... Because the planet won't be arround long enough for it to become a problem!
First the Polar Bear,
Then the Tuna,
Then the Coral,
now the Shark.
Tomorrow the Tiger.
Soon the Earth will be a grey blighted ball.
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.
... Because the planet won't be arround long enough for it to become a problem!First the Polar Bear,
Then the Tuna,
Then the Coral,
now the Shark.Tomorrow the Tiger.
Soon the Earth will be a grey blighted ball.
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.
Now I realize why I didn't get my degree in Conservation Biology. That was depressing. I am also amazed at how people cannot think long-term. If you catch all the sharks (or fish, or whales) now, you'll be in real trouble when you want shark fin soup later.
Hey, you can't let conservation get in the way of making money!
Karzoug must be pleased. :(
I think the argument goes:
"If I don't do it, someone else will and then THEY will be getting money that should have been MINE."
Though to be honest I do promote things like armed park rangers that can shoot poachers on sight and sinking whaling vessels.
My options aren't humane but otherwise people wont stop.
I think the argument goes:
"If I don't do it, someone else will and then THEY will be getting money that should have been MINE."
Yes, that's the basis for open-access resources and public goods, which fisheries fall under. It's also why there's such a thing as 'the tragedy of the commons' and why said fisheries get depleted.
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!
GRAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, we may all die, but the sharks, the tuna, the iguanas, and the polar bears look like they'll be going first.
Well, we may all die, but the sharks, the tuna, the iguanas, and the polar bears look like they'll be going first.
I know, but it is like playing a game a Jenga. Pull out too many blocks and the whole thing comes down.
All this time and money wasted on conservation for what? do we really need ALL the species on the planet. I'm kindda glad the T-rex's aint here ya know. I mean I wouldn't mind haveing a few teeth as decorations but all in all the planets better off with out them.
I realise that this puts me in direct oposition to most of the population but when you think long term does it matter if we never see the red breasted mud sucking whatever it is?
I'm not for wholesale slaughter but if we need to build a road,bridge, house etc why should we care what animals we displace. They will either adapt or not it's thats simple, the fish have adapted to the polution in the lakes and streams the other animals can adapt as well.
My point is it's always been survival of the fittest, last I heard that hasn't changed no matter how much time and energy we waste on government conservation projects.
All this time and money wasted on conservation for what? do we really need ALL the species on the planet. I'm kindda glad the T-rex's aint here ya know. I mean I wouldn't mind haveing a few teeth as decorations but all in all the planets better off with out them.
I realise that this puts me in direct oposition to most of the population but when you think long term does it matter if we never see the red breasted mud sucking whatever it is?
I'm not for wholesale slaughter but if we need to build a road,bridge, house etc why should we care what animals we displace. They will either adapt or not it's thats simple, the fish have adapted to the polution in the lakes and streams the other animals can adapt as well.
My point is it's always been survival of the fittest, last I heard that hasn't changed no matter how much time and energy we waste on government conservation projects.
Assuming you're being serious (I'm honestly not sure):
For one thing, we can't foresee all the consequences of damaging the Earth's biodiversity. The red-breasted mud-sucking whatever-it-is might feed on insects. Said insects, left unchecked in the wake of the mud-sucker's disappearance, may then go on to devastate a local plant species. A plant species which in turn fed another species. And so on. Eventually, it's not inconceivable that we'll do something that threatens our food chain, or results in some kind of new infection, or kills off a plant that offered the cure for ________.
So even if you don't care about preserving the world for future generations, or about the animals themselves, there are plenty of self-serving reasons to care about our ecosystem. Ultimately, it is the *only* thing keeping us alive. Look at it this way: The Earth is our life support system; do you really want to go fiddling with all the knobs and buttons without knowing what they do?
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!I peed.
They have sites where people will pay for that. I'm just sayin'.
Well, we may all die, but the sharks, the tuna, the iguanas, and the polar bears look like they'll be going first.I know, but it is like playing a game a Jenga. Pull out too many blocks and the whole thing comes down.
I know. I forgot to put a sarcasm note on that one. My specialization is in ecology, believe me, I know how bad it can be.
All this time and money wasted on conservation for what? do we really need ALL the species on the planet. I'm kindda glad the T-rex's aint here ya know. I mean I wouldn't mind haveing a few teeth as decorations but all in all the planets better off with out them.
I realise that this puts me in direct oposition to most of the population but when you think long term does it matter if we never see the red breasted mud sucking whatever it is?
I'm not for wholesale slaughter but if we need to build a road,bridge, house etc why should we care what animals we displace. They will either adapt or not it's thats simple, the fish have adapted to the polution in the lakes and streams the other animals can adapt as well.
My point is it's always been survival of the fittest, last I heard that hasn't changed no matter how much time and energy we waste on government conservation projects.
The problem is that there are species that are key to their particular ecosystems. If they go, the whole structure becomes unstable. When looking at the environment, most people have myopic vision. They look at individual species, rather than how the whole system interacts. That would be like looking at your car engine and saying "I like the carburetor and the valves just fine, but those ugly spark plugs have to go. While we're at it, let's rip out this hose here and those wires; they're just ugly."
Basically, you disrupt one thing and it has an impact on the rest. Look at the dust bowl in the '30s. Bad agricultural practices led to a situation where an extended drought caused an ecological disaster that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
... Because the planet won't be arround long enough for it to become a problem!First the Polar Bear,
Then the Tuna,
Then the Coral,
now the Shark.Tomorrow the Tiger.
Soon the Earth will be a grey blighted ball.
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.
You forgot the honey bees and the depleted oxygen levels in the oceans...
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.
When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?
When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?
It's coming due all the time, in the form of interest payments (and additional debt to fund those payments) stealing resources from other priorities.
But since there isn't a single, specific date, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
Oh don't worry. There will be plenty to eat despite an oxygen-depleted ocean. Why not try some nutritious Soylent Green? It has half the calories of Soylent Orange.
*opens bag of Soylent Green and passes out samples*
Oh don't worry. There will be plenty to eat despite an oxygen-depleted ocean. Why not try some nutritious Soylent Green? It has half the calories of Soylent Orange.
*opens bag of Soylent Green and passes out samples*
Mmm. I'll take a whole case.
Further to this...
"Finally, a proposal that simply called for more research into the illegal shark trade, in which fins are harvested for shark fin soup while the rest of the animal is left to rot, was also defeated."
*shakes head*
When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?It's coming due all the time, in the form of interest payments (and additional debt to fund those payments) stealing resources from other priorities.
But since there isn't a single, specific date, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
Net interest was $188,000,000,000 for 2010 and $251,000,000,000 is the last projection I saw for 2011.
We will exceed a quarter of a trillion dollars in interest on the national debt next year, and we just keep going deeper into the hole.
When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?It's coming due all the time, in the form of interest payments (and additional debt to fund those payments) stealing resources from other priorities.
But since there isn't a single, specific date, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
We pay more than just interest, don't we? I thought we sell a note/bond at auction for x amount (say $980) then have to pay the full amount (say $1000) when the note/bond comes due (in 1,2,5,10,or 30 years).
So it's not like a credit card or mortgage where we just have to pay the interest to survive. Every time a T-note comes due, we have to pay the full amount off - and we do that by selling a new T-note at auction. Which works until interest rates rise and/or the demand for T-notes falls so that we get less money at auction (say $950) further increasing our debt and bringing us closer to bankruptcy.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Which works until interest rates rise and/or the demand for T-notes falls so that we get less money at auction (say $950) further increasing our debt and bringing us closer to bankruptcy.
Or until the largest holder of our debt *cough* China *cough* decides that it's worth the cost to their economy to ruin the U.S. economy.
When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?It's coming due all the time, in the form of interest payments (and additional debt to fund those payments) stealing resources from other priorities.
But since there isn't a single, specific date, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
We pay more than just interest, don't we? I thought we sell a note/bond at auction for x amount (say $980) then have to pay the full amount (say $1000) when the note/bond comes due (in 1,2,5,10,or 30 years).
So it's not like a credit card or mortgage where we just have to pay the interest to survive. Every time a T-note comes due, we have to pay the full amount off - and we do that by selling a new T-note at auction. Which works until interest rates rise and/or the demand for T-notes falls so that we get less money at auction (say $950) further increasing our debt and bringing us closer to bankruptcy.
That's a good explanation.
It amazes me that more people don't take the danger of this potential death spiral seriously.
I think we are in much more trouble than we understand as a nation.
Some stuff I disagree withAssuming you're being serious (I'm honestly not sure):
For one thing, we can't foresee all the consequences of damaging the Earth's biodiversity. The red-breasted mud-sucking whatever-it-is might feed on insects. Said insects, left unchecked in the wake of the mud-sucker's disappearance, may then go on to devastate a local plant species.
Make it easier said insects - say Mosquitos carrying Nile River, Ross River, or Malaria virus - go bite you and if you survive the disease its not a pleasant life afterwards.
Or you clear some trees on a hillside - you get more rain than usual then the trees that hold the soil in place aren't there any more and you die under several tons of mud.
You build your house in a Eucalypt Forrest even though you know that the trees go up like a match - in summer some dick-head starts a fire - you burn to death horribly.
Disregard the environment at your own peril.
Further to this..."Finally, a proposal that simply called for more research into the illegal shark trade, in which fins are harvested for shark fin soup while the rest of the animal is left to rot, was also defeated."
*shakes head*
Well I had a long, researched and linked post but my browser chose to crash.
Summary:People chose to rally behind the 'stop the seal hunt' banner even though:
1) the seal population is continually increasing (despite the annual culling)
2) the seal is used for multiple purposes (meat and fur)
3) the animals are killed in the most humane way possible (as researched by trained veterinarians and are trained before a hunt by the same)
4) baby 'white' seal pups have been illegal to kill for decades (but are still used in anti-sealing materials)
But lets ignore shark fin hunting. They aren't cute and people are frightened of them so its Ok to utterly destroy these animals.
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?
I know how bad this can be.
My point is that, once the environment colapses, it (the U.S., or the British, or the Greek, etc. economy) won't matter very much.
So, relax. We will all be dead before the National Debt comes due.When, exactly, do you believe the National Debt comes due?I know how bad this can be.
My point is that, once the environment colapses, it (the U.S., or the British, or the Greek, etc. economy) won't matter very much.
And you really believe the environment is going to collapse before the US and European economies collapse? Essentially, saying an environmental collapse is imminent?
Its hard to put in context - Its less about the destruction of the planet and more about the survivability of the human race.
If there is a massive environmental breakdown - life will bounce back humanity probably wont.
We have had mass extinctions before - I think that we should aim not to be part of one.
<SNIP>
It amazes me that more people don't take the danger of this potential death spiral seriously.I think we are in much more trouble than we understand as a nation.
Agree 100%. It's not too late, but it's darn close.
Given that I supported the passage of the health care reform bill, you might find surprising. How can I believe our budget deficit (and ballooning debt) are a (the?) problem, while at the same time supporting an increase in entitlement spending? A couple of reasons: Because I'm not sold on the idea that health care for all is really going to cost society more in the long run, and because I believe some things are worth doing, even while tightening our belts.
In the interest of practicality, what then would I do to balance the budget?
First of all, I'm willing to be a member of the first generation that pays social security tax, but doesn't necessarily collect social security benefits. Yes, that sucks, but if that's what it takes to fix the problem, then so be it.
I'm also willing to pay higher income taxes. I'll take that hit so my children don't have to. If I have to adjust my standard of living, have a smaller house, take fewer vacations, etc., in order to get our country back on track, then so be it.
Further, I think most of my fellow citizens feel the same way. The problem is ensuring the sacrifices mean something. That they really fix the problem, rather than ending up lining someone's pocket.
I'm also willing to pay higher income taxes. I'll take that hit so my children don't have to. If I have to adjust my standard of living, have a smaller house, take fewer vacations, etc., in order to get our country back on track, then so be it.Further, I think most of my fellow citizens feel the same way. The problem is ensuring the sacrifices mean something. That they really fix the problem, rather than ending up lining someone's pocket.
I tend to agree, but predictably from my perspective I have zero confidence in the government to stop being corrupt and wasteful. I am convinced that even if we raised taxes by a trillion dollars a year Congress would still find a way to run deficits and run the entitlement programs into the ground.
OTOH we have never privatized any significant entitlement program, so there is little if any hope of mitigating the $2,184,000,000,000 per year of social spending which is increasing rapidly.
BTW I'm getting my 2011 numbers from here.
relevant to the debt:
I personally came to the conclusion that we are past the point off no return quite some time ago.We are seeing the last defiant flurry of a dying race..humanity.
When humanity is gone the Earth will repair itself, not before..
This WSJ/HF editorial makes the statement below. I have heard it repeated often by conservatives, but I fail to see the basis in fact. How is Obama's projected $7.6 trillion (as horrifying as that is) more than the $10 trillion accumulated before he was president? What am I missing here?
"Doubling the Debt
President Obama has harshly criticized the $3.3 trillion in budget deficits accumulated in eight years under President Bush.[8] Yet President Obama is now proposing to borrow $7.6 trillion during what would be his own eight years in the White House. (See Chart 2.) In fact, President Obama would add more to the national debt than every other President in American history from George Washington through George W. Bush combined."
How is Obama's projected $7.6 trillion (as horrifying as that is) more than the $10 trillion accumulated before he was president? What am I missing here?
You're missing the sincere effort put in on the math problem. They may be wrong, but they still deserve a trophy for trying. :)
|
All this time and money wasted on conservation for what? do we really need ALL the species on the planet. I'm kindda glad the T-rex's aint here ya know. I mean I wouldn't mind haveing a few teeth as decorations but all in all the planets better off with out them.
I realise that this puts me in direct oposition to most of the population but when you think long term does it matter if we never see the red breasted mud sucking whatever it is?
I'm not for wholesale slaughter but if we need to build a road,bridge, house etc why should we care what animals we displace. They will either adapt or not it's thats simple, the fish have adapted to the polution in the lakes and streams the other animals can adapt as well.
My point is it's always been survival of the fittest, last I heard that hasn't changed no matter how much time and energy we waste on government conservation projects.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
Now now CJ, it'll be all right....
How is Obama's projected $7.6 trillion (as horrifying as that is) more than the $10 trillion accumulated before he was president? What am I missing here?You're missing the sincere effort put in on the math problem. They may be wrong, but they still deserve a trophy for trying. :)
Fellow fiscal conservatives and Republicans:
I'm actually being serious. I have heard this statement regurgitated on the media, on the floor of the House on the record, and at my local Republican caucus.
It seems very easy to refute for any one who can add so frankly it just makes fiscal conservatives sound inept, and yet I think I'm hearing it more not less.
The exploding debt and deficits are an unmitigated disaster, but shouldn't our argument against it be based in fact, or am I just utterly failing to grasp some obvious mathematical explanation for this assertion?
Seriously.
Somehow it seems typical that China and Japan are the 2 countries opposing these conservation measures. China in particular has some bad cultural practices (the utterly ineffectual "traditional medicines" -tiger and bear body parts, rhino horns, etc. Then there are the markets that are breeding grounds for diseases (SARS, anyone?) probably quite a few other things) This isn't even specific to the governments this is stupidity and hideboundedness of the people and culture in the area, long held though such things are. Grumble.
Hey 8th Dwarf, is it safe to assume you've read Collapse by Jared Diamond?
No its on my list though.
A more detailed answer for Mr Tindal.
I grew up in a small town called Ballina on the far north coast of New South Wales (a state of Australia). Where I grew up had tropical rain forest and industries included sugar cane, fruit, dairy and fishing.
The first thing to go was the fishing industry, everybody put it down to overfishing. The number of trawlers dropped from 40 - 10 that was about 240 people out of work - the fish stock kept dropping.
The environmental scientists said take a look at what you are doing with the wetlands. People asked why would mangrove swamps be important. The swamps were being "reclaimed", filled in for housing, sugar cane and dairy farming.
The wetlands are where the fish go to lay their eggs. No mangrove swamp no prawns, perch, bream, flathead, leather jackets, or mullet. Building farms over the swamps will killing the fishing industry.
The scientists also said that the fruit and sugar-cane farmers were using chemicals that the eggs and spawn were particularly sensitive to.
It took years for the farming practices to change, the fishing industry is a ghost of its former-self, last time I went back there were 3 boats.
There are a host of other environmental problems - going on. I would say in my life time I will never again sit out on the breakwater watching the lights of 40 trawlers bobbing up and down.
I agree with DM Wellard we have passed the point of no return. Too late we are starting to recognise how interconnected everything is. Crap one thing up it affects everything around it. Crap enough things up we are on a cascading slide into hell.
The next big wars will be over fresh water and food production.
And, even more on the original topic.
I keep wondering what Asia will do when they eat all the fish in the sea.