[quote]pittbulll wrote:
total straw man argument , it is called climate change , most scientists agree that it is man made , no one says we should go back to no cars or no civilization . What we need is a sustainable way of life . And contrary to certain economists , it may not be the cheapest [/quote]
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…
Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]
the human race has learned from our mistakes , they learned that if they put the latrine up river from the village they get sick , in 1969 they learned when you pollute a river it can catch on fire . Learning from one’s mistakes is a sign of intellect
Just imagine, how many times in human history, the prediction of global disaster has been made.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, endured thousands, maybe million, of climate phenomena, yet we have the nerve to think we can predict the end of days. [/quote]
the Earth will remain but the demise of the Human race is inevitable . I am sure we will take many other species with us . Just my opinion :)[/quote]
If I remember correctly, eventually the sun will turn into a red giant at which point the earth will be inside the sun.[/quote]
just because the earth were to lose it’s position in the universe would not mean it would cease to exist
Just imagine, how many times in human history, the prediction of global disaster has been made.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, endured thousands, maybe million, of climate phenomena, yet we have the nerve to think we can predict the end of days. [/quote]
the Earth will remain but the demise of the Human race is inevitable . I am sure we will take many other species with us . Just my opinion :)[/quote]
If I remember correctly, eventually the sun will turn into a red giant at which point the earth will be inside the sun.[/quote]
just because the earth were to lose it’s position in the universe would not mean it would cease to exist
[/quote]
? If the Earth were “inside the sun” I think it would cease to exist…
Just imagine, how many times in human history, the prediction of global disaster has been made.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, endured thousands, maybe million, of climate phenomena, yet we have the nerve to think we can predict the end of days. [/quote]
the Earth will remain but the demise of the Human race is inevitable . I am sure we will take many other species with us . Just my opinion :)[/quote]
If I remember correctly, eventually the sun will turn into a red giant at which point the earth will be inside the sun.[/quote]
just because the earth were to lose it’s position in the universe would not mean it would cease to exist
[/quote]
? If the Earth were “inside the sun” I think it would cease to exist…[/quote]
yes
No. My contention that the most accurate way to know something is safe is to eat what humans did for 6 million years. Reviews of indigenous populations were brought up as supporting evidence. Not the other way around.[/quote]
Without reading or writing, how do you propose to know what someone who died even 20 min. before you were born ate?
You don’t eat what your 6-million-year ancestors ate without eating what your father and his father ate. You don’t eat what your father and his father ate without a stable, communal food supply. If only there were a way to generate a stable, communal food supply…
You said it runs on fossil fuel and is unsustainable. I said that’s untrue, it runs on whatever fuel is abundant and cheap and is only as ‘sustainable’ as the fuel specified. And, given that we farm phenomenally trivial crops, we must be pretty energetically far from the borderline between sustainable and unsustainable.
Maybe you have to jiggle the cord a little once you’ve got it plugged back in? Make sure it’s not frayed anywhere.
If that’s true, then the problem isn’t with the car. Not having met you or been in your car, I can only surmise that the odor problem is more perception-oriented.
So the the folks on this thread that are for industrial agriculture are saying thats the only way it can be done? Better tell Europe and South America that…
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
So the the folks on this thread that are for industrial agriculture are saying thats the only way it can be done? Better tell Europe and South America that…[/quote]
Show me anyone who is saying that commercial agriculture is the only way it can be done. Provide just a single quote, that’s all.
There is a huge difference between saying it is the only way and saying it is the most efficient and productive way.
Western Europe is a slave whore to the government handout. South America has one, maybe two countries that would qualify as a second world country.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Then by that definition, civilization is unsustainable because our mere presence upsets the ecological balance.
There is no such thing as peak oil. At the very worst, “sustainability” is local and is impossible to extrapolate local sustainability risks to create a global problem.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Then by that definition, civilization is unsustainable because our mere presence upsets the ecological balance.
There is no such thing as peak oil. At the very worst, “sustainability” is local and is impossible to extrapolate local sustainability risks to create a global problem. [/quote]
Sustainable is balance between consumption and creation or a resource, not lack of consumption. No, not all civilization is unsustainable.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Then by that definition, civilization is unsustainable because our mere presence upsets the ecological balance.
There is no such thing as peak oil. At the very worst, “sustainability” is local and is impossible to extrapolate local sustainability risks to create a global problem. [/quote]
Sustainable is balance between consumption and creation or a resource, not lack of consumption. No, not all civilization is unsustainable.[/quote]
Going by your definition civilization is horrifically unsustainable. If you’re going to stick to the definition, you can’t pick and choose what is sustainable or not. Animals are unsustainable. Our existence is unsustainable.
Which is why worrying about sustainability is such a joke.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
total straw man argument , it is called climate change , most scientists agree that it is man made , no one says we should go back to no cars or no civilization . What we need is a sustainable way of life . And contrary to certain economists , it may not be the cheapest [/quote]
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…
Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]
You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Then by that definition, civilization is unsustainable because our mere presence upsets the ecological balance.
There is no such thing as peak oil. At the very worst, “sustainability” is local and is impossible to extrapolate local sustainability risks to create a global problem. [/quote]
Sustainable is balance between consumption and creation or a resource, not lack of consumption. No, not all civilization is unsustainable.[/quote]
Going by your definition civilization is horrifically unsustainable. If you’re going to stick to the definition, you can’t pick and choose what is sustainable or not. Animals are unsustainable. Our existence is unsustainable.
Which is why worrying about sustainability is such a joke. [/quote]
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.
But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
total straw man argument , it is called climate change , most scientists agree that it is man made , no one says we should go back to no cars or no civilization . What we need is a sustainable way of life . And contrary to certain economists , it may not be the cheapest [/quote]
Isn’t it weird how life sustained itself perfectly fine millions of years ago when it was hotter and the CO2 concentration was several times greater…
Damn I wish we know how mother nature managed that without us all that time. Luckily though we’re here now to figure out how to sustain life on Earth.[/quote]
You do understand that vast portions of this continent were covered by water then right?[/quote]
I also think to say the Earth has done fine is a GROSS misstatement
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Then by that definition, civilization is unsustainable because our mere presence upsets the ecological balance.
There is no such thing as peak oil. At the very worst, “sustainability” is local and is impossible to extrapolate local sustainability risks to create a global problem. [/quote]
Sustainable is balance between consumption and creation or a resource, not lack of consumption. No, not all civilization is unsustainable.[/quote]
Going by your definition civilization is horrifically unsustainable. If you’re going to stick to the definition, you can’t pick and choose what is sustainable or not. Animals are unsustainable. Our existence is unsustainable.
Which is why worrying about sustainability is such a joke. [/quote]
No. I am going by my (the dictionary) definition. It does not make animals unsustainable.
But again, this whole line of argument is deflection. You keep going into a “Timmy’s mom lets him do it” defense.[/quote]
pig has never used a dictionary the concept that words have set meanings is beyond his grasp:)
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
So the the folks on this thread that are for industrial agriculture are saying thats the only way it can be done? Better tell Europe and South America that…[/quote]
Do you even know what goes on in other countries? We don’t have to tell Europe, they already know. Less that 3% of agricultural land use is organic. The leaders in organic farming are the same nations that will lead us into the future, right? Italy? Spain? It says a lot when the Germans and the French let the Italians take the lead in this movement.
I’m not too sure what share of the organic market Brazil makes up, but I know they are current and persistent global leaders of deforestation and I know that organic food, kinda intrinsically, requires more land per bushel than conventional. Which isn’t to say that organic isn’t successful in Brazil, but kinda points to the idea that, in a best case scenario, a switch to organic isn’t an environmental win by any means.
Industrial farming is not the only way it can be done, it’s the only way it can be done for 7B+ people (esp. with existing technology). Organic can’t/won’t be the solution because it relies on inherently inferior methods and technologies. Moreover, these technologies don’t address the larger issues within the global system. That is to say, if we discovered a carbon neutral source of energy tomorrow, our CO2 concerns and energy demands vanish (temporarily) and industrial farming is still the more efficient way to do things. Like I said, farmers aren’t dumping anhydrous ammonia on soybeans because they hate rhizobia or love anhydrous, they do it because the demand for more soy exists and continues to rise.
There are certainly parts of modern industrial agriculture that could be done better. Organic farming isn’t it, it’s the parts of agriculture we that we couldn’t do better in the past when energy wasn’t cheap and abundant.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Using up fossil fuel then moving to another resource isn’t sustainability. [/quote]
Sustainability is the capacity to endure.
Sustainable:
to give support or relief to
to supply with sustenance : nourish
So, when we give agricultural support or relief to another nation, do we do it organically? When we supply people with sustenance and nourish them, is organic food somehow advantageous? How sustainable do you happen to be?
You have an arbitrarily contrived definition of sustainable that fits your romantic notions of what you want to be true. If we consumed all the worlds oil reserves and left the ecosystems as they existed before mankind, converted the human race to solar-powered brain-driven robots, moved to Venus and lived on thermal gradients and solar energy until the Sun swallowed us or we beamed ourselves to the next exoplanet, by your definition every aspect of those developments is unsustainable because it a) depletes resources and b) doesn’t achieve a “balance”.
I’m not saying that’s how it will happen, I’m just saying that the definitions of sustainable are far more convoluted and twisted than the one sentence you concoct by yourself and for your own purposes.
