race; this one is easy. We already are a race, of humans. We just have to eliminate the, "this is ours and you can have any, to, that is there's and we don't want anything to do with it." type of mentality. 2. A single set of laws, (laws that a very huge portion of the population agree, to be fair and just.). 3. Belief, a desire for the betterment of mankind, spiritually, physically, and mentally. 4. Purpose, the desire to achieve something for the people as a whole, a united goal, if you will. 5. Intent; the unyielding willfulness to achieve such a goal, for the betterment of all mankind.
There are those unobtrusive people that muddle through life, unaffected by the conflicts and tribulation of others, domestic cattle. The, "I got a nice green pasture here to eat, no one's yanking on my chain, so why should I care what the world does with itself," kind of people. You said, "We may be our brother's keeper but we are not on the dock for our brother's lack of good judgment. With that mentality you could get; brother Bob, just got elected president the other day, and in his first order of business was to send a bomb over to brother Neil's house, living only a few miles away from your own home. Kaboom! This doesn't concern you? think someone else has the right to so permanently affect your life? With no neigh or say in the matter, just domestic cattle.
IT systems. Health Care and biological research. Well let's start with IT systems, the government constantly searches for and at least attempts to employ the very brightest IT specialist in the field. Or just graduating from IT school, in order to work on and develop their computer systems, satellites, communications, and abort any covert intelligence gathering systems or technology. They get the best stuff, so as to stay on top. Eventually, this technology trickles down to industry, business and economics. Health care; developing new procedures, medicines and equipment to repair injuries and/or save lives. Now days is of even greater importance to them, in or to protect the investment of training and education needed to operate their complicated war systems. And from that, we again receive the trickle-down effect. Biological research; think the CCD was created just for the monitoring of nature's natural deadly diseases. Think they're being funded by the government just for the protection and betterment mankind? Benefits in medicine have been seen from the research and development of biological warfare weapons. Two things hold heavy influences over governments: prevention and contingencies. These are the biggest drivers in the race to first place. In a manner of speaking.
As for me, I'm hanging out with the cattle.
_______________________________________________________
8-13-06 - Hi all,
I would dispute the entire idea of the collapse of civilzations, with a few notable exceptions which Howard cites. (eg. Classical Mayan civilization, Easter Island, Angor Wat are a few) But other so called collapses are more accurately supplanting of one civilzation by another. Ancient Egypt remained a world power from 3000 BCE to the end of the western Roman empire. Even as a province of Rome, it maintained a separate identity as a culture and a 'civilization. Classical Greek civilization didn't collapse, it was conquered and to a large extent adopted by Rome. Even the socalled 'collapse' of the Western Roman empire was really more of a retrenchment to the East where Roman civilzation survived as a distinct culture in Constantinople until it was supplanted by the Turks.
The "Dark Ages" in Europe were dark because written records are sparse and there was no central power. Rome was gone as a political power and constant wars filled that power vacuum, but the cultures of western Europe were not stagnant. The fuedal system shaped and directed the eventual emergence of the modern nation state based on economic power rather than land and slaves and was a very dynamic stage in the emergence of our current 'civilization'.
I believe that the invention of writing, and more importantly printing, has made 'collapse' in the sense that Howard implies all but impossible. Add to that the dissemination of information through printing and electronics and you have a powerful insurance policy against the total collapse of human civilization. That's not to say that our western capitalistic civilzation will last in its present form forever, but barring an extiction level event that eliminates ALL human life, our knowledge base is virtually indestructable, simply because it is so decentralized. And despite the environmantalists dire predictions, the Earth and its ecosystem is far more robust that we give it credit for.
Catastrophic ecologic changes have occurred in the past and life survived. Humans are more adaptable that any other life form on the planet and thrive in any environment that has existed on Earth since the emergence of multicellular life. Adaptability plus the wide dissemination of knowledge equal survival, not just of humans as a species but as a civilization.
Fair winds, Bruce
_______________________________________________________
Rex, here’s a bit more for the mix.
Bruce, I wish I shared your optimism. You said, “Catastrophic ecologic changes have occurred in the past and life survived.” Not with six billion and growing human inhabitants! Not with the scale of environmental destruction and rate of extinctions we now are experiencing.
The New Guinea Highlands are one of only nine independent centers of plant domestication in the world where sustainable agriculture has been ongoing for about 7,000 years—one of the longest experiments in sustainable food production in the world. This culture, discovered by the western world only in the 1930s who assumed the interior of New Guinea to be forested and uninhabited. Evidence suggests that people have been living sustainably there for about 46,000 years with virtually no outside influences. Until the 1930s they lacked metal making their tools instead of stone, wood and bone. “Primitive” to European explorers, they lived in thatched huts, were chronically at war with each other, had no kings or even chiefs, lacked writing and wore little or no clothing even under cold conditions with heavy rain. Yet their farming methods were so sophisticated European agronomists still don’t understand why their methods work. They controlled their population, renewed their soils, rotated their crops, preserved and replanted their forests since long before the ancient Egyptians worked the Nile. It is quite possible (though now unlikely) that they would continue for another few thousand years even if the whole of the rest of the world collapses into oblivion.
It is my belief that unless the rest of the world adopts something of the essence of the social philosophy and methods of environmental and population control similar to the New Guinea Highlanders, we will, like the Easter Islanders, destroy our forests, our environment, our food resources, and finally, ourselves in personal warfare and cannibalism. Surely there will remain a few to continue the species, but under what sort of social order and with what remaining creatures? I am not optimistic.
For more on this - and I am once more beginning seriously to study, think and write about it - here are a few related blogs I have written along with links to them:
Decimation of the Environment - Click Here!
The Last Elephant - Click Here!
Global Warming & the Gulf Stream - Click Here!
I’m not very optimistic about the future of humanity unless we get serious about population control and sustainability - and fast . We are already past our population optimum for food sustainability according to many scientists in the field. (See: Decimation of the Environment)
Ho
__________________________________________________
From Rex:
Woe, woe, woe their Howard. Just a cotton picking minute, you through all that meat and vegetables into the pot and politely turned around and left. Leading me to play the dumb Samaritan, stepped up and stir the pot while you're gone. Damn, my arms are getting tired.
And now you show back up just to throw in some more ingredients, but no help? What? I don't even get a kiss with that?
__________________________________________________
From Gene Herron:
You mean like when that big assed asteroid hit around Yucatan and ninety percent of the world's species were wiped out?
The greatest asset for human sustainability is the ability of people to take care of business. If we had used 1800s technology it would be impossible to feed everyone today.
To go back to 1800s energy sources - solar mainly - would doom millions to death by starvation. All energies called "sustainable" are basically solar energy.
No, I'm not a doom sayer, unless we go for Statist controls on energy and technology. And political solutions to technological problems. Gene
__________________________________________________
Gene’s response to Rex R. Wilcox - Rex’s words in italics:
This totalitarian society that you infer I was suggesting would consist of something like this. 1. A single race; this one is easy. We already are a race, of humans.
Yet we are different. We do not react to certain foods the same. We do have racially unique appearances which any child can discern.
Some of us, such as myself, are multi-ethnic. Others are multi racial. In this case it is harder to see where and to whom we belong. One denies these facts at their own peril.
One tries to adopt arbitrary measurements of "good" and "bad" at their peril, saying that this race is better because of this particular reason. The Nazis tried this sort of thing and tried to destroy a strong moral voice out of foolishness.
What isn't acceptable is to harm others based upon different racial characteristics. One can be tolerant and discriminating.
We just have to eliminate the, "this is ours and you can have any, to, that is there's and we don't want anything to do with it." type of mentality.
Why not? Why must we all think the same, act the same and believe the same thing? This is the old dream of Kings and tyrants, with themselves as the ruler.
2. A single set of laws, (laws that a very huge portion of the population agree, to be fair and just.).
Least common denominator..... which means we get chaos. We also should show lack of respect for particular cultural mores. These need to be respected, as they give people a sense of familiarity and identity. These are important in a world where practically everything else is in flux.
3. Belief, a desire for the > betterment of mankind, spiritually, physically, and mentally.
Who makes this call?
As a Christian I would counsel you to adopt Jesus as your personal Savior. As an old style Liberal I would insist that the State not coerce you in any way to embrace that choice. Some latter day Christian politicians would insist upon applying Biblical quotations to law, in effect adding elements of theocracy to our Republic.
A Muslim would counter that everyone should submit to Allah's will, and invite us to read the Quoran, feel Allah's will and submit to Him. Of course depending upon whether they are Sunni or Shia we would have different requirements placed upon us.
We would both look with askance at a secular humanist, thinking that they were devoid of any sense of God. We might conclude that they lack a moral compass, even though many Humanists are quite moral.
The three of us might view a Dialectical Materialist as a believer in a man-made religion. We might conclude that this person is a dangerous radical who needs to be curbed. We would hope that they kept their "faith" to themselves. The Dialectical Materialist would conclude that we were deluded by bourgeois sensibilities and counter that we need to embrace Class Struggle in order to raise our consciousness.
The Taoist would consider the rest of us to be out of touch with the ebb and flow of the Universe.
A Hindu might conclude that we will never fit into the overarching scheme of things as a non-believer.
A Buddhist would worry that the rest of us are condemned to needless pain and denial of escape from cycles of reincarnation.
So, Rex, who calls the shots on this one? Winner take all? Most Sci-Fi writers pick a war or some other awful means of getting the job done.
My counter is this - people constantly evolve belief systems. To insist upon a single belief is to deny the ability of people to evolve. Better to let people seek their own way, but curb their violence.
4. Purpose, the desire to achieve something for the people as a whole, a united goal, if you will.
Again, why? What is the purpose for a collective goal? Why the "we"? I don't see a necessity for it.
5. Intent; the unyielding willfulness to achieve such a goal, for the betterment of all mankind.
Again, who decides what is the betterment of mankind?
A Green would insist on a life in harmony with observed nature, respecting the interdependency of all living things. I would counter that as a human being I am at the apex of the food chain and will not live as a slave.
The capitalist would say "winners win, losers try again". They would state that scarce resources can be substituted with other resources. That people will adapt, improvise and overcome, this last quality being the bane of bureaucrats and control freaks everywhere.
The marxist would insist upon a permanent state of class struggle with the vanguard of the proletariat protecting workers from exploitation. Eventually a global world of socialism would allow the vanguard to whither away. Ironically, this last thesis died in the middle of the 20th century, when the marxist states began to shoot at each other.
The Muslim would insist upon dar es salaam, under sharia. Wahhabis would take this further with the caliphate ruling all people.
These ideas sound so good, until you try to practice them.
I hate to nitpick, Rex, but there are consequences to ideas. Gene
__________________________________________________
From HoJo:
I forgot one blogsite that has an important indication of why the problem can be so difficult.
It makes a very pointed and humorous commentary about our elected and selected leaders and just how seriously they can be taken. Click on Click Here!
to view.
The only sad commentary about this is that it is so very true to the nature of all politicians and particularly attorneys.
Here’s the text of that BLOG:
Government efficiency 8-12-06
I may have sent this to some of you before, but it is so true, so timely and so apropos I couldn't resist sending it once more.
What we need is more bureaucracy!
This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter first. Be sure to read the two comments I received which are copied at the end of these letters.
SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County
Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:
Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2006.
Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.
We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.
======================================================
Response sent back by Mr. DeVries:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.
Dear Mr. Price,
Your certified letter dated 07/19/2005 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two Wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.
As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?
If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of The Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
I have several concerns. My first concern is; aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.
The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names.
If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).
So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2006? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.
Thank you,
Ryan DeVries & the Dam Beavers
======================================================
Here are a few observations prompted by the above which I received recently by email:
Although a bit sideways to your point -- that climate change is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced -- there's an indirect tie-in here.
Someone updated the old Beaver Dam bit to apply to the current administration, instead of the previous one to which it actually originally applied. Someone changed the facts to fit an agenda -- and you got taken in, apparently.
There's a lot of that going around. I contemplated a novel pitting scientists against scientists on global warming misinformation[1] -- but I see how "State of Fear" was treated, and note that it only got published because of the clout (and marketability) of the author.
It makes me wonder how much politics controls what novels make it into print.
=================/ D. Keith Howington
[1] By "global warming misinformation", for example, I mean the widespread belief (1.2 million Google hits, plus movies and science "documentaries") that Greenland's ice sheet is dwindling. When pressed, even the GW enthusiasts are forced to admit that it was gaining ice when measured directly between 1992 and 2003-- though they phrase this as obscurely as possible. It's gained about 11 billion tons of ice per year, net, during that time. The new trick is to suggest that global warming *started* in 2003, just after the direct satellite height measurements stopped. People are buying it, because the news media is. ];-)
That this misinformation is SO widespread is an important indication of why the problem can be so difficult.
===================================================
It has been said that truth is stranger than fiction, to which I might add (especially in this case), truth is funnier than fiction. I will also add a serious tone to this by noting it is an example of the kind of things we Americans face at the hands of a ponderously overgrown and still growing, monstrously inept, totally self absorbed government peopled with anal retentive, busy-body lawyers with no sense of reality and far too much time on their hands. This bloated bureaucracy serves mostly its own members, many of whom couldn’t hold a productive job in the private sector because of their poor education, nonexistent work ethic, or combination of both. The only groups of sorrier, more questionable and more self-serving humans I can think of are our elected officials, and the Federal Congress in particular. This includes members of all political parties.
It is amazing to me that our republic has endured for so long at the hands of scoundrels and brigands. This is particularly true since these multitudinous, unproductive bureaucratic "Jabba the Huts" drain increasing amounts of hard-earned cash from the pockets of the ordinary, hard working, harder pressed populace who have no access to and little control over these monsters. Sadly, our supposedly watchdog media are more enthralled with ratings and promoting their own self protection, agenda, income and status than in exposing the real corruption and waste within these Frankenstein creations, the Hydras of government. I say this with due respect and apologies to the tiny percentage of government employees who actually do work, care and probably produce 99.9% of the effectiveness of government. I would wager that we could eliminate close to 99% of government jobs and the nation would move on forward with hardly a ripple noticeable by non-government individuals.
____________________________________________________
Keith:
You said, “Although a bit sideways to your point -- that climate change is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced -- there's an indirect tie-in here.
“Someone updated the old Beaver Dam bit to apply to the current administration, instead of the previous one to which it actually originally applied. Someone changed the facts to fit an agenda -- and you got taken in, apparently.”
I see the beaver dam story as applying to government officials attorneys and politicians of all persuasions. I see it as a common disease of constantly growing government regardless of the party in power.
Also, In my opinion, climate change is a minor threat to mankind. No matter how you count it, the population explosion aggravates: decimation of the environment, destruction of wild food sources, deforestation and soil depletion, along with numerous other negative factors, is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced and no one wants to talk about it.
Howard
_____________________________________________________
I've read that the rate of population growth is decreasing, Howard. Certainly in the EU and the US we'd be experiencing negative growth if it weren't for immigration. Thanks to China's "one child" policy they're probably going to start losing people. Of course they could also emigrate to the Russian Maritime provinces, once the Russians give 'em up.
India is another matter. Maybe they'll knock it down, or they'll emigrate elsewhere too.
I think the greatest threat we ever faced was when that volcano blew up in Sumatra. There were only about 10,000 of us left after a four year long dust induced winter. Gene
_____________________________________________________
Gene:
What volcano and when was that? I've never heard of that one before.
The single thing so many forget or don’t want to acknowledge is the for the last decade, total world food supplies have been shrinking, primarily because of dwindling supplies of wild protein foods - fish, sea foods and wild animal meat and despite increases in yields for grains and vegetable crops. This means we have already passed the maximum sustainable population and are still increasing fairly rapidly. Sooner or later the collapse of viable food sources will turn food net exporting countries into food net importing countries. Australia is already very close to that point and the US is not far behind. These are the two biggest food exporting nations on the planet. Imagine what will happen to world food supplies when they begin to consume more than they produce. Collapse of the international food supply system will be rapid and very painful.
A few facts from the World Bank population statistics:
Population growth rates are much higher in most low- and middle-income countries than in most high-income countries.
Population growth rates have declined in low- and middle-income countries over the past few decades but remain high because birth rates have not fallen as rapidly as death rates.
There will be more than 1 billion more people in the world in 2015 than there were in 2000 (as population grows from about 6 billion to 7.1 billion), and six out of seven of these people will live in low- and middle-income countries.
Although the population growth rate for developing countries has been decreasing for several decades, the number of people added to the population each year has been increasing because the population base has become larger.
Countries that have a large proportion of their population in their childbearing years often experience population momentum.
Even if couples have only enough children to replace themselves when they die, the population will continue to grow and will not stabilize until the younger group ages beyond their childbearing years.
Birth rates tend to fall when parents have access to family planning, health care, education and jobs.
Population growth can make it more difficult to raise standards of living in some countries and can put pressure on the environment.
Two of the most successful strategies for reducing fertility rates are providing greater access to primary health care and promoting education for girls and women
End of World Bank statistics.
Low growth, first world nations will become magnets for excess populations from high growth, third world nations such as virtually all Muslim nations, all of Latin America and most of Africa. The slowing of growth from lowered birth rates will be more than compensated by immigrations (or invasion). Europe and the US are already feeling the painful results of this. (By 2030 latinos will be a true majority in the US while Muslims will be a majority in most European nations even before then.)
With third world nation populations aspiring to first world lifestyles, (like China and India) the environmental pressures will grow even if population growth is somehow slowed substantially. (An unlikely prospect) Only a substantial deadly catastrophe will slow or stop this juggernaut. For example, the AIDS epidemic has kept the population of Africa from growing an estimated one billion people since it began. With AIDS now spreading in Asia, population growth could experience a major slowdown, painful as it may be. We should be able to utilize less painful methods than disease and warfare to control population.
Russia’s population stagnation is mostly the result of their previous horrible socialist health care system. China’s one child policy is not as effective as originally hoped for and India is a mess. Immigration is but an interim solution until the first world is overrun by third world cast offs. With the present six billion pressing the limits of our food resources, how can anyone not see the terrible consequences of eight or ten billion humans on the planet?
In the past, Only those isolated societies that controlled their populations managed to survive. We are certainly an isolated society on this island planet and unless we control our population growth, Earth will most certainly go the way of Henderson or Easter Island.
Howard
posted by HoJo | 6:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home