Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I indicated specifically that I was speaking of the fate of humanity and not of individuals. The Black Death arrived in England in 1348; by the end of 1349, roughly half of the population of the country was dead. In 1361, it returned and killed another 20%. The Holocaust annihilated in some cases entire families but for one person. Yet in those cases and so many others (other plagues, famines, other genocides, wars, and so forth), many people soldiered on. They did not roll over and give up - they endured, they lived, in many cases they thrived. Populations are full of such individuals. In fact, horrific crises specifically select for them. I see no reason that a full-scale nuclear war would be any different.
In the early 1960s, Frank Drake formulated his famous equation in an attempt to estimate the number of communicating (interstellar, via radio or other means) civilizations at any given time in the Milky Way through variables - the number of total stars, the fraction of which were suitable for life, the fraction of those which had planets or moons suitable for life, the fraction of those that developed life, the fraction of those that developed intelligent life, and so forth. One of the parameters was the time that a civilization remained communicating. The reasons that a civilization might stop communicating were varied: a loss of interest, technology that did not bleed into space, disasters not of their own making (nearby supernova, bolide, etc.) and self-caused collapse. The latter might be Malthusian, war, social disorder of some sort, environmental degradation, etc.
Brin addresses the issue in some depth in his class 1983 analysis, The Great Silence (see page 13 of the following PDF, halfway down that page, the section titled The (homeworld) lifespan of technological species - factor L: http://www.brin-l.com/downloads/silence.pdf
One of the problems with this solution, and most others, is that it requires complete uniformity among all civilizations. Brin notes that even if just a small percentage of civilizations (such as 1%) made it through the 'self-destructive phase', there should be numerous mature civilizations out there. But if there are, we see no trace of them.
It's a fascinating thing to ponder.
The book Collapse is a great example of how we humans have been known to "shoot ourselves in the foot." Over and over again...
Though there are countless examples of backwardness in our history and still today, there are also countless examples of progress, or what I view as the "slow maturing of man." There is no question this can easily become a question of the glass being half empty or half full. Yet another simple matter of perspective.
How to quantify whether we are making progress or not over the course of human history? I'm not sure there is any good way. Instead I prefer to focus on what progress we have been able to make and what progress we can still accomplish. Despite all our challenges and set backs. Hopefully before we end ourselves on this planet.
I was born about a couple hundred years too late.
But, then...here I am on the internet...so....
Technological comfort, convenience, and fun are addictive. We shoulda squashed it upfront. Especially the high-tech weapons of war.
Our desire to "travel" distances quickly and with very little effort is a selfish desire that is destroying the environment and changing the climate. And Western Countries are already tainted with landfills.
We are "evolving" into a polluted garbage dump. Some "maturation".
I understand your frustration about the destruction of the environment by the very people who love nature and promote wild life.
Like birders like me and our bird club, and even the Audubon. We go birding during all kinds of seasons when birds are migrating and are busy taking care of business during their short time span. Not only in our local places but we travel, short and long distances, across the globe, in large groups, consuming energy, and adding our footprints and tire tracks on to the birds' environment, adding our chatter and presence to their anxiety. Bird clubs are getting cognizant of it but feel their contribution to preservation and protection of wild life compensates for all this. I am not so sure. More and more I confine my birding close to home, to the trails and woods near me. I often walk to them.
I understand your frustration about the destruction of the environment by the very people who love nature and promote wild life.
Like birders like me and our bird club, and even the Audubon. We go birding during all kinds of seasons when birds are migrating and are busy taking care of business during their short time span. Not only in our local places but we travel, short and long distances, across the globe, in large groups, consuming energy, and adding our footprints and tire tracks on to the birds' environment, adding our chatter and presence to their anxiety. Bird clubs are getting cognizant of it but feel their contribution to preservation and protection of wild life compensates for all this. I am not so sure. More and more I confine my birding close to home, to the trails and woods near me. I often walk to them.
Yes...like over a hundred private jets each carrying just a few people, then huge motorcades...to transport to a "Climate Summit".
Or the year-long campaign transport for politicians running on a "Climate/Environmental Platform".
Do it all by Zoom or Skype or sumthin.
And most of these people own yachts!!
So...I will give STEM credit for helping the situation through digital communications...if we will use it instead of traveling.
I understand your frustration about the destruction of the environment by the very people who love nature and promote wild life.
Like birders like me and our bird club, and even the Audubon. We go birding during all kinds of seasons when birds are migrating and are busy taking care of business during their short time span. Not only in our local places but we travel, short and long distances, across the globe, in large groups, consuming energy, and adding our footprints and tire tracks on to the birds' environment, adding our chatter and presence to their anxiety. Bird clubs are getting cognizant of it but feel their contribution to preservation and protection of wild life compensates for all this. I am not so sure. More and more I confine my birding close to home, to the trails and woods near me. I often walk to them.
When we went with a tour group to Africa, there was a birder couple among us. We became fast friends with the birders, but it got to be a little comical as everyone else in the group wanted to see the big game, while the birders wanted to go to where the birds were instead. Fortunately, there was plenty to see for all of us.
We're big fans of birds too, but not really birders. We're always quick to look for the hawks who like to perch in certain places along our daily walks. Always beautiful to see, and of course I've got my couple of bird feeders just outside our windows and a couple hummingbird feeders. We're big on all the pelicans we get to see around here on a regular basis too. Perhaps our favorite, but lots of other sea birds make their home around here as well.
What you describe is yet again another example of the "good, bad and ugly" we can all applaud and/or lament when it comes to how we humans do what we do. Also frustrating when we consider what we do as individuals compared to the much greater impact big business and agriculture represents. Frustrating, but with any luck we are also improving in some ways. Awareness has certainly improved over the course of my life time. At least this...
Yes...like over a hundred private jets each carrying just a few people, then huge motorcades...to transport to a "Climate Summit".
Or the year-long campaign transport for politicians running on a "Climate/Environmental Platform".
Do it all by Zoom or Skype or sumthin.
And most of these people own yachts!!
So...I will give STEM credit for helping the situation through digital communications...if we will use it instead of traveling.
These sorts of complaints are as old as the hills, and we common folk love to make them, because we really don't understand what it is to be a world leader. If we're really going to pick away at this sort of thing, we really should be specific about who we're talking about. Have you a list, for example, of the world leaders attending these summits who own yachts? Most you say? Yet another unsubstantiated claim we're all supposed to accept because you say so?
Do you really think Zoom can take the place of in-person attendance when it comes to these sorts of meetings? Have you ever had to travel for business purposes? Communication purposes? A need to get important complicated things done with others?
Zoom is also being used more and more, and that is a good thing, but talk to anyone who has been using Zoom for some time now, and clearly it's only effective to a certain point. Also with it's draw backs that are easy to dismiss like you always seem wanting to do. Again another case of "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to world politics most of us are not too good at fully accounting for.
Bottom line, although I think world leaders can and should do better in many of these respects, their combined total footprint as compared to all else they are elected to do something about is absolutely insignificant as compared to the grand scheme of things. Politicians are great punching bags, however, and a favorite target for the common man who forever complains about the likes while they continue their environmentally insensitive ways as well.
These sorts of complaints are as old as the hills, and we common folk love to make them, because we really don't understand what it is to be a world leader. If we're really going to pick away at this sort of thing, we really should be specific about who we're talking about. Have you a list, for example, of the world leaders attending these summits who own yachts? Most you say? Yet another unsubstantiated claim we're all supposed to accept because you say so?
Do you really think Zoom can take the place of in-person attendance when it comes to these sorts of meetings? Have you ever had to travel for business purposes? Communication purposes? A need to get important complicated things done with others?
Zoom is also being used more and more, and that is a good thing, but talk to anyone who has been using Zoom for some time now, and clearly it's only effective to a certain point. Also with it's draw backs that are easy to dismiss like you always seem wanting to do. Again another case of "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to world politics most of us are not too good at fully accounting for.
Bottom line, although I think world leaders can and should do better in many of these respects, their combined total footprint as compared to all else they are elected to do something about is absolutely insignificant as compared to the grand scheme of things. Politicians are great punching bags, however, and a favorite target for the common man who forever complains about the likes while they continue their environmentally insensitive ways as well.
I disagree with Gldn to the point I've had him on ignore for years, but in this particular case, I must agree with him.
It's true that the ostentation of travel of world leaders may to some arguable extent be justified by security concerns and scheduling constraints, and is not a significant contribution to the climate problems in the context of the nations they lead. But there is the problem of setting a good example, and the reality that a remote meeting combined with actual substantive action (not, like Biden, saying nice things only to go home and open up much of the Gulf to oil drilling interests for years or decades) would go much further.
I'm with Greta Thunberg on this one ... it is so much "blah blah blah". If you map out the increase in carbon emissions over the past twenty-some of these summits, they have had basically zero effect. They would help more by just not having any more of them, TBH.
When we went with a tour group to Africa, there was a birder couple among us. We became fast friends with the birders, but it got to be a little comical as everyone else in the group wanted to see the big game, while the birders wanted to go to where the birds were instead. Fortunately, there was plenty to see for all of us.
We're big fans of birds too, but not really birders. We're always quick to look for the hawks who like to perch in certain places along our daily walks. Always beautiful to see, and of course I've got my couple of bird feeders just outside our windows and a couple hummingbird feeders. We're big on all the pelicans we get to see around here on a regular basis too. Perhaps our favorite, but lots of other sea birds make their home around here as well.
What you describe is yet again another example of the "good, bad and ugly" we can all applaud and/or lament when it comes to how we humans do what we do. Also frustrating when we consider what we do as individuals compared to the much greater impact big business and agriculture represents. Frustrating, but with any luck we are also improving in some ways. Awareness has certainly improved over the course of my life time. At least this...
We have done the East Africa safari twice. By the second time I was an avid birder and the only birder in the safari. Yes I did bug our wonderful guide to point birds out to me and they are as good in spotting birds as with the mammals. The birds are amazing but it so easy to miss them if all one focused on are the mammals. We happened on a recent kill one morning and there were like 10 kinds of vultures, besides the other carrion birds feeding off the carcass. But the guides did not always have their names right. So I posted pictures of them on a East African birders Facebook page and noted the time and date and location. Within seconds I had my responses, pretty awesome.
While the wildlife preserves do not allow private vehicles I am not sure the tourism industry is not destroying the habitat and breeding life of the animals.
It is great you get to see pelicans. We were once at Morrow Bay where we saw these amazing brown pelicans sweeping into the water like fighter jets and catch fish.
We have done the East Africa safari twice. By the second time I was an avid birder and the only birder in the safari.
I lived in Kenya for two years. It is an amazing sight to come upon Lake Nakuru and see it's got this pink fringe around it, which turns out to be about a million flamingos.
I lived in Kenya for two years. It is an amazing sight to come upon Lake Nakuru and see it's got this pink fringe around it, which turns out to be about a million flamingos.
Yes!
I don't know why the safari does not include the birds. When there is a stop all they need to do is point and name them. My favorite was the secretary bird. And the bee eaters, variety of them.
P.S: So what kind of Heron? Great Blue, Green, Night?
I disagree with Gldn to the point I've had him on ignore for years, but in this particular case, I must agree with him.
It's true that the ostentation of travel of world leaders may to some arguable extent be justified by security concerns and scheduling constraints, and is not a significant contribution to the climate problems in the context of the nations they lead. But there is the problem of setting a good example, and the reality that a remote meeting combined with actual substantive action (not, like Biden, saying nice things only to go home and open up much of the Gulf to oil drilling interests for years or decades) would go much further.
I'm with Greta Thunberg on this one ... it is so much "blah blah blah". If you map out the increase in carbon emissions over the past twenty-some of these summits, they have had basically zero effect. They would help more by just not having any more of them, TBH.
I agree with Thunberg too...
I was just noting how some people, too many people, tend to focus on the insignificant when the real issues are largely ignored at the personal level by comparison. Also, these problems are very difficult to tackle, especially at the international level, and if not at the international level, what we do at a national level also becomes insignificant. AKA typical lazy arm-chair criticisms by common folk, but I won't argue the scrutiny and disappointment isn't entirely unwarranted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
