4 ms·

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-self-important-everybody-s-going-to-save-something-now-save https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-se

by tekacs 10y ago

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-self-important-everybody-s-going-to-save-something-now-save https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-self-import... (no affiliation or particular interest in George Carlin, just remembered the quote (via Stargate episode 'Brain Storm'))

booleandilemma 10y ago
He's spot on about plastic. They recently discovered bacteria that can degrade it: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/does-newly-discovered-bacteria-recycle-plastic/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/does-newly-discovered...
- tekacs 10y ago
  They money quote for me, especially relevant to the parent, is: 'The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!' (but yes, more generally short term thinking has to go both ways - we do things that damage the biosphere because we don't think ahead, but we also think far enough ahead to see the ways the planet (or even just our economy/ecosystem) will react - see plastic degrading bacteria, peak oil)
dredmorbius 10y ago
Lifeforms have profoundly changed the Earth before, and will quite likely do so again. Meantime, what humans are doing -- not generally maliciously -- to the planet and biosphere has quite profound effects on what sort of life future humans might be able to live. Looking simply at terrestrial vertebrate biomass gives some indication of this (there are many, many other measures): https://m.facebook.com/notes/paul-chefurka/more-thoughts-on-carrrying-capacity-and-sustainability/10153280720982589 https://m.facebook.com/notes/paul-chefurka/more-thoughts-on-... And it's quite likely that some form of disease will play a large role in reversing this situation.
- tekacs 10y ago
  Yup, all fair enough and stuff I can agree with. I was trying to remind the parent poster that 'saving the planet' is a metaphor at best - ordinarily it should always involve saving humans. An accidental reversal of the situation as you describe is quite different from the parent's even joking suggestion (as in Dan Brown's 'Inferno' :P) that it would be good to introduce a disease to stop humans from doing more damage. Aside from the basic moral problems with that approach (genocide?), it would not be surprising if any such disease became striated in its spread along wealth or other social lines, or simply borders and it could stall our progress in finding useful solutions to the problems we've already created. From a utilitarian perspective, we can turn the problem around and look at, as you suggest, 'a disease which may reverse the situation'. In consistency with my above perspective, I'm all for doing every bit we can to stop such a disease if it crops up - even at a detriment to the biosphere. Now whether we'll be able to or not is a question we don't yet have an answer to, perhaps. :) (that said, saving the planet for future humans would be a worthwhile endeavour, if we were any good at looking even a moderate distance ahead - whether we can usefully predict the medium-term effects of almost anything at all is highly debatable however, as suggested by the sibling poster commenting on plastics)
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I don't find the distinction you and Carlin make to be productive. Carlin is flat wrong that humans cannot impact that planet, though the question's still open if we can have positive impacts. In at least one case (ozone) we've avoided catastrophe. The general question I've been focusing on is one of whether or not the Enlightenment and Technological experiments can be continued. If so, there's almost certainly a tremendous trade between standard of living and number of inhabitants possible. Reading I'm doing presently (Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History) suggests that energy requirements of about 2 tons of oil equivalent per person per year are required. I'm thinking that's going to have to come from entirely renewable sources. Those fluxes and conversions are distinctly limited. Joel Cohen seems to be the author who's done the most detailed analyses of carrying capacity that I've run across (I've found multiple references to his work, I've yet to read it). E.g., http://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5222/341.long http://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5222/341.long https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ACohen%2C+Joel+E.&fq=&dblist=638&start=11&qt=next_page https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ACohen%2C+Joel+E.&fq=&...

by tekacs 10y ago

booleandilemma 10y ago

He's spot on about plastic. They recently discovered bacteria that can degrade it: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/does-newly-discovered-bacteria-recycle-plastic/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/does-newly-discovered...

tekacs 10y ago
They money quote for me, especially relevant to the parent, is: 'The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!' (but yes, more generally short term thinking has to go both ways - we do things that damage the biosphere because we don't think ahead, but we also think far enough ahead to see the ways the planet (or even just our economy/ecosystem) will react - see plastic degrading bacteria, peak oil)

dredmorbius 10y ago

Lifeforms have profoundly changed the Earth before, and will quite likely do so again. Meantime, what humans are doing -- not generally maliciously -- to the planet and biosphere has quite profound effects on what sort of life future humans might be able to live. Looking simply at terrestrial vertebrate biomass gives some indication of this (there are many, many other measures): https://m.facebook.com/notes/paul-chefurka/more-thoughts-on-carrrying-capacity-and-sustainability/10153280720982589 https://m.facebook.com/notes/paul-chefurka/more-thoughts-on-... And it's quite likely that some form of disease will play a large role in reversing this situation.

tekacs 10y ago
Yup, all fair enough and stuff I can agree with. I was trying to remind the parent poster that 'saving the planet' is a metaphor at best - ordinarily it should always involve saving humans. An accidental reversal of the situation as you describe is quite different from the parent's even joking suggestion (as in Dan Brown's 'Inferno' :P) that it would be good to introduce a disease to stop humans from doing more damage. Aside from the basic moral problems with that approach (genocide?), it would not be surprising if any such disease became striated in its spread along wealth or other social lines, or simply borders and it could stall our progress in finding useful solutions to the problems we've already created. From a utilitarian perspective, we can turn the problem around and look at, as you suggest, 'a disease which may reverse the situation'. In consistency with my above perspective, I'm all for doing every bit we can to stop such a disease if it crops up - even at a detriment to the biosphere. Now whether we'll be able to or not is a question we don't yet have an answer to, perhaps. :) (that said, saving the planet for future humans would be a worthwhile endeavour, if we were any good at looking even a moderate distance ahead - whether we can usefully predict the medium-term effects of almost anything at all is highly debatable however, as suggested by the sibling poster commenting on plastics)
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I don't find the distinction you and Carlin make to be productive. Carlin is flat wrong that humans cannot impact that planet, though the question's still open if we can have positive impacts. In at least one case (ozone) we've avoided catastrophe. The general question I've been focusing on is one of whether or not the Enlightenment and Technological experiments can be continued. If so, there's almost certainly a tremendous trade between standard of living and number of inhabitants possible. Reading I'm doing presently (Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History) suggests that energy requirements of about 2 tons of oil equivalent per person per year are required. I'm thinking that's going to have to come from entirely renewable sources. Those fluxes and conversions are distinctly limited. Joel Cohen seems to be the author who's done the most detailed analyses of carrying capacity that I've run across (I've found multiple references to his work, I've yet to read it). E.g., http://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5222/341.long http://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5222/341.long https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ACohen%2C+Joel+E.&fq=&dblist=638&start=11&qt=next_page https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ACohen%2C+Joel+E.&fq=&...