Re: Torch It, Scorch It

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:42:23 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

... posted something that has NOTHING to do with horses and as
such is 100% off-topic for rec.eq.

Yes, JC, you just did.

this incessent [sic] off-topic posting...
jc

Poor JC: can't control herself, can't post ontopic, and
can't realize that climate and population issues are quite
relevant to the future of the horse industry.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:17:38 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dhogg2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dt6f13lk23ajh2h6l2ff0bk2g3e2ngcl5i@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

Water can be made potable by existing technology, so that's not a problem.

You'll need to tell these people:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990106075344.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/world_water_crisis/default.stm
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2916.shtml

The water problem is essentially one of too much in some places and not
enough in others. Rather than dam up rivers to control flooding, a better
alternative is to pipeline it away from flood zones to areas in need of it.
It's a network distribution model applied to water. Instead of dams and
levies, when the water exceeds acceptable levels, it would be drawn into the
pipeline system. No flood insurance needed. I can envision folks along the
Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, etc. selling their abundant resource to
folks in Arizona and Chihuahua. The Sahara could be irrigated with
desalination plants in between the pipeline and the ocean.

Before you get excited about such things as Ohio River
(or Lake Erie) water, I suggest you pull up a beakerful and
consider what's in front of you.

Ken was trying to claim, albeit without evidence, that it'd
put the USA into the stone age not to outpollute China.

Not really. His statement had more to do with continued economic leadership
for the US.

You mean the US that's bankrupt and sold off to China?

Why should developing nations, especially those which outnumber
us 4:1, receive a free pass at our expense? If pollution is a problem, its
source is irrelevant.

Why do you assume a 'free pass' or your 'expense' would be
involved with you diminishing your level of pollution?

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.

So far. The point which appears to have slipped through, is that when
populations 4-5 times the size of the US start polluting wildly, that
impact will be far greater than our's. Assuming, of course, that the
impact is genuine and not a rat hole to rip off the public, itself a
questionable proposition.

So shouldn't we show them how to avoid that mistake?

Sure - make me Emperor. <Joke alert, in case you took that seriously.>

First you'd have to tell me if .6 million Iraqi deaths would
constitute 'justice' for the victims/survivors of 9/11.

For a serious answer though, you need to explain why it is acceptable that
other nations do what you condemn the US for doing. Take your time, I'll
wait.

Why do you assume it'd be found 'acceptable'?

You seem to be saying that you can't be bothered to do
the right thing for yourself unless everyone else does so
before you do.

Are you afraid of progressing into the future at all, much
less in the lead?


On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 28, 8:22 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 10:00:41 -0700, tenwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:45 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

Overall the species has prospered wildly.

Overpopulation isn't the same thing as prosperity.

Biologically speaking, it is.

No, actually, overpopulation is denoted, in at least some
lexicons, as too many individuals for the conditions.

"...when there are more people than can live on the earth in comfort, happiness and health
and still leave the world a fit place for future generations."

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8099

The word prosperity means something other than what
occurs with overpopulation, because overpopulation
causes a failure to thrive.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/prosperity

Catastrophic losses clearly
do not always yield catastrophe. And consider that 2/3 of the earth
remains unexplored.

Why do you believe that?

Because it's true. Undersea territory is the most unexploited
resource on the planet.

You make a good point about the resources there.

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/clathrate.htm

So humans will do as we've always done - either
move on, replace the resource or adapt.

Any species can become extinct.

Yup.

Some people don't want to hasten human extinction,
or increase human suffering, or do such things to other
species, either.

Humans are ruining their ecosystems for their
own habitation rather rapidly.

Not really.

You should learn more about it. Much of agriculture is
unsustainable, and the effects of pollution are significant.

http://www.scorecard.org/

Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

So how much of the earth do you believe you should burn so it won't burn?

Not my argument, and insofar as I understand, no one else's either.
Straw dogs blow away in the wind.

You must not have seen the part with the firefighters,
though you didn't miss much, there.

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Not exactly Ken's argument.

You seem convinced that Ken can't type for himself adequately.

Nah - Ken is perfectly capable of posting. But you failed to properly
characterize his argument, and as you've made amply clear, you aren't
having a dialog but a public discourse, so it's fair game for anyone
to reply to your comment.

That'd all be irrelevant even if it weren't fallacious and false.

Ken was trying to claim, albeit without evidence, that it'd
put the USA into the stone age not to outpollute China.

He doesn't want to be environmentally wise because others are not.

You know this because...Aren't you the one who railed against being
psychoanalyzed recently?

Read what he wrote.

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.

So far. The point which appears to have slipped through, is that when
populations 4-5 times the size of the US start polluting wildly, that
impact will be far greater than our's. Assuming, of course, that the
impact is genuine and not a rat hole to rip off the public, itself a
questionable proposition.

So shouldn't we show them how to avoid that mistake?


On 27 Mar 2007 10:00:41 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:45 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

Overall the species has prospered wildly.

Overpopulation isn't the same thing as prosperity.

Catastrophic losses clearly
do not always yield catastrophe. And consider that 2/3 of the earth
remains unexplored.

Why do you believe that?

So humans will do as we've always done - either
move on, replace the resource or adapt.

Any species can become extinct.

Humans are ruining their ecosystems for their
own habitation rather rapidly.

One good volcano does more to increae global warming (ha .. what a joke
phrase) thna all our vehicles.

So if the forest fire approaches your home, you want to light the drapes?

Destroying fuel that would feed the fire isn't a bad idea.

It is if you could put out the fire first instead.

The first
Forestry Service guy (don't recall his name right now) who burned out
a patch ahead of the coming fire was thought to be nuts until the fire
swept around the group, leaving them alive. It thereafter has become
protocol.

Mary Healey's article has the specifics.

So how much of the earth do you believe you should burn so it won't burn?

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Not exactly Ken's argument.

You seem convinced that Ken can't type for himself adequately.

He doesn't want to be environmentally wise because others are not.

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.


On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

One good volcano does more to increae global warming (ha .. what a joke
phrase) thna all our vehicles.

So if the forest fire approaches your home, you want to light the drapes?

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Don't fix non-problems .. spend my tax money doing something else ..

You like the way those billions are being wasted, along with a lot of oil,
on terrorizing the Iraqis?


"Of the original Herd of 100+ Horses, only 19 remain,
the rest having been killed during the bombing of Baghdad
when their Facility was struck by a Tomahawk cruise missile."

http://www.soquilicenter.org/arab.htm

You weren't threatened by any of your victims.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Third Artist Syndrome in interplanetary adventure stories
    ... It is possible that Earth, the home of the human race, will fall ... England being the home of Anglo-Saxon culture did with America's ... England was able to dominate larger populations, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: OT: over-reaction about knives
    ... when some of the predators' populations were reduced. ... their own impulse to overpopulate the earth with their own kind? ... If nature is left to itself, it maintains "population control" over all species, and there would be no problems with "global warming" or the various other problems mankind in its unwisdom has visited upon the environment! ... problems the sfety of our nation faces! ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: Torch It, Scorch It
    ... potable - water to all those people in all those ... You mean the US that's bankrupt and sold off to China? ... their populations dwarf that of the US. ... to make a dent on planet earth. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Torch It, Scorch It
    ... tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. ... potable - water to all those people in all those ... You mean the US that's bankrupt and sold off to China? ... their populations dwarf that of the US. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: For those who believe global warming a hoax-
    ... geared toward humane farming and less factory food. ... China and India have huge populations which are making  strides toward ... Populations do have a way of eventually "sorting themselves out" ... have a near monopoly on natural resources and wealth. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
Loading