Originally posted by RagnorakWho needs to read Daniel Quinn's book? Just go out and witness suburbia rape about 20 acres an hour, idiots breeding and having 6 children when they can't afford any; China's million-a-year car addition to the environment (did they sign the Kyoto treaty?); same with India. Now, Albert Gore has a new book detailing our demise 🙄...face it, we're doomed because the human race is basically stupid and doesn't give a "mickey rat's arse".....
Recced if I could.
You never considered yourself an environmentalist before you read this piece of history? I recommend you read Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael", to provide you with further nuggets to help you understand the importance of our environment, which is essentially our life support system.
D
Originally posted by chancremechanicHumeA obviously needed to read the history of Easter Island before he started thinking about enviromentalism.
Who needs to read Daniel Quinn's book? Just go out and witness suburbia rape about 20 acres an hour, idiots breeding and having 6 children when they can't afford any; China's million-a-year car addition to the environment (did they sign the Kyoto treaty?); same with India. Now, Albert Gore has a new book detailing our demise 🙄...face it, we're doo ...[text shortened]... d because the human race is basically stupid and doesn't give a "mickey rat's arse".....
D
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by RagnorakTo be quite honest, it was one of those things I had never really thought about, but the story of the people of Easter Island was powerful enough to get through my thick skull and catch my attention.
HumeA obviously needed to read the history of Easter Island before he started thinking about enviromentalism.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeASome other examples:
To be quite honest, it was one of those things I had never really thought about, but the story of the people of Easter Island was powerful enough to get through my thick skull and catch my attention.
Sumerians (Iraq ~5000-2000BC)
The Sumerians used irrigation from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to supply their crops. However the region has weak underground drainage, so the extra water supplied led to rising water table levels. As the water table got near the surface the water evaporated, leaving behind salt. This accumulation of salt lowered the productivity of the land and eventually was thought to have led to the downfall of the Sumerians. Most likely they could not have known their actions would have produced these results.
Mayans (Guatemala ~300-800AD)
Deforestation and soil erosion undermined the sophisticated agriculture of the Mayans, leading to food shortages and the inevitable downfall. Again it is unlikely they could have foreseen the consequences of their agricultural methods until it was too late.
The modern world is no different to any other civilisation, in that when its non-renewable resources become unavailable, there's going to be general war and death. I think the big difference for us though is that we know full well what could happen, and why, and do have it within our power to change our ways accordingly. It would truely be a sad indictment of human civilisation if we just close our eyes to our possible demise, soldiering on with business as usual.
2 edits
Originally posted by DraxusSince his "point" is based on a particular version of the facts that are in doubt, why should I? if you knew anything about logical argument, you'd know that if the factual basis of an argument is untrue then the argument cannot be valid. So the facts certainly have "something to do with the idea".
I don't know what happened, obviously you don't know what happened. How about we allow the man to make his point without throwing in a lot of circumstantial speculation that has nothing to do with the idea.
I guess you can continue to be argumentative and insulting if you are compelled to be. Whatever floats your boat 🙂
EDIT: Here's an link to a site discussing an article in Science which disputes the popular version which HumeA is relying on. http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_easter_island.html
Tidbit:
Lipo thinks the story of Easter Island's civilization being responsible for its own demise might better reflect the psychological baggage of our own society than the archeological evidence.
"It fits our 20th century view of us as ecological monsters," Lipo said. "There's no doubt that we do terrible things ecologically, but we're passing that on to the past, which may not have actually been the case. To stick our plight onto them is unfair."
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy you know you are right. If it were not for religion all would be well with the world and we would live in one big utopia. If we could only embrace this Stalin-like ideology I dare say we will all be better for it.
The Easter Island statutes were part of their religion. Unless you think religion is totally worthless, you would do well to not keep showing your extreme ignorance of other's cultures (and your own).
BTW I think if you look at my "Reply and Quote" box, you to will see that my reply was not directed either. Perhaps I should tell you to read a book as well?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd that's where you fall down. I'm not 'relying' on this version of events to make an arguement, but to show the possible effects of not looking after your environment, and how easily it can happen, surely it doesn't have to be the only version of events for that to hold true, does it?
Since his "point" is based on a particular version of the facts that are in doubt, why should I? if you knew anything about logical argument, you'd know that if the factual basis of an argument is untrue then the argument cannot be valid. So the facts certainly have "something to do with the idea".
EDIT: Here's an link to a site discussing an article ...[text shortened]... hich may not have actually been the case. To stick our plight onto them is unfair."
"This is the story pieced together by researchers over the past several decades, but Hunt and Lipo think it is wrong."
So on one hand, you have the many researchers, that have taken decades to come up with the conventional version of events, and on the other, a couple of guys that decide to pitch up and make up their own version.
The only evidence spoken of in the article concerns rats, rats which the polynesians brought to the island in the first place.
Originally posted by HumeAYou don't make any sense as usual. If you are using Easter Island as an example, yes the version you are relying on must be correct.
And that's where you fall down. I'm not 'relying' on this version of events to make an arguement, but to show the possible effects of not looking after your environment, and how easily it can happen, surely it doesn't have to be the only version of events for that to hold true, does it?
"This is the story pieced together by researchers over the past several ...[text shortened]... ticle concerns rats, rats which the polynesians brought to the island in the first place.
The link given is a brief discussion of a peer reviewed article in a journal. That "many researchers" came to a certain conclusion is irrelevant if later data discovered, particulary as regards the date of the first colonization of EI, alters the factual basis of such conclusions. That's "science".
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only thing that the later date of colonisation means is that the Islanders began their destruction of the environment sooner, it doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
You don't make any sense as usual. If you are using Easter Island as an example, yes the version you are relying on must be correct.
The link given is a brief discussion of a peer reviewed article in a journal. That "many researchers" came to a certain conclusion is irrelevant if later data discovered, particulary as regards the date of the first colonization of EI, alters the factual basis of such conclusions. That's "science".
The facts don't have to be 100% in order for an analogy to be correct. It just means that it might be slightly more anagorical... if the data is untrue, that is, which is something that you can't prove. The moral remains the same.
Originally posted by HumeAPlease read the linked article; if the colonists didn't arrive until 1200, there is insufficient time for a huge population increase followed by severe depopulation caused by environmental factors as previous researchers theorized.
The only thing that the later date of colonisation means is that the Islanders began their destruction of the environment sooner, it doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
The facts don't have to be 100% in order for an analogy to be correct. It just means that it might be slightly more anagorical... if the data is untrue, that is, which is something that you can't prove. The moral remains the same.
A "moral" based on something that is untrue is useless.