PDA

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



Gnostic Bishop
04-04-2020, 07:38 AM
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 don’t 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

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2020, 10:00 AM
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.

Gnostic Bishop
04-04-2020, 10:51 AM
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/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-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

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2020, 11:29 AM
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.

Gnostic Bishop
04-04-2020, 11:01 PM
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

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2020, 12:08 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

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.

Gnostic Bishop
05-04-2020, 12:19 AM
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

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2020, 12:58 AM
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 (https://ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment), 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 (https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ipbes_global_assessment_chapter_2_2_nature_unedite d_31may.pdf) 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.

Gnostic Bishop
05-04-2020, 01:36 AM
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/2019/11/08/11000-scientists-call-population-action-prevent-catastrophic-climate-impacts

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

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
05-04-2020, 01:52 AM
You mentioned IUCN above i think..

You might have seen this report. Crazy numbers.

https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/07/18/record-high-number-species-threat-extinction/?ea.tracking.id=20HPXGJAXX&gclid=CjwKCAjw4KD0BRBUEiwA7MFNTX2ijLdh3t7LiF6AGhml JmNiQcNzkIZ5n4PG6uhz1xgEysRKemufsBoC9E8QAvD_BwE

Regards
DL

antichrist
05-04-2020, 05:44 AM
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....

Gnostic Bishop
05-04-2020, 09:04 AM
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

Desmond
05-04-2020, 09:41 AM
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?

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2020, 12:20 PM
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.


https://populationmatters.org/news/2019/11/08/11000-scientists-call-population-action-prevent-catastrophic-climate-impacts

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.


You mentioned IUCN above i think..

You might have seen this report. Crazy numbers.

https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/07/18/record-high-number-species-threat-extinction/?ea.tracking.id=20HPXGJAXX&gclid=CjwKCAjw4KD0BRBUEiwA7MFNTX2ijLdh3t7LiF6AGhml JmNiQcNzkIZ5n4PG6uhz1xgEysRKemufsBoC9E8QAvD_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.)

Scott Colliver
05-04-2020, 05:28 PM
Kevin knows what he is talking about, arguing with him on this subject is rather pointless.

antichrist
05-04-2020, 11:30 PM
I read Ehrlich's book when came out and actually sold many copies on behalf of Friends of the Earth. I forget the fine detail but overall the flavour of the book holds up.
The biosphere (including life in it) is a lot more perilous than fifty years ago. The ozone layer repairing could be the only good news. There was better leadership back then just take Trump as an example. We are chasing greenhouse goals whilst keeping 4WDs - what a joke. More very important rainforest lungs of the earth are being destroyed, a hundred times jets etc. Very few private jets in those days. We haven't turned many good corners yet.

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 03:54 AM
What prediction is this?

Here is a sample of many articles. I remembered a 10 year report. This one says 12.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 04:03 AM
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.



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.



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.



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.)

Thanks for confirming some of my views.

"They are little different to apocalyptic religion."

Strange that you, a scientists, would think scientists no smarter or more reliable than apocalyptic thinkers.

You are perhaps speaking out of your, ah, imaginary thinking, or you went to the wrong schools.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 04:08 AM
Kevin knows what he is talking about, arguing with him on this subject is rather pointless.

I agree that he has some knowledge and is intelligent enough to confirm some of my views, but like most specialists, a generalist like me can burry him should he disagree on some side issues.

I look at everything while he sticks more to his specialty.

We agree on how bad things are. I just look further into the future than he does.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 04:15 AM
I read Ehrlich's book when came out and actually sold many copies on behalf of Friends of the Earth. I forget the fine detail but overall the flavour of the book holds up.
The biosphere (including life in it) is a lot more perilous than fifty years ago. The ozone layer repairing could be the only good news. There was better leadership back then just take Trump as an example. We are chasing greenhouse goals whilst keeping 4WDs - what a joke. More very important rainforest lungs of the earth are being destroyed, a hundred times jets etc. Very few private jets in those days. We haven't turned many good corners yet.

I agree.

We do not seem to care what kind of world we will hand our children.

Could it be that we have lost our instincts to protect the home of our children?

As incomes go up, children numbers go down. Does our instinct to protect children also drop with our prosperity?

It seems to.

Even that Dutch girl Greta Thuberg, gave a stirring speech to the U.N. that had them applauding her abuses of them, has been viciously attacked by some a holes in the media.

Regards
DL

Desmond
06-04-2020, 09:09 AM
Here is a sample of many articles. I remembered a 10 year report. This one says 12.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

Regards
DL

Except the article says nothing of the sort. What you claimed was:


a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation

What the article says is:


The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2020, 07:08 PM
I agree that he has some knowledge and is intelligent enough to confirm some of my views,

Ah so you assume a person is intelligent to the extent that they agree with whatever preconceived and possibly unintelligent view you might hold.


but like most specialists, a generalist like me can burry [sic] him should he disagree on some side issues.

You seem more like a dilettante than a generalist. You'd like to write me off as a specialist in just one thing but alas for you I am not. I'm qualified in and have worked in quite a range of things and have picked up quite a knack for detecting and disposing of nonsense in almost any form. My first degree was in political science and philosophy. I'm a scientist and a political commentator - among other things.


I look at everything while he sticks more to his specialty.

You're not looking hard enough.


"They are little different to apocalyptic religion."

Strange that you, a scientists, would think scientists no smarter or more reliable than apocalyptic thinkers.

It's not about intelligence - for any view whether it is a loopy religious one or a loopy environmentalist one, one might find some very bright people who believe it or promote it. It's about the psychological appeal to some minds of certain views despite their track record of persistent predictive failure.

And you just can't assume that because some scientists say something, especially when speaking outside their areas of expertise as Ehrlich was, that that means all scientists or even most scientists will agree with it.

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 10:19 PM
Except the article says nothing of the sort. What you claimed was:


a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation

What the article says is:


The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

Yes, and we have had two record heat waves in Antarctica since then that reduced the time estimates.

Not to mention the many more fires that are adding more carbon than expected

10, 12, 15 years is irrelevant when we are putting our children in a collision course with near extinction.

We can squabble about which side of the track to jump to, while the train is getting real close. so says the facts.

We can squabble till our eco system rejects us.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 10:22 PM
Ah so you assume a person is intelligent to the extent that they agree with whatever preconceived and possibly unintelligent view you might hold.



You seem more like a dilettante than a generalist. You'd like to write me off as a specialist in just one thing but alas for you I am not. I'm qualified in and have worked in quite a range of things and have picked up quite a knack for detecting and disposing of nonsense in almost any form. My first degree was in political science and philosophy. I'm a scientist and a political commentator - among other things.



You're not looking hard enough.



It's not about intelligence - for any view whether it is a loopy religious one or a loopy environmentalist one, one might find some very bright people who believe it or promote it. It's about the psychological appeal to some minds of certain views despite their track record of persistent predictive failure.

And you just can't assume that because some scientists say something, especially when speaking outside their areas of expertise as Ehrlich was, that that means all scientists or even most scientists will agree with it.

"Ah so you assume a person is intelligent to the extent that they agree with"

That is your assumption and you have made an ass of yourself.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2020, 10:33 PM
"Ah so you assume a person is intelligent to the extent that they agree with"

That is your assumption and you have made an ass of yourself.

If that is the case it will be trivial for you to explain how "I agree that he has some knowledge and is intelligent enough to confirm some of my views," clearly did not carry the meaning I ascribed to it.

I'm waiting ... :lol:

Gnostic Bishop
06-04-2020, 11:11 PM
If that is the case it will be trivial for you to explain how "I agree that he has some knowledge and is intelligent enough to confirm some of my views," clearly did not carry the meaning I ascribed to it.



Correct.

Regards
DL

Desmond
07-04-2020, 08:16 AM
Yes, and we have had two record heat waves in Antarctica since then that reduced the time estimates.

Not to mention the many more fires that are adding more carbon than expected

10, 12, 15 years is irrelevant when we are putting our children in a collision course with near extinction.

We can squabble about which side of the track to jump to, while the train is getting real close. so says the facts.

We can squabble till our eco system rejects us.

Regards
DL

I'm not quibbling over 10 12 or 15 years - if you can produce any credible source using any I'd be happy. Apparently you can't.

Worsened risks of natural disasters is not the same thing as not inhabitable by humans.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2020, 05:26 PM
And right on cue for my comments about IUCN not downlisting species when it should, here's a snail being "rediscovered" on Norfolk Island:

https://australianmuseum.net.au/blog/amri-news/species-assumed-extinct-rediscovered-on-norfolk-island/

IUCN has listed this snail as extinct for 24 years but populations were found during that time. The Australian Government pointed out the IUCN listing was wrong 11 years ago and IUCN has done nothing.

IUCN prematurely declared another snail to have become extinct due to climate change in 2009 only for it to be rediscovered in 2014. A paper predicting that the species would be rediscovered was rejected by the journal that published the false extinction claim.

Hopefully the bulk of what IUCN does with threatened species assessments is sound but from my own experience they have credibility issues.

antichrist
07-04-2020, 09:15 PM
Too weak a pun they are moving at snail's pace, maybe the category for puma are really up to date

Scott Colliver
07-04-2020, 09:50 PM
Sad to hear the IUCN is not as trustworthy as one would hope.

Gnostic Bishop
08-04-2020, 01:44 AM
I'm not quibbling over 10 12 or 15 years - if you can produce any credible source using any I'd be happy. Apparently you can't.

Worsened risks of natural disasters is not the same thing as not inhabitable by humans.


I think that the U.N. is a credible source.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
08-04-2020, 01:51 AM
Claiming a negatives, like extinction, or there is no god, are logical fallacies.

To prove those types of statements to be true, one would have to be able to look everywhere at the same time.

All claims of extinction are thus wrong as they cannot be proven or verified.

Regards
DL

antichrist
08-04-2020, 06:55 AM
Claiming a negatives, like extinction, or there is no god, are logical fallacies.

To prove those types of statements to be true, one would have to be able to look everywhere at the same time.

All claims of extinction are thus wrong as they cannot be proven or verified.

Regards
DL

With the claim of extinction I think close enough is good enough for general and political discussion purposes - not for scientific purposes. If a species was widespread but now only in isolated pockets then the effect on the environment is the same. If it had a unique role in the environment to perform and is now grossly inadequate then it may as well be extinct. Especially so when considering that we are going backwards in trying to save the biosphere. That our mentality has not changed one oiota. The whale is not an exception to this generalisation as I expect it still had significant sufficient numbers to recover naturally.

Desmond
08-04-2020, 12:34 PM
I think that the U.N. is a credible source.

Regards
DL

I think it is too and it is not saying what you are.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2020, 02:09 PM
With the claim of extinction I think close enough is good enough for general and political discussion purposes - not for scientific purposes. If a species was widespread but now only in isolated pockets then the effect on the environment is the same. If it had a unique role in the environment to perform and is now grossly inadequate then it may as well be extinct.

Except that some such species do become common and ecologically functional again, though it isn't a very common event so far. If you let a species go extinct then you lose the ability to restore it to ecological functionality, except perhaps through cloning.

I'm also not keen on ecological functionality as a basis for decision-making about threatened species because plenty of species are not ecologically functional in the first place, either because they are naturally very scarce and restricted or because the function they fill is readily duplicated by another species that can take over the niche if required.

antichrist
08-04-2020, 05:18 PM
Except that some such species do become common and ecologically functional again, though it isn't a very common event so far. If you let a species go extinct then you lose the ability to restore it to ecological functionality, except perhaps through cloning.

I'm also not keen on ecological functionality as a basis for decision-making about threatened species because plenty of species are not ecologically functional in the first place, either because they are naturally very scarce and restricted or because the function they fill is readily duplicated by another species that can take over the niche if required.

This sounds okay but I think every creature is there for a reason though we may not know or realise t's significance. We don't know what we have lost till it's gone.

Gnostic Bishop
08-04-2020, 09:10 PM
With the claim of extinction I think close enough is good enough for general and political discussion purposes - not for scientific purposes. If a species was widespread but now only in isolated pockets then the effect on the environment is the same. If it had a unique role in the environment to perform and is now grossly inadequate then it may as well be extinct. Especially so when considering that we are going backwards in trying to save the biosphere. That our mentality has not changed one oiota. The whale is not an exception to this generalisation as I expect it still had significant sufficient numbers to recover naturally.

I agree with all but your last buddy.

That may be why I tried to use the term near extinction.

As I understand it, whales are subject to their eco system just as we are, and researchers are finding that micro plastics are moving up the food chain as we speak, even for plankton eaters. And have you heard of the millions of birds plastics are killing off?

If the victims were people, the whole world would be in full war mode against our polluters.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
08-04-2020, 09:11 PM
I think it is too and it is not saying what you are.

Thanks for the evidence that shows me the liar you just accused me of being.

You win this one.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
08-04-2020, 09:17 PM
This sounds okay but I think every creature is there for a reason though we may not know or realise t's significance. We don't know what we have lost till it's gone.

That is song talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwUJH70ubM

From your end of the world, this comes to mind.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

Regards
DL

Blunderbuss
08-04-2020, 10:12 PM
A BBC news story https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52204724 (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52204724) about this paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736) caught my eye, interesting idea that driving animals towards extinction makes pandemics more likely..


In the latest study, researchers trawled scientific papers for reports of diseases that have crossed from animals to humans, then combined this data with information on extinction risk compiled by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Wild animals at risk of extinction due to human exploitation were found to carry over twice as many viruses that can cause human disease as threatened species listed for other reasons. The same was true for threatened species at risk due to loss of habitat.

"As natural habitat is diminished, wildlife come into closer contact with people," Dr Christine Johnson of the University of California, Davis, US, told BBC News,
"Wildlife also shift their distributions to accommodate anthropogenic activities and modification of the natural landscape. This has hastened disease emergence from wildlife, which put us at risk of pandemics because we are all globally connected through travel and trade."

antichrist
08-04-2020, 10:30 PM
That Midnight Oil song is a bit closer than my end of the world - it's from 2 doors up the road. I met singer in political campaigns in Sydney.

Gnostic Bishop
09-04-2020, 05:50 AM
That Midnight Oil song is a bit closer than my end of the world - it's from 2 doors up the road. I met singer in political campaigns in Sydney.

In the present times, all the world should be forced to memorize every line as we all light a match under our own brain dead asses.

Oops. I must be getting tired. I am starting to tell too much of my feelings.

Down under is second best only to Canada. IMO, and only because our women are just a touch above yours.

Kidding. Maybe.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
09-04-2020, 05:57 AM
A BBC news story https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52204724 (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52204724) about this paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736) caught my eye, interesting idea that driving animals towards extinction makes pandemics more likely..


In the latest study, researchers trawled scientific papers for reports of diseases that have crossed from animals to humans, then combined this data with information on extinction risk compiled by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Wild animals at risk of extinction due to human exploitation were found to carry over twice as many viruses that can cause human disease as threatened species listed for other reasons. The same was true for threatened species at risk due to loss of habitat.

"As natural habitat is diminished, wildlife come into closer contact with people," Dr Christine Johnson of the University of California, Davis, US, told BBC News,
"Wildlife also shift their distributions to accommodate anthropogenic activities and modification of the natural landscape. This has hastened disease emergence from wildlife, which put us at risk of pandemics because we are all globally connected through travel and trade."

Thanks for this.

Life is tenuous and will try to thrive wherever it pops up.

The fewer the variety of hosts we give life to thrive, the more likely life will target us.

We are almost a mono culture human banana republic.

Look at the extinction of our best bananas going on right now.

We could be next if the right bug finds us as suitable hosts.

If as you will know from what you wrote, we were separated, it would be ok to lose a country or two now and again, but we are all connected and thus the whole world coul expel us into extinction due to the ack of ability of isolating any single country.

Humanity is brave, to the point of stupidity.

Regards
DL

antichrist
09-04-2020, 07:12 AM
In the present times, all the world should be forced to memorize every line as we all light a match under our own brain dead asses.

Oops. I must be getting tired. I am starting to tell too much of my feelings.

Down under is second best only to Canada. IMO, and only because our women are just a touch above yours.

Kidding. Maybe.

Regards
DL

Canada did one naughty policy a few months ago but another story

Desmond
09-04-2020, 10:37 AM
Thanks for the evidence that shows me the liar you just accused me of being.

You win this one.

Regards
DL

I didn't use the L word. If you can back up your claim, I'm all ears. Otherwise I'll just assume you have mis-read or are sensationilising.

Gnostic Bishop
10-04-2020, 02:41 AM
Canada did one naughty policy a few months ago but another story

I did not claim perfection in my tongue in cheek reply above.

I will not admit imperfection without knowing what you are talking about.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
10-04-2020, 02:44 AM
I didn't use the L word. If you can back up your claim, I'm all ears. Otherwise I'll just assume you have mis-read or are sensationilising.

Assuming has made an ass of you. You implied that what I said was not what the U.N. said and did not show what they said.

Regards
DL

Desmond
10-04-2020, 08:50 AM
Assuming has made an ass of you. You implied that what I said was not what the U.N. said and did not show what they said.

Regards
DL

My choice of words was not precise. I should have said: Otherwise I'll just conclude you have mis-read or are sensationilising.

To recap, you claimed in #9 that there is "a prediction that says that in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation."
In #13 I asked for your source.
In #17 you provided a Guardian article.
In #21 I pointed the article does not make or support your claim.
In #23 you obfuscated.
In #27 I called you on obfuscation, again asked for a source for your claim.
In #31 you mentioned the UN as a source, providing no detail or link.
Few more posts about the UN, still no specifics.
Now here we are and you want me to provide a UN source, contrary to your claim.

You made the positive claim, it is on you to back it up. Either you can or you can't. Since you haven't, my provisional conclusion is that you cannot.

Gnostic Bishop
10-04-2020, 09:45 PM
My choice of words was not precise.t.

Thanks for this.

This article shows 2030 as our tipping point. 10 years.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/

Regards
DL

antichrist
10-04-2020, 11:04 PM
So what is your translate of what occurred on Good Friday year 33?

Gnostic Bishop
10-04-2020, 11:16 PM
So what is your translate of what occurred on Good Friday year 33?

I do not see how that relates to anything, but what I see is a bunch of lies being told of what may have been a fiction.

Dead men stay dead. God cannot die. If a sacrifice does not stay dead, it is a farce and not a sacrifice.

If we are to believe myths, then why not the one that has Jesus never dying or the one that has him live into his 50's?

His death is irrelevant to me as my focus is the morality or lack of it in his moral statements. If Jesus was supposed to be a moral man or god, he gets a fail on his moral tenets. He is better than Yahweh but not by that much.

Regards
DL

antichrist
10-04-2020, 11:45 PM
Gods cannot die - can't they commit suicide? They possess freedom of will power

Gnostic Bishop
11-04-2020, 12:50 AM
Gods cannot die - can't they commit suicide? They possess freedom of will power

I don't know, but given the absence of any god, and knowing that eternal life would bore anyone to death, the gods either all offed themselves or just never existed, which is my best guess.

If there was a good god, given how evil the religions are that suck up to him, he would not have allowed his good name to be dragged threw the mud and would have let his pride force him to come down and straighten out the mainstream religions that lie so much about him.

What use is a god who has no pride? No use at all.

Regards
DL

antichrist
11-04-2020, 09:00 AM
I don't know, but given the absence of any god, and knowing that eternal life would bore anyone to death, the gods either all offed themselves or just never existed, which is my best guess.

If there was a good god, given how evil the religions are that suck up to him, he would not have allowed his good name to be dragged threw the mud and would have let his pride force him to come down and straighten out the mainstream religions that lie so much about him.

What use is a god who has no pride? No use at all.

Regards
DL

But maybe the good god had been restricted by evil gods, whose ringleader is called Lucifer

Desmond
11-04-2020, 11:40 AM
Thanks for this.

This article shows 2030 as our tipping point. 10 years.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/

Regards
DL

Once again, this does not support your assertion.



"in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation"


is not the same as:




"For example, the slow collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet appears to be in progress. The latest data show that the same thing might be happening to part of the East Antarctic ice sheet, says Lenton, a climate scientist at University of Exeter in Southwest England. If those both melted, they could raise sea levels 21 feet (7 meters) over the next few hundred years.

“Exeter, where I am, was founded by the Romans 1,900 years ago. It will probably be under water 1,500 years from now,” he says. “We shouldn’t be discounting the legacy we’re leaving to future generations, no matter how far they are in the future.” ...

Many climate tipping points are more likely to be slow-motion events, like the collapse of Antarctic ice sheets that will play out over hundreds or even thousands of years, says Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate.

Gnostic Bishop
12-04-2020, 08:03 AM
But maybe the good god had been restricted by evil gods, whose ringleader is called Lucifer

Evil?

Not for doing the right thing.

Given the body count attributed to Yahweh as compared to Satan, lets thank all the supernatural entities, should they be real, that they have done the Haig's job and incarcerated that S O B Yahweh.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
12-04-2020, 08:08 AM
Once again, this does not support your assertion.



"in 10 years the world might not be fit for human habitation"


is not the same as:




"For example, the slow collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet appears to be in progress. The latest data show that the same thing might be happening to part of the East Antarctic ice sheet, says Lenton, a climate scientist at University of Exeter in Southwest England. If those both melted, they could raise sea levels 21 feet (7 meters) over the next few hundred years.

“Exeter, where I am, was founded by the Romans 1,900 years ago. It will probably be under water 1,500 years from now,” he says. “We shouldn’t be discounting the legacy we’re leaving to future generations, no matter how far they are in the future.” ...

Many climate tipping points are more likely to be slow-motion events, like the collapse of Antarctic ice sheets that will play out over hundreds or even thousands of years, says Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate.

That was before a 70 degree winter in the Antarctic.

If you want to sit back and relax and do nothing, or try to get people not to try to fix our planet and disgusting ways, your choice buddy.

Regards
DL

antichrist
12-04-2020, 08:55 AM
It depends on how habitable is interpreted. In areas of the Philippines heat strokes are becoming common even amongst young and healthy people. These cities still contain millions of people. They have no choice but to stay there. As well they now cop super typhoons- a new invention I believe due to ocean warming. Again they have no choice but to remain living there. So in a certain sense those areas are inhabitable and uninhabitable.

Gnostic Bishop
12-04-2020, 09:30 AM
It depends on how habitable is interpreted. In areas of the Philippines heat strokes are becoming common even amongst young and healthy people. These cities still contain millions of people. They have no choice but to stay there. As well they now cop super typhoons- a new invention I believe due to ocean warming. Again they have no choice but to remain living there. So in a certain sense those areas are inhabitable and uninhabitable.

Wait till some of the many low lying islands start to lose their frontage and even their whole islands as the waters rise.

Those mass migrations will tax the whole world.

What is happening today will seem like a picnic.

Regards
DL

Desmond
14-04-2020, 11:46 AM
If you want to sit back and relax and do nothing, or try to get people not to try to fix our planet and disgusting ways, your choice buddy.


Just a false dichotomy.
Either
1. Do nothing
2. make clearly false claims to try to get action

How about
3. Make accurate representations of scientific predictions and push for climate action?

I think making false/ exaggerated claims not only makes people look very silly, but also give climate change deniers/laggards an excuse when those predictions inevitably don't come true.

Gnostic Bishop
15-04-2020, 12:54 AM
Just a false dichotomy.
Either
1. Do nothing
2. make clearly false claims to try to get action

How about
3. Make accurate representations of scientific predictions and push for climate action?

I think making false/ exaggerated claims not only makes people look very silly, but also give climate change deniers/laggards an excuse when those predictions inevitably don't come true.

I agree with your last and ignore your first as unproven.

Regards
DL