for the skeptical

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TomB, Feb 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. Well said. If some one were giving me a a bet with a 90% chance of it coming through, I would take it every time.

    Oh and everbody that is complaining about why the US is being picked on is because we produce 25% of the worlds garbage and use more oil on a per day basis than France, Great Britain, and Germany combined. We are the worlds biggest consumers, why does this suprise anybody? Logically isn't it smart with the biggest areas of pollution with the technology and economy to do it.

    I don't think of getting rid of fossil fuels as a problem or cost, I see it as an opportunity for the US who produces the most food in the world to become the biggest ethanol producer in the world. This would save us a ton of money in the short and long run. Gas is never going to be cheaper than it is today. Ethanol gets cheaper and cheaper with advancing technology and use.

    Switching to any kind of renewable energy would also give the US a whole new industry...more jobs, more taxes paid, and a stronger economy. Also throw in the bonus of not having to pay billions of dollars in tax money to subsidize US farmers.

    Brazil did it why can't we?
  2. I agree with most of what you say, but Brazil has a different climate than we do. When their sugar cane market dropped out from under them, they had to deal with it. Sugar cane is a much better crop for producing ethanol than corn or switch grass. We can get good at producing ethenol from our crops, but it will take more time and energy to do it effeciently.

  3. Though I just skipped five pages of presumably blahbety blah crap, I guess I'm gonna have to get all hypocritical and join you guys. Talking on an internet forum is about as small of an effort as we can put in. Stating your environment opinions on a 99% conservationist website is like putting a "kill the fuckin terrorists" sticker on your GMC Jimmy and driving through Northern Idaho.
    Though I'm probably lazier than most of you guys, let's do something about all this global warming shite soon! Cars are only part of the problem:
    <img src="">
    We need to completely re-develop our sources of energy, which will cost trillions. So we're screwed.
  4. If we could go the way of Brazil, it would be nice. Problem is they have, i believe, a much longer growing season allowing for 3 crops a year.
    I understand to even attempt this course, would mean clearing an "additional" 100 Million acres of land. Seems doing that would counter the said purpose. I have to say though, that i feel a 100 Million acres is hardly enough. It would be a measurable result, but my simple math says thats only about ONE acre per vehicle in this country. One acre will not drive your car for a year. I admit, this is only my stupid opinion.

    (p.s. Touche' Otter)
  5. Here are some facts about global warming from someone completing an Archaeology MA and a study on PNW climatological cycling:

    Climatic cycling is natural

    Increases in temperature, and fluxuating sea levels are totally normal

    The late Pleistiocene and Holocene, roughly the last 14,000 years, have been marked by especially rapid changes in temperature, both as increases in temperature and decreasing temperature. When human first began populating this region (app. around 13,000 years before present), the area we know as dominated by cedar and hemlock forests, were temperate tundra - an ecosystem which no longer exists. The disintegration of the temperate tundra ecosystem was totally natural.

    Depending on the section of the PNW (an area I'm describing as Southern Oregon north to Cook Inlet, AK), sea levels have risen and fallen 50 meters.


    This most recent climatic spike (meaning the last 300 years), is unprecedented in any of our records (obtained primarily through glacial coring).

    Variations of carbon levels in the core samples suggests an extremely high rate of burning fossil fuels as the most likely cause for this potential spike.

    Vehicles are a huge problem, but the burning of coal in China as an energy source produces significantly more impact on the change in climate than the burning of fuels in the USA.

    This would imply that more powerful, wealthy nations (like the United States) have a responsibility both to provide an example of better environmental standards with their own action, but also to pressure and encourage those other nations such as China (with which they are primary trade partners) to improve their environmental standards.

    I just felt like with the glut of opinions some facts were necessary. The last portion is only my deductive reasoning that i feel is supported by facts. anyone that cares to interpret this in a different way, hurl personal attacks, debate facts/figures, or accuse me of being a communist, feel free to PM me, rather than forcing the whole board to read it.
  6. No it doesn't make one a hypocrite to learn from your mistakes, but I seriously doubt that he considers his two youngest children "mistakes".

    But telling others that they shouldn't experience the joy of having children while enjoying his four children and subsequent grandchildren does make one a hypocrite.

    Now, if he were willing to sacrifice two of his children to get below the replacement level.....
  7. Studies have shown that overall individual happiness actually decreases when you have children. We of course belive otherwise, or how else would we propogate our species, a nifty little adaptaion.

    I do feel that this is the only way to work out a long term solution to our problems--to stop over populating.

    Furthermore, someone mentioned that scientists predicted mass starvations and used this as an attempt to discredit science in general. This is a faulty comparison at best. First and foremost--we where reaching the earth's carrying capacity. This was of course raised by the Green or agricultural revolutiuon of the 1970s (If my memory serves me right).

    To everyone who keeps bringing up the predicted Ice age. One must remember that this was a time when you'd have been lucky to fit a computer in your living room. Technology, science and what we know and understand about the world had changed dramatically and will continue to expand. It's not perfect now, but it's a lot better than it was in the past.

  8. Yow Boy Howdy -

    "not directly reproduce" as far as I know doesn't set any population quotas per couple.

    Hmmmmmmmm. Snyder + 4 wives + 4 children = 5 adults, 4 children, which = .8 children per adult.

    Which brings me to one of my favorite homilies, which is "figures lie, and liars figure".

    This is not pointed at you, personally.

    We have the law of averages operating here. Some people have 10 kids, some people have 0 kids.

    Overall, the human population is overwhelming the environment.

    I personally would not choose the Maoist solution of jailtime for those who exceed the "replacement level". This is pure micromanagement and doomed to fail from the gitgo.

    So, as to Snyder's thesis about sharing children and limiting population growth (my comment: his having four kids is statistically insignificant and well within the scope of his argument), just exactly what is your solution to this challenge?

    i.e., are we counting the number of angels that can be fitted onto the head of a pin here, or a realistic way to confront the crisis?

  9. I finally agree to this warming thing-- today I was on the river fishing in 65* temps in early February, maybe we should have the Masters in January and Christmas in June
  10. Your calculation assumes that each of Snyder's ex-wives had no further children during their lifetimes; highly unlikely!

    What is the solution to population? Don't know! However I do know that societies that have below replacement birth rates are having their own problems; it's sometimes called the law of unintended consquences.

    Many European nations are currently below replacement birth rates. This is having serious consquences on their overly generous social welfare systems. We are having the same problem only to a lesser extent. As people live longer and longer, it takes more people to support the elderly. There must be doctors, nurses, factory workers, garbage collectors, etc. to serve this aging population. The European nations are meeting much of this demand by imigration from Muslum nations, just as we are meeting it from Mexico.

    Unless we intend to keep working to the day we die (I know I don't), I have no idea what the solution is. What would you suggest, Soylent Green or maybe an army of Sandmen to control overpopulation?
  11. OK. A little bit of meataxe logic here. And BTW working the argument by asking me the same question I asked you is a rhetorical device perfected as long ago as the Attic Greeks, and does not face up to the question.

    That being said..................

    Northern European and North American populations no longer put high cultural values on the number of children per couple because (relatively) good wages and governmental support systems no longer make multigenerational support (kids) a cultural imperative. "Third World" populations are the exact opposite. No wonder, then, that first world birthrates are declining and third world populations still depend on a high birthrate for survival. The first tradeoff here is that the first world countries consume the lion's share of the world's resources. The second tradeoff is that they can no longer afford their own labor rates, and thus must attract cheap third world labor, despite the social consequences ("illegal immigrants" in both North America and Europe, as you sd.).

    Now, it will all even out in the end, whether we participate or not.

    "Knowing we need do nothing, is where we begin"

    -Gary Snyder -

    However, it is a common human ideal to improve our lot within our several common generations, that we have interdependence with. By this I mean great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, etc.

    What we are beginning to realize is that being a member in good standing of a family in Minnesota no longer applies. The scope, and the risks, are bigger.

    Long term survival is no longer a regional, tribal issue. It is global.

    The US, in my opinion, is not doing either itself of the world any favors by positioning itself at the top of the world food chain, whether you look at economics, politics, social agenda or warfare.

    And blaming China doesn't work. The Chinese are merely following the economic/political/social order we (the USA) have inflicted on the globe in our quest for dominance.

    Strong words, I know.

    Now, sir, having used the rhetorical trick of answering my question with my own question, rebut my argument if you can.

  12. Unbelievable....

    Otter, I am so sorry for you. I'm sure it is very difficult carrying this burden of yours. Having been born (?) in this Greatest Nation to ever exist, and have to enjoy all it has to offer you and your family such as freedom, the abiltiy just to go fishing and hunting, all the National Parks and such and an economy matched by none, allowing you to have flat screen tv's, a grociery store on every corner, cheap fuel (yes i said it) a safe car for your family, the abiltiy to live large if thats your choosing or your luck, and the ability to possess and use the very computer you are now reading this response on. To have to endure the reputation and knowledge that the Government which provides for you you, has as well, done more for the worlds population than any body of government in world history, including the lives of more than 600,000 of its citizens, so that others from other countries can live free, while asking for nothing more than the soil to bury our Fallen. It must be hard to hold your head up, when you hate yourself, your roots and your Country. While this Country also provides you with the freedom to use this soap box, just as it does for me, it as well provides you with the freedom to leave.

    U.S.A 84-91 95b
  13. gearhead,
    Questioning the current direction of our country or the actions of our economy does not equate to being un-american. Thats the sort of attitude thats gotten us stuck in Iraq, and frankly it is counter productive. Dont feed me that holier than thou, patriot junk, because I'm not biting. Its easy to sit back and enjoy our style of life, but thinking about the implications for the future of all humans and animals on earth is part of our duty as "americans".

    My .02
  14. Damn. Haven't thought about Nixon, or "America, Love it or Leave It", for awhile. Who was it, Spiro Agnew (another great American leader), going on about the "nattering nabobs of negativism", during another period when we were questioning absolutely lousy authority?

    My point?

    I'm on the side of Thomas Paine, just for starters. The freedom to question, and the freedom to disagree, has nothing to do with the political/economic lockstep of being the wealthiest, and most powerful nation on Earth.

    My contention here is that England, at the time of the American Revolution, was suffering a similar state of national arrogance & egomania.

    Thomas Paine, Benj. Franklin, Thos. Jefferson, and others, commonly known as our founding fathers, had the wisdom to recognize that anomaly, and act upon it.

    Personally, I'd rather not repeat history................

    What does this have to do with fishing? Well, for starters,
    you can never walk in the same river twice.

    Apologies in advance to the shade of Heraclitus.

  15. I came of age in San Francisco in the seventies... Man... I hate Hippies... Now Billy Jack, he could bring it! :cool:
  16. I know it's my own stupid opinion, but it seems that at some point, too much education seems to deteriorate the mind and strip it of common sense.
    It has been my observation and belief now, that "at some point" education adds a credit of arrogance and ignorance for every credit earned.

    As for the current situation, it does not help to support the troops or our Country by enboldening the enemy. It's a sad state of affair that we have so many citizens and their elected Demacrat leaders being watched on TV daily by the terrorists and their supporters now, with the "My enemies, (Bush), enemy is my friend"
    Very sad, and our troops are paying for it.

    Sorry for the hijack, vent over.
  17. What our troops are paying for is over optimistic and poorly thought out policy decisions. Our troops are paying for a hack eyed neo-con ploy to tame the Middle East by implementing a western style democracy. I don't see how disagreeing with the administration is emboldening the enemy. We aren't loosing this war because of lack of popular support on the home front.

    I agree that education can lead to a certain amount of arrogance. But I highly doubt that it deteriorates common sense (in a bad way) and leads to ignorance. It seems to me that you equate disagreeing with your point of view with ignorance and lack of common sense. People have different lenses through which they see the world, this difference in perspective are what leads to the discrepancies in people's points of view. Education does change this lens, but not by making people ignorant. It can erode areas of common sense; the areas of common sense which lead to faulty assumptions about how the world works.
  18. ahhh, education bashing!! we should burn all the books. remember that the neoconservatives running that political powerhouse are all well educated too. Just better at tricking working class americans into thinking they mater.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page