Man: The Real Endangered Species

[cowman]

While not disagreeing with the thought behind the above statement I would question the figure of 80% for north America? I mean europe has probably as large a population and they don't exactly deny themselves all the little luxeries? And then there is Japan and the wealthy asian countries?

[ianben]

Dont think the exact percentage really matters, cowman, we dont act much different over here and that is a fact.

The idea that we are in control is the bit that always makes me smile.

If we just did this or that or didnt do something else every thing would be better.

Would it be better to farm less intensivlly but need a much larger land area cultivated?
Can animals be happy? Is an animal protected from nature, ie fed watered and protected from predators, farmed happier than one in the wild?

If any part of nature is out of balance it must be to numbers of people.

Are we really any different to the microbes in the dish?
Have we any choice but to fill every available space and feed ourselves to extinction?
99% of what has lived on earth is already extinct today.

Where are we on our S curve?

[ianben]

All very interesting, but when you have all said your piece. It sounds like to me that Mother nature is God and that we are here to survive not worship.

But don't get me wrong Cowman, I'am prayering that your saddle sores stop effecting your mental capablities.

[Steve]

This is a very interesting topic and it looks like most people read the Bible.
The bible was written in a way that one can intrepid it in many ways to support the individual thoughts and beliefs and this statement is proven by simply counting 15 churches in our little city of 15000 people. Also some churches have revised parts of the bible thinking that it discriminated against some people. So we can assume that most physical things can be changed by force or willingness, but ones beliefs are the property of the beholder.

I think that (Mother Nature, God) controls the planet and here is proof.

Let us start with the lion, “king of all beasts,” he marks out his territory where he kills other helpless animals to feed himself and his family, that is what it takes to survive.
Now other bigger stronger male lions come into his domain and challenge his position and overpower him, not only take over his domain, but also kill his offsprings.
So we can say the first part was necessary to survive and the other was extremes to prove their power and can do whatever they want.
Now Mother Nature sees the lion has too much power so she controls him with drought, floods, fire and or diseases and destroys his easy food supplies and then he has to struggle to survive.

Man thinks he is the king of the planet and so he is until he goes to extremes and that is where Mother Nature, God steps in to control his behavior, and there are many clues to support this idea.

Man marked his boundaries and took control of all things in his country and called himself king, things were fine until he went to extremes and started to abuse people.
The people rebelled and throw him out of power and chose or elected a new leader.
Some countries thought they were stronger and could take over other countries, but found that people don’t like extremists so more countries got together and declared war against the intruder, destroyed him and all the things he cherished.
So when man goes to extremes and starts to abuse things and thinks he is in control, Mother Nature, God sees this, and controls him with tornados, hurricanes, fires, drought, floods, earthquakes, disease and starvation. All this tells man that extremists will not survive.

To prove a point that extremists will never control the planet, because majority of the good people will not let them and are supported by( Mother Nature, God). So lets live and do what it takes to survive but not go to extremes to changes things.

[pandiana]

I have been trying to find the quote on utilization of world resources. I think David Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" contains a very good chapter on this but I do not have my copy at home. It is quite possible that it was referring to the 'western world' or so-called developed nations.
Another quote from an anthropology source Bodley: Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems c.1996 "..it appears that by 1970, although their population contributed only about 6 percent of the worlds's total annual production, Americans consumed some 40 percent of the world's total annual production, and 35 percent of the world's energy (Cook 1971)." in 1994, on the other hand "China virtually reversed the figures, with 20 percent of the world population consuming 8 percent of the commercial energy".

[pandiana]

Ianben, my take on your good questions.
"The idea that we are in control is the bit that always makes me smile."
It depends on what you mean by 'control'. We certainly can have an effect, at least locally, but the global and long term consequences are hard to guage.

"If we just did this or that or didnt do something else every thing would be better." Again, better in the short term but as population increases and resources become depleted is it sustainable.

"Would it be better to farm less intensivlly but need a much larger land area cultivated?" Yes, less intensively, more locally, better price per unit produced.

"Can animals be happy? Is an animal protected from nature, ie fed watered and protected from predators, farmed happier than one in the wild?" Yes, I believe animals can be happy. Have you ever been greeted by the family dog, legs wrapped around the the family cat, cows, munching happily or staring contentedly into space as their calves suckle. I think this must be 'happy'in the sense they can express contentment, are relaxed and not afraid for their life. The life span of animals in the wild is very short relative to domestic animals, with the exception of course of feeder animals. Just as an example, domestic cats often live well into their teens. Feral cats around here at least live 2-3 years as do coyotes and foxes. The early death of fawns and moose calves due to natural causes also exceeds that of domestic animals.

"If any part of nature is out of balance it must be to numbers of people." Without a doubt, people are the problem. I am not confident that they are the solution.

"Are we really any different to the microbes in the dish?" No!

"Have we any choice but to fill every available space and feed ourselves to extinction? " No! but maybe we can postpone the inevitable with some judicious intervention.

[ianben]

Thanks Pandiana
My answers would be very similar to yours.
Perhaps not the one on land use though.

I wonder if more production from fewer acres is not better than cultivating more and more of our planet.
I hate to see the real wild places where man has not interfered getting smaller.

Is concentating our polution better than spreading it far and wide.

Would feedlot alley be better spread across Alberta affecting more people and environments or is it better concentrated in a small area thus limiting its effect to the local environment.

I find it difficult to decide.

[cowman]

pandiana: I have some problems relating myself to a petri dish of bacteria. The solution to all our problems can be solved by technology. Now I'm not saying it will be solved just that it CAN be!
Consider the advances in your own life time...and then realize that this technology is snowballing! World food supplies could be at least tripled using genetic engineering. Recent advances in colf fusion could solve all our energy problems...and a good part of our pollution problems. Research in transpondence is starting to show some amazing results. Virtual reality could eliminate a lot of travel and advance mans world beyond anything he has ever dreamed of!
As our world moves toward a global government with controls over everyone population could become a non issue. For just like the family dog we will be taken care of and protected as long as we follow certain rules!! Will we be content and happy then?

[ianben]

cowman. What about the other changes in our lifetimes.
Aids may have been averted in the 1st world but I hear it is devestating Africa. BSE could still be a mega human tragedy in thirty years. The "H" bomb has given us 50 years without world war but just one madman could end it all.
Climate is the thing I think will control us in the future though, could we survive an ice-age or the warming predicted.
Will we ever understand and be able to control the weather?

[cowman]

Ian: I can't answer your question about the weather. I've read about a program called HRRP up in Alaska that is supposed to be able to control the weather. It involves shooting massive lasers up into the earths magnetic field. The Russians were working on something similar back in the eighties.
There is some evidence they had some success. Whatever we know about technology is probably only a smattering of what is really out there.
We do have some devastating disease in the world. I would suggest to you that cancer makes AIDs look pretty tame. I mean I know I'm a backwards rube but I actually don't know anyone who has died of AIDS but I sure know a lot dying from cancer.
Now consider if there was one all powerful world government? Would that free up some money for research? Consider what has been accomplished in the last twenty years? Just in the increase of knowledge?
So is it possible for man to save himself? Definitely! Will it happen? Definitely not!