Nescio & Thap split thread

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Thap, didn’t u have the following as ur opinion

*quote:

I don’t think we have much of an impact on global cyclicity and even if we do, we’re part of the biosphere, so how can anything we do be deemed to be wrong. Do you question why cows pass so much gas, they add vast quantities of methane (a greenhouse) gas to the atmosphere?

In the great scheme of things anthropogenic effects are small-scale and ‘natural’. *

and

Then again I have argued in the past that any climate change brought about by anthropogenic activity is natural and part of the biosphere change of the Earth. *

========> why treat animals differently from plants and other biological creatures? Killing of gorillas and elephants is ‘just’ the natural course nature has taken with humans…
it’s rather odd to have 2 completely different opinions about the ‘same’ thing in essence

2

It's all a matter of scale, concerning my earlier comments on the global cyclicity of the climate and the effect of anthropogenic activity.

The whole of Man’s activity juxtaposed against just one super-volcano pales into oblivion when discussing green houses gases for example. So why worry about another power station when the next Krakatoa could unleash more CO2 into the atmosphere than our entire power stations combined a hundred fold. Both 'global' events with far reaching changes, both natural but one several magnitudes greater than the other.

I still advocate my view of Man being a cog in the wheel and not sitting at the controls…for now anyway, so we shouldn’t worry so much about events out of our control until we attain the level of being truly 'super' natural in a global sense.

Attempting to wean a local populace of a jungle onto herded livestock does not contradict the above. This is a phenomena in a controlled environment where Man is now alien to the local biosphere (bush men live on the outskirts of the jungle in small farm settlements), there is no other event out of our control that is decimating the animal life here. You could say that Man in this instance is 'super' natural to the setting. Here, locally, we wield the power of change i.e. our cognisant actions are the dominant force of evolution and the whole 'natural' thing goes out of the window.

3

why worry about some hunters if the same next Krakatoa could kill millions of animals at once?
:konfused:

4

If Mount Cameroon had errupted and caused such an event that would be a valid point to raise but it hasn't in recorded history. But you see the local nature would mean there is still the possibility of migration of animals into the forest again.

A global event would mean the whole 'closed' system is affected I'm arguing that we don't have much control of such events.

So don't advocate eating bush meat, it's 'super' natural unless you live in the forest and are part of that biosphere.

5

Let me re-analyze your post again. Maybe ull see the illogical reasoning then:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
It's all a matter of scale, concerning my earlier comments on the global cyclicity of the climate and the effect of anthropogenic activity.
[/quote]

ok, first of all: what is considered big and what small on this scale?

[quote]
The whole of Man’s activity juxtaposed against just one super-volcano pales into oblivion when discussing green houses gases for example. So why worry about another power station when the next Krakatoa could unleash more CO2 into the atmosphere than our entire power stations combined a hundred fold.
[/quote]

worry, because the chance of the one occuring is millions of times (if not more) smaller than the other. You could argue that something happening very rarely is 'natural' whereas something happening often is not (same goes for example with genetic familial diseases),
alas, if this isn't enuf let's take the next part:

[quote]
Both 'global' events with far reaching changes, both natural but one several magnitudes greater than the other.
[/quote]

solely based on the fact that one system is closed and the other not u say that the one is natural and the other not? Why do u consider gas-production in a closed city to be natural, whereas hunting in an outskirt of the jungle is not? But even then, it is the natural human who decided to become unnatural -according to ur definition-, but isn't that in itself a natural happening???

[quote]
I still advocate my view of Man being a cog in the wheel and not sitting at the controls…for now anyway, so we shouldn’t worry so much about events out of our control until we attain the level of being truly 'super' natural in a global sense.

Attempting to wean a local populace of a jungle onto herded livestock does not contradict the above. This is a phenomena in a controlled environment where Man is now alien to the local biosphere (bush men live on the outskirts of the jungle in small farm settlements),
[/quote]

same argument as above also applies here: where is the boundary between natural and unnatural? And if a natural human decides to do unnatural things, aren't those things per definition natural then?

Man is alien to the local biosphere<<<<
i think man living in a crouded city polluting the air is more alien to the original local biosphere than a man in the bushes

[quote]
there is no other event out of our control that is decimating the animal life here.
[/quote]

a few instances come to mind:
- the theory that Dinosaurs came to their end cuz of a big natural disaster goes straightly against what u propose here.
- the natural production of CO2 (be it from man or from a Krakatoa), it will invariably have an effect on the animal world as well as on the plants etc.

[quote]
You could say that Man in this instance is 'super' natural to the setting. Here, locally, we wield the power of change i.e. our cognisant actions are the dominant force of evolution and the whole 'natural' thing goes out of the window.
[/QUOTE]

again, where is the border between natural and unnatural?

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
Let me re-analyze your post again. Maybe ull see the illogical reasoning then:

:-) analyse away although do think your reading too deepely into this and not taking enough in.

ok, first of all: what is considered big and what small on this scale?

Global versus local/regional-unit cell to the whole shebang

worry, because the chance of the one occuring is millions of times (if not more) smaller than the other. You could argue that something happening very rarely is 'natural' whereas something happening often is not (same goes for example with genetic familial diseases),
alas, if this isn't enuf let's take the next part:

*It's not the periodicity but the magnitude of effect, volcanism in the Cretaceous creating the Deccan paltueux in India pushed up global temperatures by 10-15 deg C in the space of about 1 Ma, we'll be lucky if we've managed 1 deg C in the last 2 Ma years *

solely based on the fact that one system is closed and the other not u say that the one is natural and the other not? Why do u consider gas-production in a closed city to be natural, whereas hunting in an outskirt of the jungle is not? But even then, it is the natural human who decided to become unnatural -according to ur definition-, but isn't that in itself a natural happening???

*In a closed system, i.e. the Earth as a whole when talking about global events triggered from a point source, greenhouse gas emmisions from a power plant in China effect the temperature in Brazil by a tiny amount compared other natural phenomena.

I'm suggesting that Man is largely 'super' natural to many localised environments at present, deep forests, mountainous terrain, artic tundra and deserts to name a few, where his actions are almost unique.*

same argument as above also applies here: where is the boundary between natural and unnatural? And if a natural human decides to do unnatural things, aren't those things per definition natural then?

'super' natural in certain instances highlighted above.

Man is alien to the local biosphere<<<<
i think man living in a crouded city polluting the air is more alien to the original local biosphere than a man in the bushes

'original', yes but we're not dicussing time travel here

a few instances come to mind:
- the theory that Dinosaurs came to their end cuz of a big natural disaster goes straightly against what u propose here.
- the natural production of CO2 (be it from man or from a Krakatoa), it will invariably have an effect on the animal world as well as on the plants etc.

  • I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on this one, why does the extinction of the dinosaurs have a bearing on invasive eating practices in an environment Man no longer lives in?*

again, where is the border between natural and unnatural?
[/QUOTE]

*Simply put I'm suggesting that global cause and effect on the biosphere are still well outside Man's control, whereas certain local phenomena aren't, surely a simple enough concept no?

You see you have to look at the Earth as being made of several segments or parts, Man may have control over the unit cell in some instances but at the moment IMO has very little over the sum of these parts. So when faced with such impotency in matters such as greenhouse gas emissions and the melting ice sheets man is not a key player, no more no less than his surroundings. However, at a local scale when discussing changes to the environment which don't have a global impact man can be said to be outside of the realm of being natural and 'super' natural, the dominant force for change.
*

7

^but don't u agree that it's the cumulative effect of the small units which will produce the big picture? Why see them seperately if the small one will have an effect on the big one eventually?

8

Now we're on the same page, yes I agree eventually this could be the case.

But at any one instant we can only be sure to gauge Man's effect in a relatively local sense. Once we start extrapolating to the whole 'global' biosphere other more important elements overshadow any of our modifications.

Many species go extinct each day, not from our actions and many new species are discovered, to say we have control over this global ebb and flow of evolution is giving ourselves more credit and angst than we deserve.

Sure we modify the environment locally like in urban centres of population as you mentioned above. Turning once forested land into concrete jungles, but in the great scheme of things/globally we don't make much of an impact as the greatest numbers and diversity of plant and animal species are found in places we no longer live or indeed have never lived (rain forests and the oceans respectively).

I suppose the dual concept of Man's global natural existence and local 'super' natural invasiveness is not an easy one to explain and is by no means proven in any way but a little more than conjecture and less than a working hypothesis.

I’ve enjoyed the conversation nonetheless and hope to weave this line of thought into other discussions in the future. I appreciated you testing the veracity of my posts and hope you’ll do the same in future.

9

we could have gone on on this matter, but i think u put it right that these are semantical differences…the truth lies probably somewhere in the middle

anyway, same here :k:

10

Thap - true the global controls are outside mans controls for most matters but just to go back to your volcano example. Most of the volcanic or natural emmissions tend to very large scale but also very infrequent and often biologically degradeable (the concept of a living earth of GAIA). On the other hand mans emmissions or by products tend to extremely stable or inert (eg plastics, Ferons etc) that are highly unbiodegreable and although emitted in small quantities, they have much more cummulative abilities. Man is also very adept at concetrating highly toxic materials very quickly be it aresnic in mining gold or mercury from coal powerplants or PCBs from manufacturing plants. These things dont occur naturally at these levels so I would say although man is a fairly small cog in that wheel, he is quite consistent. One of the reasons no one cares about the evironment is largely due to that reason - its takes too long for cause and effect to show up. Who cares if a few islands would be under the sea water if its not gonna happen for another 30 yrs.

The reason we care about the environment is not only because other species are formed or die but rather because we can only exist within a very limited range of conditions and if either natural or artifical things change that range we would be very extinct very soon - and any reversal process would take just as long or ever longer then it took to create them.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hmcq: *
Thap - true the global controls are outside mans controls for most matters but just to go back to your volcano example. Most of the volcanic or natural emmissions tend to very large scale but also very infrequent and often biologically degradeable (the concept of a living earth of GAIA). On the other hand mans emmissions or by products tend to extremely stable or inert (eg plastics, Ferons etc) that are highly unbiodegreable and although emitted in small quantities, they have much more cummulative abilities.

Thap - Fumaroles, vents (Yellowstone, Tokyo Hills) and worldwide almost constantly active hot spots (Hawaii, Iceland and New Zealand) are continuous streams of green house gases into the atmosphere.

Man is also very adept at concetrating highly toxic materials very quickly be it aresnic in mining gold or mercury from coal powerplants or PCBs from manufacturing plants. These things dont occur naturally at these levels....

Thap - Locally toxic, as opposed to the globally toxic volcanic emissions, volcanic activity follows trends and their effects on the atmosphere are not isolated to the odd eruption. Geothermal heat and out gassing is a very real 'global' phenomena whether it's from Mt St Helens or from the super-volcanic mid ocean ridges exposed on the sea floor. However, this is 'seen' as a background 'natural' effect, whereas any detriment Man causes to global pollution is seen as somehow other-worldly.

....so I would say although man is a fairly small cog in that wheel, he is quite consistent. One of the reasons no one cares about the evironment is largely due to that reason - its takes too long for cause and effect to show up. Who cares if a few islands would be under the sea water if its not gonna happen for another 30 yrs.

Thap - During the Cretaceous half the world was 10 Deg C hotter than it was now and there were no ice caps, it truly was a green house world. Yet it became ice house again and will become green house again, Milankovitch cyclicity.

The reason we care about the environment is not only because other species are formed or die but rather because we can only exist within a very limited range of conditions and if either natural or artifical things change that range we would be very extinct very soon - and any reversal process would take just as long or ever longer then it took to create them.

Thap - We would change to match the changing conditions, we were never meant to remain stagnant and cosy defeats evolution.
[/QUOTE]

12

^thap, u rightly put forward examples of processes which 'pollute' the air a lot - perhaps more than humans do. But it is also known that due to this pollution each year numerous of animals get extinct, die out. So this shows that there is a natural process of killing animals going on in nature: the proposition that this was lacking, was ur counter-argument in the beginning of the discussion

13

There are a numerous reasons why animal species evolve and the Kingdoms of life streamline and then diversify and vice versa (climate change caused by the axial tilt, wobble and procession of the Earth leading to habitat change, catastrophic events, disease and then there’s selective culling.

The latter is usually a local phenomena, in isolated areas carried out by Man and not demonstrable globally on the whole.

I’m arguing that Man is effective in bringing about change only within his immediate sphere of influence. When Man no longer inhabits a certain environment and still effects localised change I’m referring to that as ‘super-natural’ as opposed to his globally very limited impact (compared to other natural phenomena) on his surroundings.

A note to move on this discussion, it would be useful to put forward an alternative view.

14

Agreed that most models are not always statistically significant on the global effect of humans but its not localized only, unless we considering several thousands of miles local. For example, you dont really see mercury in the free from but this is getting accumulated from coal fires in the american everglades due to the location of coal plants up north.

However, most naturally occuring elements are biodegradeable compared to the man made elements.

As for the comparison of 10C hotter - that was quite a while ago. The reason people worry about the weather changes now is how quickly the change is occuring. Since on avg it takes about 50,000 yrs for a new species to be created, I just dont see man naturally changing fast enough to meet the changing environment. Yes we may be able to create habitable evironments but will they be sustainable and also will they be only for the rich?

Right now the world is highly biased towards the people who have the money and these changes only further exaggerate it further