Lest you thought that whole climate thing was solved already....

[georgepds]

I would take it a step farther and propose that it is human nature to exploit the resource to maximize one's best interest. Meaning, if I found a pile of gold coins in the woods (symbolic of a resource), I would take every single one of those gold coins home and live happily ever after. Only when government intervenes and limits the rate of gold coins being taken to the rate that new gold coins fall out of the ferry butts can conservation be accomplished. Now leaving the pile of coins undisturbed is symbolic of preservation.

Not convinced that just leaving it alone is "best". Michael Pollan points out you can exploit the grass on high hills/mountains using sheep and goats. You extract meat and wool, the grass grows back, and if the sheep were not grazing, it might turn to bush ( in this case extraction equals preservation)

Sometimes you preserve by intervening. There's a great story about wolves changing the course of waters in Yosemite.. Once re-introduced they scared the deer from the streams, which let the water plants grow back, which altered the character of the waterways. No wolves, too many deer, overfeeding at the stream bank, and a mud run in place of a Yosemite stream

Now, at the other end of the spectrum is strip mining company that goes bankrupt. The mountain top is gone, and the government is left chasing successor companies to clean up the mess the mine tailings made. There preservation in the sense you use would be a great idea

 

[Highbeam]

Not convinced that just leaving it alone is "best". Michael Pollan points out you can exploit the grass on high hills/mountains using sheep and goats. You extract meat and wool, the grass grows back, and if the sheep were not grazing, it might turn to bush ( in this case extraction equals preservation)

Sometimes you preserve by intervening. There's a great story about wolves changing the course of waters in Yosemite.. Once re-introduced they scared the deer from the streams, which let the water plants grow back, which altered the character of the waterways. No wolves, too many deer, overfeeding at the stream bank, and a mud run in place of a Yosemite stream

Now, at the other end of the spectrum is strip mining company that goes bankrupt. The mountain top is gone, and the government is left chasing successor companies to clean up the mess the mine tailings made. There preservation in the sense you use would be a great idea

Look closely at your examples and they each depended on human intervention causing and then "fixing" the problem. Preservation means no intervention.

The grass would have historically been bush had some intervention not stopped that natural progression already.

The wolves being removed in the first place by.... wait for it.... intervention.

Try to imagine the equilibrium reached over thousands of years of zero human intervention. It's too late in many cases, we've buggered it up already. To preserve that natural equilibrium requires us to stay out of it.

 

[begreen]

Nope, that's conservation. Preservation means no fishing. As in preserve.

Fine, I should have said protecting instead of preserving. He has also agreed not to graze cattle on a portion of his land to preserve it for sage grouse. Point being, that there definitely are conservatives that still believe in protecting the environment.

 

[bholler]

Nope, that's conservation. Preservation means no fishing. As in preserve.

Google:

Environmental preservation is the strict setting aside of natural resources to prevent the use or contact by humans or by human intervention. In terms of policy making this often means setting aside areas as nature reserves (otherwise known as wildlife reserves), parks, or other conservation areas.

Conservation:

The careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent depletion.

You definition does not say that preservation sets aside all natural resources. It can set aside a portion that cannot be touched but the rest can be utilized. your definition even says that preservation utilizes conservation areas. It is just semantics. There are very few people that say do not use any resources. But many who want our resources used responsibly

 

[Highbeam]

There are very few people that say do not use any resources. But many who want our resources used responsibly

I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.

Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.

 

[bholler]

I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.

Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.

No it is not lazy it is realistic. It is not black and white like you make it sound. There are lots of people who want preserves and want untouched areas. But that does not mean they dont want to use any recources. And there are many conservationists like us who want to see untouched areas as well.

 

[jebatty]

50 shades of green or 50 shades of black, maybe the same spectrum. Resources: no use in some areas, some use in all areas, full use to exhaustion in all areas regardless of the outcome.

I doubt there is a single honest person who both believes and behaves in full use of every source to the point of exhaustion in all areas regardless of the outcome. In one shade or another every honest person is to some extent a preservationist, a conservationist, and an exploiter. I doubt there is any person who on a personal level does not want safe and healthy water to drink, air to breathe, and food to eat, but at the same time I think every person exhibits behavior that denies that opportunity for other persons and other life forms which results in their sickness, pain, death, starvation and ultimately extinction.

And some interesting questions: is it only humans who face this preservation, conservation, exhaustion question with the ability to make conscious choices that impact the outcome, both for themselves and other life forms? Or, do other life forms make conscious choices to also impact the outcome? And if it is only humans, are we to be the plague that exterminates life, including our own at some point, or the savior which nurtures and sustains life? Ultimately, does it make any difference? We all will die anyway regardless of our plague/savior choices, so why be concerned about what comes after our own life?

On this spectrum, personally I endeavor to align with the savior spectrum rather than the plague spectrum, and at the same time I acknowledge that if every person alive today consumes resources at the level that I do, human and most other life on this Earth is unsustainable. My consolation is that I consume far less resources than many others, and I continue to strive to consume even fewer resources. I pursue a moral ethic that indeed my choices do make a valuable difference for the benefit of others, and that by itself is a worthy goal for my life, regardless of what happens after my death.

 

[jharkin]

I am beginning to wonder if as a species we are suffering from some sort of meltdown hardwired into us. Some sort of colony collapse after a certain population point is achieved. We haven't had a big die-off in a while, so we might be due for one soon. History is full of civilizations that suddenly disappear or self destruct.

You are not the only one to think so.. This line of thinking has been raised as the solution to the Fermi Paradox.... i.e. All advanced civilizations are doomed to self destruct.

 

[jharkin]

Now it all makes sense.
The telly is not the best way to be informed. It's all pretty bad but some are worse than others.
Did you know that people whos only source of new was Fox are less informed than people who don't consume ANY tv news!
http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
And people here wonder why no one is very alarmed by the elephant in the room (global warming).
Fox news regarding global warming:
1) It's fake
2) The scientists lie and falsify data to create a job for themselves
3) It's a hoax
4) It's a liberal over-reaction
5) It's the gubermint trying to tell you what to do.
6) We need the oil
7) There's nothing we can do about it anyway

Dont forget
8) Distract them with complaints about " liberals stealing their money" with taxes.

i.e. came up in the very first post of this threa complaining about estate tax increases... which of course only benefit the top .000001% of people in this country, i.e. nobody on this board. And would actually make society more equal and stop the slide in to a gilded age neo -fuedalist culture of heriditary inhereted weath concentrated into a few "lords"

When one party has so thoroughly brainwashed the masses to vote against their own self interest what hope do we have?

Not to my knowledge.

Thirty years ago a friend of mine went to (mainland) China for a a visit, and it was pretty broken down as a country. Her host family saw her ready to throw away the ziploc bags she had packed some stuff in....and they begged her to have them b/c they would use them to store things until they fell apart...nothing like that was available to them at the time.

Nowadays, my Chinese students arrive in the US, in fine shiny clothes and the latest bling, and shake their heads when they see the state of infrastructure decay and poverty in the streets in the US. They literally can't believe it until they see it, and ask me how it came to be like that? I have no answer for them but 'politics'.

Meanwhile, China is winding down their coal plants (reducing their duty cycle), and building enough wind and solar in the next 10 years to power the entire US! My colleagues that travel in Beijing report riding in all EV taxis while there. China sold close to a million EVs last year, domestically produced, and are gearing up EV battery factories that dwarf Elon Musk's current gigafactory vision.

And (near future) Chinese peak CO2 per capita emissions will likely be <50% of our current emissions.

I'm blowing my CO2 budget on a (rare) business trip in Seoul right now. They have a fricking maglev train out here. I'm a gonna have to ride it just to say I did.

I've mentioned before that I've travelled to both China and India many times... China is indeed RACING ahead of us on this front. However keep in mind that these advances are concentrated into small areas of hte big industrial/commercial cities - Beijing, Shanghai, etc. And they make these strides using techniques we would never stand for (the govt goes in and throws 100k people out of their homes and buldozes half the town to build new).

But they are getting it done. And we are not.

DId anyone actually read the article?

I did. Frankly I think its hopeless with the current USA mindset as long as the corporate, religious right and neo-Confedarate factions of the GOP still control Washington and most state houses. Sadly the most you can say about the currently aimless Democrats in this regard is they are "less bad" Maybe when all the boomers die off and us gen-Xers get old, the millennial and post millenials will step up and change politics so we do something about it, but its probably going to be too late by then. My poor kids will live though the worst of it

I'm probably going to get a moderator warning for this post but I'm just tired of playing nice and saying its all going to be OK when we know its not...

And no I didn't read all 5 pages... I can predict the ranting that occurred without wading through it all....

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Those on both sides of every issue think the other is wrecking the country. its not that black and white. More like 50 shades of grey.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

You are not the only one to think so.. This line of thinking has been raised as the solution to the Fermi Paradox.... i.e. All advanced civilizations are doomed to self destruct.

The worst is yet to come , as the population increases,the planet warms and crops fail, the storms destroy and if we ever stop pumping money into these unsustainable islands of despair.

 

[begreen]

As long as the prime motivator is "what's in it for me" humankind is destined to create its own miserable extinction. This lonely, tiny spaceship we are on is one of finite resources. Ultimately nature is going to win, time is on her side. Men think in terms of lifetimes, nature has millenia to rebalance the equation. It's very rare for human societies to construct harmonious systems designed for multiple generations. Yes, there are a few good examples, but it is rare and almost non-existent in modern industrialized nations.

 

[begreen]

I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.

Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.

One has to look no further than the economy for where one sets up funds for "preservation of capital" while drawing a sustainable income. The same can apply to a woodlot or a herd of buffalo. Nature does this all the time. When the herd gets too large, predators trim it down to a sustainable size.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

. It's very rare for human societies to construct harmonious systems designed for multiple generations. Yes, there are a few good examples, but it is rare and almost non-existent in modern industrialized nations.

Ours only seems to work with endless growth.

 

[begreen]

Ours only seems to work with endless growth.

Flawed by design and like a snake eating its tail, destined to fail.

 

[woodgeek]

Frankly I think its hopeless with the current USA mindset as long as the corporate, religious right and neo-Confedarate factions of the GOP still control Washington and most state houses. Sadly the most you can say about the currently aimless Democrats in this regard is they are "less bad" Maybe when all the boomers die off and us gen-Xers get old, the millennial and post millenials will step up and change politics so we do something about it, but its probably going to be too late by then. My poor kids will live though the worst of it

Actually I think politics usually changes pretty fast. Both parties are quite broken down now (not false equivalence, but stating that their major motivations and ideas are exhausted). We tend to get some reorganization when this happens every couple generations. While I think POTUS will do little good on the climate front for the next few years, I think we could be as surprised by the politics the Gens X and Y give us in the next 5-10 years, as we were by 2016.

But there I go being Polyanna again in my penance thread....

 

[jharkin]

^^^ All true. Its not all 'that' party of course. I was even a member of 'that' party before the extreme right took it over. But the current white house is not going to do diddly.

And I'll give you that the other party mainstream are no saints either...

And i was in a grumpy mood today...

And I have some guilt because I'm certainly not doing all I could do myself...


carry on

 

[vinny11950]

We rolled the dice with WWII and survived. We rolled the dice during the cold war and survived the brink of nuclear war. Now we are rolling the dice again with global warming and hoping that the next generations will able to fix it if enough will and breakthrough technologies are applied. As any gambler will tell you, eventually your luck runs out.

And just think, all three of these events happened (are happening) within the span of 100 years - a very small amount of time in human history. It is bonkers.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

We rolled the dice with WWII and survived.

Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice. We took action. Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency does not seem to be present with the threat of global warming even though it poses an even greater threat than even the war mongering Nazis with an agenda of world domination.

The difference being that it was considered unpatriotic to oppose the WWII effort. Today some fools think taking steps to reduce the speed and severity of global warming is un-American. Remember the political slogan "Drill, baby, drill!"? That wasn't very long ago. Actually, some people still think that's what American patriotism should be about. Seriously. There is no need to wonder why American politics are so FU. Yes, because of American voters.

And just think, all three of these events happened (are happening) within the span of 100 years - a very small amount of time in human history. It is bonkers.

100 years is a miniscule amount of time in terms of human history. In terms of the natural history of the world it's almost an infinitesimally small amount of time. And in terms of the history of the universe, it's basically a single point in time.

Wow! Just think. Our whole solar system could be one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[vinny11950]

Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice.

I meant as in the human race. We are all on this tiny planet together with nowhere else to go. As the world population grows, travel gets faster, and we get more interconnected with mobile devices, this place is gonna feel a lot smaller. Add in some climate upheaval and we are going to see millions of people migrating to survive. Humans have been doing it forever.

And yes, Animal House is a great movie

 

[sportbikerider78]

No it is not lazy it is realistic. It is not black and white like you make it sound. There are lots of people who want preserves and want untouched areas. But that does not mean they dont want to use any recources. And there are many conservationists like us who want to see untouched areas as well.

That's cool. Buy land and don't touch it, like my grandfather did.
He was a true conservationist.

 

[sportbikerider78]

Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice. We took action. Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency does not seem to be present with the threat of global warming even though it poses an even greater threat than even the war mongering Nazis with an agenda of world domination.

Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.

Funny you mention war. War has got to be the biggest polluter of all time. Yet, both sides of the political spectrum worship war and only have a problem when the other side is waging it. Sad.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.

Excuse me, what did I say repeatedly that wasn't factual?

 

[begreen]

Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.

Standard marketing technique often targeted at adults. Fox News does it every day.

More data and forecasts in from two independent studies. It's going to get hot out there. Portland, OR is set to break its all time record hottest day record on Thurs. (110F forecast) and the year 2100 is 83 yrs away.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/climate-change-two-degrees-studies/index.html

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Standard marketing technique often targeted at adults. Fox News does it every day.

True, and it's shocking how effective it is (at least with their target audience).