human powered approaches vs heli, planes, skidoos

[wfinley]

A typical rebuttal to global warming debate is the geological time scale argument. i.e. - So the earth warms and cools - why should I care? It's basically an easy way of justifying your current lifestlye - be it driving an SUV two block to the super market or catching a heli-ride instead of hiking in.

 

If you truly can sit on your ass and say "why should I care" then the reality is that nothing can be said to change your point of view. This same mindset applies to your viewpoint of environmentalist. Why should you care if no one confronts the oil industry and tries to block drilling in the Arctic? Why should you care if the senate puts off fuel efficiency for another 10 years or if China is allowed to continue it's full scale assault on air quality without some sort of global coalition to reduce emissions?

 

As a climber you should care because in the past 10 years we've seen climbs like the diamond couloir and the black ice couloir dry up.. You should care because being able to do a 20 day climbing trip in the Brooks range without getting permits from Exxon or dealing with air quality issues from oil refineries is a pretty awesome experience. Because if the ocean levels rise you won't be able to clip bolts in Thailand.

 

If you can't care beyond your own tiny bubble then think how it will effect your bubble.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

To me it seems that humans have some how become so completely alienated from the same process that made them and every other living thing as well, that we somehow think that the way we act is unnatural.

 

We are right in the thick of it. Only this time termination may come at our own hands, a relatively novel idea in earth history, although not unique.

 

So, what it comes down to is that I am a fan of nature, not man.

So, you believe that man is a part of nature, but you're a fan of nature, not man. And the rest of us are supposed to think harder on this one?

 

Ultimately, I find "environmentalists" are the most selfish becuase they seek to preserve the earth in some arbitrary state that they have deemed satisfactory....and for what? To save the planet? The planet is fine....

 

I think a better term for the "environmentalist" movement is the "static preservationalist" movement as it so much better describes what you kooks are up to.

 

 

There's a difference between trying to preserve a dynamic system in a static state, and trying to mitigate damage to all species, not just our own, that you know, via the intelligence that nature may or may not have granted you, is both happening and avoidable. Perhaps you should think harder on this one....

 

 

The game was over before it started: Earth-1 Humans-0

 

Actually, the game as you define it is: Earth-0 The earth has as finite a life as any species, including our own. This is a fatalistic attitude, as you say, and therefore wholly unnatural. Fatalism is the luxury of idle intellect coddled by overabundance. Nature is, by definition, not fatalistic at all. Nature keeps giving everything it's got to keep going. Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do. Your's is the attitude of the wounded herd animal; it is artificially disconnected from nature, not in love with it.

[G-spotter]

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

 

Yes. I should think that the emissions from the production of gasoline are of a similar quantity if not the same chemically.

 

As I spent 10 minutes googling and skimming. One of the major accounted benefits of biodiesel is that producing more biodiesel pulls more CO2 out of the air.

 

Not if produced by conventional 'factory farm' agricultural practices, and that is the main catch.

 

Yeah and organic farming will do a better job, since organic yields are ~50% of factory farm yields?

 

It's apparent from this blanket statement that you not only do not know a thing about organic farming, but that you also don't know how to put together an argument. It's well known that organic agricultural yields per unit of fuel are far, far higher than factory farms. It's also well known that they maintain sustainable top soil health; something factory farms do not.

 

You live in a city.

I live in the country. Next to an organic farm.

You don't know jack shit about farming, city boy.

 

Organic yields are significantly lower than from "conventional" farming. This is one of the main reasons why organic produce costs more. If a farmer wants to go organic, they need to be able to earn more for their crop to make up for the decreased yield.

[fenderfour]

The Diamond is OUT

 

Linky

[tvashtarkatena]

You live in a city.

I live in the country. Next to an organic farm.

You don't know jack shit about farming, city boy.

 

 

You also live near a septic tank.

 

I live next to a fire station, yet I don't know shit about driving a hook and ladder. Expertise 'by proximity' is hardly an impressive credential. By the same logic, the shitbag in Goldbar who collects engine blocks on his lawn 'in the country' is also an expert on organic agriculture. Who do you think researches and buys all that organic produce? It ain't country folk.

 

Nice try, plastic boot boy.

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[G-spotter]

 

Eating local = eating country food in the country. Doesn't get more local than next door.

 

One of my climbing partners has 200 dairy cows. Do you know anyone who owns cows? Have you ever even seen a cow?

[David Trippett]

A typical rebuttal to global warming debate is the geological time scale argument. i.e. - So the earth warms and cools - why should I care? It's basically an easy way of justifying your current lifestlye - be it driving an SUV two block to the super market or catching a heli-ride instead of hiking in.

 

If you truly can sit on your ass and say "why should I care" then the reality is that nothing can be said to change your point of view. This same mindset applies to your viewpoint of environmentalist. Why should you care if no one confronts the oil industry and tries to block drilling in the Arctic? Why should you care if the senate puts off fuel efficiency for another 10 years or if China is allowed to continue it's full scale assault on air quality without some sort of global coalition to reduce emissions?

 

As a climber you should care because in the past 10 years we've seen climbs like the diamond couloir and the black ice couloir dry up.. You should care because being able to do a 20 day climbing trip in the Brooks range without getting permits from Exxon or dealing with air quality issues from oil refineries is a pretty awesome experience. Because if the ocean levels rise you won't be able to clip bolts in Thailand.

 

If you can't care beyond your own tiny bubble then think how it will effect your bubble.

 

Now who's getting defensive helicopter breath? Are you a static preservationalist?

 

Do you really have any idea how I live and what I do? No you don't....and people who would use my argument as a justification for excess are just as lost as the rest.

 

I never said "I don't care" and perhaps I have not been lucid enough in my reasoning. I care quite a bit.

 

Unfortunately for the followers of the newfound religion of the environmental church, a typical rebuttal is to call it just that " a timescale argument" and dismiss it with a broad stroke, but it deserves more careful examination than that.... perhaps you are just unwilling to hear what I said, or maybe I'm not articulate enough to communicate it. You should hear this, it's good: If you can't care beyond your own tiny bubble then think how it will effect your bubble

 

good discussion. thanks.

 

 

 

[G-spotter]

 

Tvashtarkatena - what is this animal? Please guess.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Eating local = eating country food in the country. Doesn't get more local than next door.

 

 

Yes, it does. I grow my own vegetables. Not next door, either. Again, nice try.

 

Oh, and BTW, I grew up in 'the country' 'next door to' dairy farms, orchards, and vineyards, where I worked summers.

 

Too funny.

[wfinley]

Why should I give a rat's ass about the current state of the earth?... why should I really care if we as a species live or die?

 

Perhaps I misread you on some way?

[G-spotter]

I grow my own vegetables.

 

 

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas?

 

anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient.

[David Trippett]

 

To me it seems that humans have some how become so completely alienated from the same process that made them and every other living thing as well, that we somehow think that the way we act is unnatural.

 

We are right in the thick of it. Only this time termination may come at our own hands, a relatively novel idea in earth history, although not unique.

 

So, what it comes down to is that I am a fan of nature, not man.

So, you believe that man is a part of nature, but you're a fan of nature, not man. And the rest of us are supposed to think harder on this one?

 

Ultimately, I find "environmentalists" are the most selfish becuase they seek to preserve the earth in some arbitrary state that they have deemed satisfactory....and for what? To save the planet? The planet is fine....

 

I think a better term for the "environmentalist" movement is the "static preservationalist" movement as it so much better describes what you kooks are up to.

 

 

There's a difference between trying to preserve a dynamic system in a static state, and trying to mitigate damage to all species, not just our own, that you know, via the intelligence that nature may or may not have granted you, is both happening and avoidable. Perhaps you should think harder on this one....

 

 

The game was over before it started: Earth-1 Humans-0

 

Actually, the game as you define it is: Earth-0 The earth has as finite a life as any species, including our own. This is a fatalistic attitude, as you say, and therefore wholly unnatural. Fatalism is the luxury of idle intellect coddled by overabundance. Nature is, by definition, not fatalistic at all. Nature keeps giving everything it's got to keep going. Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do. Your's is the attitude of the wounded herd animal; it is artificially disconnected from nature, not in love with it.

 

 

Well formulated...And truth told, I am a fan of man, particularly you right now. But please oh please don't throw out the baby with the water... tvashy

 

 

To your first point: exactly, I'm glad you got it, gold star .

 

To your second: Mitigation is good

 

To your third: What I said was "some may confuse this for a fatalistic attitude"

 

"Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do."......This is a beautiful sentence, may I borrow it?

 

I guess I have failed to impart my message if you really think that what I said is somehow disconnected from nature...that's sure not my intention, are you having a hard time getting past being called a kook?

 

I am satisified to let my actions do my talking (in terms of my relationship with the planet anyway)...are you?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Eating local = eating country food in the country. Doesn't get more local than next door.

 

So, by your logic, city people shouldn't buy food.

 

The health of the 'local', sustainable agricultural movement depends on linking consumers (mostly in cities) with producers. People actually involved with the movement take 'local' to mean as close as possible...not down the street. I would have thought an expert such as yourself would have known that.

 

BTW, here's your answer:

 

 

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

 

To me it seems that humans have some how become so completely alienated from the same process that made them and every other living thing as well, that we somehow think that the way we act is unnatural.

 

We are right in the thick of it. Only this time termination may come at our own hands, a relatively novel idea in earth history, although not unique.

 

So, what it comes down to is that I am a fan of nature, not man.

So, you believe that man is a part of nature, but you're a fan of nature, not man. And the rest of us are supposed to think harder on this one?

 

Ultimately, I find "environmentalists" are the most selfish becuase they seek to preserve the earth in some arbitrary state that they have deemed satisfactory....and for what? To save the planet? The planet is fine....

 

I think a better term for the "environmentalist" movement is the "static preservationalist" movement as it so much better describes what you kooks are up to.

 

 

There's a difference between trying to preserve a dynamic system in a static state, and trying to mitigate damage to all species, not just our own, that you know, via the intelligence that nature may or may not have granted you, is both happening and avoidable. Perhaps you should think harder on this one....

 

 

The game was over before it started: Earth-1 Humans-0

 

Actually, the game as you define it is: Earth-0 The earth has as finite a life as any species, including our own. This is a fatalistic attitude, as you say, and therefore wholly unnatural. Fatalism is the luxury of idle intellect coddled by overabundance. Nature is, by definition, not fatalistic at all. Nature keeps giving everything it's got to keep going. Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do. Your's is the attitude of the wounded herd animal; it is artificially disconnected from nature, not in love with it.

 

 

Well formulated...And truth told, I am a fan of man, particularly you right now. But please oh please don't throw out the baby with the water... tvashy

 

 

To your first point: exactly, I'm glad you got it, gold star .

 

To your second: Mitigation is good

 

To your third: What I said was "some may confuse this for a fatalistic attitude"

 

"Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do."......This is a beautiful sentence, may I borrow it?

 

I guess I have failed to impart my message if you really think that what I said is somehow disconnected from nature...that's sure not my intention, are you having a hard time getting past being called a kook?

 

I am satisified to let my actions do my talking (in terms of my relationship with the planet anyway)...are you?

 

OK, my bad for misquoting.

 

Everybody I know seems to get the picture that the global shit is hitting the fan, so I don't get called a kook too often, with the exception of certain celebrities on this forum. I agree completely that Nature is not always very nice, nor does 'she' or 'it' or whatever give a rats ass whether we survive or not. The only entity that cares about that is us...plus cows, house cats, and head lice. OK, I wouldn't know about the cows; as has been pointed out, I've never seen one. Ditto for the lice.

 

As for being satisfied with my actions? Never.

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I grow my own vegetables.

 

 

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas?

 

anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient.

 

If anyone can figure out Dru's point in all this, please let me know.

[cj001f]

I grow my own vegetables.

 

 

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas?

 

anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient.

 

If anyone can figure out Dru's point in all this, please let me know.

 

You are trucking in exotic plants from far away to feed yourself.

[David Trippett]

Why should I give a rat's ass about the current state of the earth?... why should I really care if we as a species live or die?

 

Perhaps I misread you on some way?

 

no, but I maybe wasn't clear enough about the spirit I was arguing in.

 

my questioning is to stimulate a discussion i want to talk about, for my own intellectual and critical interest....not to thump my holy book.

[tvashtarkatena]

I grow my own vegetables.

 

 

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas?

 

anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient.

 

If anyone can figure out Dru's point in all this, please let me know.

 

You are trucking in exotic plants from far away to feed yourself.

 

They don't often truck the whole plant. Plus, sometimes there's a ship involved.

 

No one is self sufficient. Give me a break. Besides, I'm not used to a narrow Canadian diet of foraged blueberries, moose you've shot yourself, and Export A's rolled from local hothouse tobacco. As far as my avocados are concerned, I consider California, or the moon, for that matter, pretty fucking local.

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

If the total value of all of the inputs required to bring one unit of organic produce to market were identical to those required to bring one unit of produce generated by conventional agriculture to market, and the only factor making the price of organics higher was effective demand (not higher per-unit production costs ) - eventually enough farmers would respond to this price signal and grow only organic crops, until at some point the price disparity between organic crops and crops produced via conventional methods would disappear.

 

[Fairweather]

I have not always controlled my emissions in a responsible manner.

[David Trippett]

I still have some questions:

 

Knowing that the earth is by and large indifferent, and will continue on fine long after we are gone, why should I feel any sense of urgency to change the way things are going?

 

For arguments sake, let's say that a massive asteroid killed all us off tomorrow...and in a million years(a flash in the pan) the Earth was an Eden again. What's wrong with that? Is that somehow more natural than the disaster we're meteing out?

 

Why should we cry for the loss of the dodo anymore than we cry over the loss of the ammonite?

 

Could there be another reason we need to act? Because regardless of what we do or don't do, be assurred, things will be fine.

 

 

 

[AlpineK]

All I know is next spring I'm driving to Pemberton and getting on a helicopter. I promise to keep my 2 way use to under 4 hours and spend the rest of the week on skis. I'm sure I'll post a TR since none of you have convinced me otherwise.

[EWolfe]

Well put Dave. I am in complete agreement, and it takes way less energy to accept things as they are!

 

People are the strangest animals...

[wfinley]

Could there be another reason we need to act? Because regardless of what we do or don't do, be assurred, things will be fine.

 

Avitripp – I think it could be argued that all human endeavors are essentially selfish – be it art, business or even procreation. Environmentalism is no different in that an environmentalist is, as you put it, a “static preservationalist" that wishes to preserve the world as he or she sees it today. In a geologic sense we’ll be gone in a blink of the eye - but on a human scale we’ll see our wild places slowly give way to development, famine and disease rise to alarming levels and general misery rise to levels beyond what we can comprehend today.

 

The dodo and ammonite can be easily dismissed as archaic breeds that were destined to fail. Polar bear populations are in decline; but should it not matter because warming is a trend we can’t do anything about? When famine spreads across Africa do you not support relief efforts because (geologically speaking) key areas of the earth turn to desert on a regular basis?

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Could there be another reason we need to act? Because regardless of what we do or don't do, be assurred, things will be fine.

 

Avitripp – I think it could be argued that all human endeavors are essentially selfish – be it art, business or even procreation. Environmentalism is no different in that an environmentalist is, as you put it, a “static preservationalist" that wishes to preserve the world as he or she sees it today. In a geologic sense we’ll be gone in a blink of the eye - but on a human scale we’ll see our wild places slowly give way to development, famine and disease rise to alarming levels and general misery rise to levels beyond what we can comprehend today.

 

The dodo and ammonite can be easily dismissed as archaic breeds that were destined to fail. Polar bear populations are in decline; but should it not matter because warming is a trend we can’t do anything about? When famine spreads across Africa do you not support relief efforts because (geologically speaking) key areas of the earth turn to desert on a regular basis?

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

I'm not sure what 'the earth will be fine' means. There have been at least 5 mass extinctions in the past, and by all accounts we're in the middle of number 6, and this one is caused soley by us. The most devastating mass extinction killed 90% of all species. It took many, many millions of years for life to reestablish itself - a conclusion which is far from foregone in the future. Is a state of global devastation 'OK'? Not from a biological standpoint. Yes, the rock will still be here, but it's biology that determines the 'health' of the planet.

 

We control the levers now. Why not ease them away from devastation? It's completely a human choice, but, unfortunately given our basic nature, it's a collective one.

 

Regardless of time scales, whether our own lives or geologically, small changes over time lead to big ones. Small changes in the right direction is something all of us can handle.

Edited August 30, 2007 by tvashtarkatena