Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Arctic Replenished Very Little Thick Sea Ice

Terry, as you point out, other species modify the environment. Indeed, every living organism modifies the environment; but the modifications, while they may be great, are limited in scope and, with notable exceptions among mammals, rarely oriented to a premeditated goal - certainly nothing like the extensively planned, organised and sophisticated efforts of humans.

Terry: "have humans always known how and why they were changing their environment? Do we even know today?"

- Yes, we know why we change the environment. Primarily to make the environment more conducive to survival >> healthy living >> etc (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) - including physical and psychological aspects; in a nutshell, because we perceive a benefit in the desired outcome.

- No, we evidently didn't, and almost certainly still don't, know the full implications that our activities have for the environment.

Good point, Terry, even the most innocuous actions can have an effect on the Environment. Years ago, I was flying into a Hunting Camp in Northern Manitoba. On the way up we startled a big Bull Moose that was standing in a slow moving stream that was choked solid with Wild Rice. Our passing overhead caused the Bull to run diagonally across the stream, stirring up a wake in his path. Two weeks later we were flying out along exactly the same route. When we got to the point where we had seen the Moose, we could see a rich lime-green line of new growth in the rice; while running he had aerated the water and stimulated new growth.
So a bird can spread seeds, a moose can trigger aquatic plant growth. How many species can melt a Glacier?

"...because we perceive a benefit in the desired outcome.
...and almost certainly still don't know the full implications that our activities have for the environment." -redewenur

I wonder if cavemen moved to a new cave when they saw the water levels rising, or did they wait for it to be lapping at their feet?

Terry, Wolfman; both your examples are of human induced changes. Just a coincidence? Introduced species? Startled moose?

I know! When you indirectly "aerated the water and stimulated new growth," you were offsetting your carbon emmissions!


~Sam

Sam: "I wonder if cavemen moved to a new cave when they saw the water levels rising, or did they wait for it to be lapping at their feet?"

- Yes, I'm sure they would have been able to perceive the benefit in the desired outcome, i.e., not being drowned - although, if the desired outcome was better fishing, maybe they perceived a benefit in waiting

Yup - that's what I'm saying, instead of putting all our eggs in the basket of climate modification, we should be hedging our bets by trying to increase our societies resilience to externalities (whether that be climate change, earthquakes, meteor strikes, or plagues).
Where will we be in 100 years if we've spent a few trillion attempting to reduce carbon emissions, only to find that it was too little too late, or that it is a natural warming cycle (and reductions had no effect)? We'll have wasted the resources, and more importantly the time, that would be better spent elsewhere.

So how? My first thought, is lets pay the most attention to those who are most unable to deal with a system shock - the poor, undeveloped countries. The rich countries will be able to fight our way through a catastrophic event, it won't be pretty, but we will. The poor will be slaughtered. Let's work on building their capacity to respond to an event. Whether people like it or not, this capability comes along with development.

So much like my argument in the "Population & DNA" thread in the General Science, I'm arguing for more development. Help the undeveloped become developed.

Samwik wrote:

"Terry, Wolfman; both your examples are of human induced changes. Just a coincidence? Introduced species? Startled moose?"

But the so-called balance of nature is constantly changing, with or without human influence. At present humans are changing it faster than in the past, mainly because our population is growing so rapidly. The pigeons were shifting seeds around long before humans reached NZ but their population numbers had probably stabilised to some extent within two or three hundred years of their arrival. The moose could just as likely been frightened by a wolf.

Canuck. Have you any suggestions as to how we could "Help the undeveloped become developed"?

Canuck: "So much like my argument in the "Population & DNA" thread in the General Science, I'm arguing for more development. Help the undeveloped become developed."

Yes, Canuck, I support that argument for a number of reasons, including the two which you've raised so far. Has anyone here wondered, for example, what would be the outcome of pouring development aid into North Korea, instead of allowing its population to starve whilst proposing yet more ways to cripple its economy?

Not in any particular order.....

-remove barriers to trade, lets kick globalization into high gear. Basically give the poor access to our markets so they can sell products.

-related to the first one, remove 1st world ag subsidies. For those countries without natural resources (oil, minerals), the only way to developed status is through agriculture. Farmers in the developed world can't compete with our farmers (who are getting massive subsidies)

-make it worth a corporations time and money to invest in a country. Reduce barriers to the flow of capital, work with developing countries to set up legitimate banking systems, encourage developing countries to recognize IP. Without private investment, no country is going to develop.

-Invest, invest and invest in infrastructure. Countries can't develop if they don't have transportation networks, electricity, water or sanitation.

I have spent some time thinking about the NK issue. I think before you answer the question you raised, you have to figure out if NK is governed by somebody who wants to be in the global community? So, is the present state of NK caused by externalities, or internalities.

I would argue that Kim knows he could not survive as "Dear Leader" if NK opened up to the rest of the world. There's simply no place at the adult table for somebody like that. It's a matter of personal security (and his families) - it's in their best interest to keep NK firewalled off from the rest of the world.

If you "poured development aid" into NK, how would you ensure that the money is not diverted into increasing it's 1.2 million man army? Or expanding it's nuclear weapons program? Or expanding their 13000 pieces of artillery that they have aimed at Seoul?

I previously thought China had Kim on a tight leash, and would stop him from doing anything that may destabilize northeast Asia. But after his nuclear experiment, and China's barely restrained fury at his actions - I'm not so sure.
There's only one thing more dangerous than a deranged dog on a leash........a deranged dog without a leash.

Development? Development!?

(mumbles to self) Isn't that how we got into this situation?

If we had started focusing on technologies to develop sustainability back in the 70's; we'd be in a position to export that technology around the world and do as you suggest. At this point, when I hear people talking about "exporting"
development, all I can think about is China & NAFTA (to where we have outsourced our pollution). All we seem to be able to export is "democracy." (he said sarcastically)

I was real impressed with the recent philanthropic gifts (Gates, Buffet, etc.); but what are these people that they're saving going to do? Can they find a job sequestering Carbon? Where will they get their food and water? Branson at least has a global goal (and very profitable too!).

There are signs of effectiveness, such as: Microloans &
Envirofit’s first product is a Direct In-cylinder (DI) fuel injection retrofit kit for two-stoke motorcycle engines that significantly improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions.

But aren't we way too much "behind the curve" to rely on "business as usual" development?
Simply turning the third world into consumers will only work for one or two more generations before the whole pyramid scheme falls apart.

I do agree with your points about the subsidies. They perpetuate unsustainability.

I think developing the '3rd world' needs to be done as a part of "saving the world." It has to be done in a sustainable way.

Unless the true costs of the pollution and associated consequences of unbridled private investment are accounted for, the profit motive will overwhelm any goal of "helping" the people or the planet.


Not that I have any ideas or solutions...yet. But am I looking in the right direction?

~~Samwik

Canuck: "If you "poured development aid" into NK, how would you ensure that the money is not diverted into increasing it's 1.2 million man army? Or expanding it's nuclear weapons program? Or expanding their 13000 pieces of artillery that they have aimed at Seoul?"

It would have to be ensured. Aid doesn't have to be unconditional and, maybe, the greater its scale, the greater the prospect of complicity. Reliance upon a massive aid input could be a real deterent against its abuse and consequent cessation. The state of NK is associated with "internalities", as you say. Internal pressures and activities could also bring about a change for the better, given enough motivation. I know it's arguable, but it's 'right', it's humane, it's ethical, and it's what the religious people have been rightly preaching about for thousands of years. I can almost guarantee that it will never happen - it's not a 'bloody' and malicious solution. It's too 'naive'. It's not evil, and where would we be without that?

hellow from manawatu new zealand...could do with some global warming down here...terry has it a bit warmer...all that artic ice must be melting because we forgot to send those rockets up to replenish the ozone layer we were destroying 10 years ago, that would be why...hope we get these co2 emmissions reduced in time, or else that might melt that ice real fast. But switching to bio dieil should fix that.