Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344

    "If we do not turn our love of self to our hate of self, we are bound for our [..]"

    If we do not turn our love of self to our hate of self, we are bound for our near extinction.

    Science has shown that the good in us, our love side, is dominating us via our selfish gene.

    Science is also showing us that we are in a major extinction event that may well include a vast number of people. I doubt that our full extinction will come to pass, but we will be reduced to such small numbers that we will likely revert to a less sophisticated system and city states.

    If we do not turn our swords into plows, and devastate the worlds populations with war, our environment will do the deed and near extinct us.

    We love our governments and gods. That is why we have let them bring us to the brink of extinction. We follow them so closely that we all have our heads stuck into the ground.

    I think, given the incompetence of all governments and gods; we should let our great love for what leads us and turn it to hate, as we should, to insure the survival of people right here and right now. Start to hate the systems that got us all to this pitiful place in time.

    We presently elect our incompetent governments and gods for a variety of reasons. We are all tribal and belong to a religious tribe or a government tribe. We all follow their ideologies, theologies or philosophies. We are all the same in this.

    Surely, given that we are basically all humans, who wish to love more than hate, can hate those things that are putting us all in peril long enough to do something about our head long leap to near extinction.

    The environment is under political control and they are killing our bodies. Our bodies harbor our souls to the physical world where our children live.

    I think it is time for a god to take over.

    I donít care if it is a pedophile protecting Pope or a united Christianity, or newly elected Khalif of a newly united Islam, but a god must step up, as our political side has failed humankind completely.

    Our politicians are not uniting the world and should be made to step down so that some form of religious system, chosen by the masses, so that we can try uniting under a newly elected god.

    Jesus prophesied that that would become a necessity, and so did Socrates before him. Both were right in thinking that such a system would be the best possible end for political theories.

    I urge the vast majority of the world, the religious, to have a final battle in the ongoing god wars, which involves our political gods as well. Let their hate out by debate and elect a new god of peace so that our current incompetent batch of leaders might find the best one.

    My love of the religious has let loose my hate against our incompetent political leadership and I think we all should, elect a new god and save us from our own near extinction.

    We have the means; do we have the will?

    Regards
    DL

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    Science is also showing us that we are in a major extinction event that may well include a vast number of people. I doubt that our full extinction will come to pass, but we will be reduced to such small numbers that we will likely revert to a less sophisticated system and city states.
    Science is not yet showing any such thing.

    Science is showing that species extinctions are occurring at many times the background rate, but how much higher is difficult to quantify with any accuracy. As for this being a "mass extinction", that is speculation that many scientists agree with, but it is speculation nonetheless. I think it is too early to say whether we are in a mass extinction comparable to past mass extinctions or not. Incidentally I have rediscovered several species presumed to be extinct, including an orchid that had not been seen for 155 years, which I rediscovered not in the wilderness but on the outskirts of a city, just 2 km from my home.

    The other thing is that a "mass extinction" is not necessarily connected with the fate of humans. A mass extinction could include humans, it could result in reduced human numbers, or it is also possible that humans could continue to live in high numbers while exterminating a high percentage of other life.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Science is not yet showing any such thing.

    Science is showing that species extinctions are occurring at many times the background rate, but how much higher is difficult to quantify with any accuracy. As for this being a "mass extinction", that is speculation that many scientists agree with, but it is speculation nonetheless. I think it is too early to say whether we are in a mass extinction comparable to past mass extinctions or not. Incidentally I have rediscovered several species presumed to be extinct, including an orchid that had not been seen for 155 years, which I rediscovered not in the wilderness but on the outskirts of a city, just 2 km from my home.

    The other thing is that a "mass extinction" is not necessarily connected with the fate of humans. A mass extinction could include humans, it could result in reduced human numbers, or it is also possible that humans could continue to live in high numbers while exterminating a high percentage of other life.
    You are correct that there are still questions that need answers, but our animal husbandry and farming ways are killing way too many systems. Even our banana republics are going to hell.

    Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-mammals-study

    You may want to take the chance of handing our children a ruined world, but I think we can do a lot better.

    If love does not push us, perhaps shame will.

    Can you sleep while our beds are burning?

    Regards
    DL

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    You are correct that there are still questions that need answers, but our animal husbandry and farming ways are killing way too many systems. Even our banana republics are going to hell.

    Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study
    This figure is nothing to do with the rate of extinction - a common misunderstanding, for which poor communication by the media and some of the scientists involved is to blame. This is about specimen numbers. In the vast majority of cases, a wild species becoming 83% less common or even 95% less common will not cause it to become extinct or even place it at risk of extinction. Of course, some extinctions have resulted from habitat loss (the major driver of the 83% figure) but it is nothing like 83% of species.

    This is not about my views of what should or shouldn't be done. I think we should strive to prevent all extinctions, excepting a very few species that may be truly beyond our help. But I think the unscientific mass-extinction doomery about is actually unhelpful to that aim, because it creates the impression that the problem is too big and that we should be letting species go that are actually very saveable.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    This figure is nothing to do with the rate of extinction - a common misunderstanding, for which poor communication by the media and some of the scientists involved is to blame. This is about specimen numbers. In the vast majority of cases, a wild species becoming 83% less common or even 95% less common will not cause it to become extinct or even place it at risk of extinction. Of course, some extinctions have resulted from habitat loss (the major driver of the 83% figure) but it is nothing like 83% of species.

    This is not about my views of what should or shouldn't be done. I think we should strive to prevent all extinctions, excepting a very few species that may be truly beyond our help. But I think the unscientific mass-extinction doomery about is actually unhelpful to that aim, because it creates the impression that the problem is too big and that we should be letting species go that are actually very saveable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    "posits that roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction within decades as the result of human actions."

    "The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates".

    We are in a mass extinction event that could well include humans.

    We just need to decide what kind of mess we want to leave our children to clean up, if they can.

    Regards
    DL

  6. #6
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    If you have to go looking up Wikipedia for this debate then you're probably out of your depth.

    "posits that roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction within decades as the result of human actions."
    "posits" means it is speculation - it may or may not be correct. I can't actually find the full report (only the summary for policymakers) but I don't agree that one can extrapolate from the number of species considered threatened to any estimate of extinction numbers. Aside from the most threatened categories (which "vulnerable" is not), species listed as threatened have rarely so far become extinct.

    "The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates".
    True, but the natural background rate is negligible, so so far this proves little.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  7. #7
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    If you have to go looking up Wikipedia for this debate then you're probably out of your depth.



    "posits" means it is speculation - it may or may not be correct. I can't actually find the full report (only the summary for policymakers) but I don't agree that one can extrapolate from the number of species considered threatened to any estimate of extinction numbers. Aside from the most threatened categories (which "vulnerable" is not), species listed as threatened have rarely so far become extinct.


    True, but the natural background rate is negligible, so so far this proves little.
    You attack the messenger for it's accurate reporting while not putting anything against the notions presented by science with any facts.

    Regards
    DL

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    You attack the messenger for it's accurate reporting while not putting anything against the notions presented by science with any facts.
    An ambit claim and ironically an unsubstantiated one. Threatened species assessment is one of my areas of professional expertise and that "vulnerable" species rarely become extinct is me speaking from my knowledge of the subject.

    I have now managed to find the report and various other things related to it. For starters concerning "roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction within decades as the result of human actions." that's not what they say here, where they say "The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history." "Threatened with extinction" is not the same thing as "face extinction" - the former means it might plausibly happen, the latter means it (supposedly) will happen unless something is done. Even the summary report for policymakers is inconsistent on this matter. Sloppy stuff and I would have red-penned it in an instant had I been a reviewer!

    The full report is very explicit that it is only calculating how many species are at risk (which includes not only Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species but also an estimate of Data Deficient species - those are species that are not even considered clearly threatened but that might be). So we have a UN committee that can't manage to summarise its own research in a non-melodramatic fashion and then it gets picked up by the media and Wikipedia and off it goes to fool laypeople who don't know any better.

    I add that there are some IUCN threatened species listings (used as a basis for their assessment) that are completely ridiculous - happy to give an example if you like! IUCN lists have a great deal of inertia and to get a bogus listing removed from them takes years of effort. In my case I had to lodge a formal petition against three listings before they would do anything (after years of fobbing off). Nonetheless extinction is a very serious issue, but it is one on which vast amounts of twaddle are produced.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 05-04-2020 at 01:00 AM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #9
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    So we have a UN committee that can't manage to summarise its own research in a non-melodramatic fashion
    It is hard to take the drama out of a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation.

    That was what, 3 years ago.

    Have you burned enough of your country in the last couple of years to cause a little drama in you?

    You say you are an intellectual. I find that hard to believe, given all the science that shows our decline.

    Sure, there will always be disagreement on issues by scientists but when 99 % of all climate scientists agree that we are in for hell on earth, I think we should listen to them.

    Their forecasts for the last few years have shows that they were conservative and things are worse than what most thought.

    https://populationmatters.org/news/2...limate-impacts

    That link has catastrophic in the title so I guess you will not like the drama.

    Regards
    DL

  10. #10
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    You mentioned IUCN above i think..

    You might have seen this report. Crazy numbers.

    https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/20...BoC9E8QAvD_BwE

    Regards
    DL

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,233
    For the purposes of this thread rough and close enough is good enough so unnecessary to veer off topic. Jammo's sigfile comes to mind.

    GN, if only half of stated number of species are grossly effected your argument still holds up.

    When the WHO weren't alarmist on the coronavirus they also copped a hiding.
    .
    When I participated in the anti nuclear movement nuke physicists were very positive and supportive of non scientists like myself but....
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  12. #12
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    For the purposes of this thread rough and close enough is good enough so unnecessary to veer off topic. Jammo's sigfile comes to mind.

    GN, if only half of stated number of species are grossly effected your argument still holds up.

    When the WHO weren't alarmist on the coronavirus they also copped a hiding.
    .
    When I participated in the anti nuclear movement nuke physicists were very positive and supportive of non scientists like myself but....
    Thanks for this.

    If we did not have M.A.D., mutual assured destruction, we would have likely fought WWIII by now.

    It is actually a great help in unifying the world. If we cannot just kill each other, then we have to use trade to conquer instead of killing.

    I have no doubt that once we stabilize our eco system, live, being tenuous, will fill every niche that it can.

    Unfortunately, we might kill off all the larger herbivores that we need for land replenishment and creation.

    Regards
    DL

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    It is hard to take the drama out of a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation.

    That was what, 3 years ago.
    What prediction is this?
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  14. #14
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    It is hard to take the drama out of a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation.
    Such predictions have been doing the rounds for many decades, back to Paul Ehrlich's rubbish in the 1970s. They've always been wrong and probably will be again. They are little different to apocalyptic religion.

    Have you burned enough of your country in the last couple of years to cause a little drama in you?
    Not personally, no. But again, this is straying off the topic of extinctions. The recent Australian fires, of remarkable size and very probably fuelled by climate change, had a massive toll on individual specimens of wildlife. But how many extinctions they caused is another question. It is not yet clear, and will not be for some time, whether any known species was lost as a result. Probably some unknown species were.

    You say you are an intellectual. I find that hard to believe, given all the science that shows our decline.
    It seems your definition of an intellectual is any intelligent person who agrees with your preconceived ideas. I'm happy to be excluded from that definition, but it doesn't change the fact that I am a PhD scientist in invertebrate ecology who works professionally - among other things - on threatened species assessments and conservation.

    What the science does say:
    * climate change is happening, is mostly human caused, and is projected to increase
    * species extinctions are occuring at way above background rate
    * specimen numbers of common wildlife have declined

    What the science doesn't say:
    * runaway warming (several degrees) is inevitable unless we take extremely radical action now
    * mass extinction of species is inevitable
    * human population crash will occur

    Those things are speculation of a sort that has been wrong before.

    Ah another neo-Ehrlichian lobby group of which Ehrlich has been a patron. 11,000 "scientists" support it and several million scientists don't. I hope that human population growth will continue to slow as I don't think runaway growth is inevitable. Nonetheless population sustainability isn't static - it changes over time based on technological innovations in agriculture and other areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    You mentioned IUCN above i think..

    You might have seen this report. Crazy numbers.

    https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/20...BoC9E8QAvD_BwE

    Regards
    DL
    Yes well, they say no species at all have come off their list. That's because, as my own experience has found, they're not interested in removing species that are not threatened. For sure there are a number of species with a worsening status, but increases in listings are also driven by taxonomy (scientists finding that was thought to be one species is three, for instance) and by new assessments (someone assesses a species that had not been assessed before and finds that it qualifies.)
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 05-04-2020 at 12:22 PM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  15. #15
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    110
    Kevin knows what he is talking about, arguing with him on this subject is rather pointless.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Rook upside down and moves twice in one turn
    By DontAcceptDraw in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 13-06-2014, 09:54 AM
  2. Its Your Turn Site
    By Allan Menham in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 11:58 AM
  3. I hate this year
    By Mischa in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-01-2009, 08:14 AM
  4. Testing new turn-based site
    By noswonky in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2006, 01:51 PM
  5. Flash game-Please turn speakers up for help
    By Frank Walker in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-02-2006, 02:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •