N 189: There is archeological evidence that earliest human spirituality worshiped female goddesses, not male gods.
No, you have neo-pagan propaganda from the 1950s confused with archaeology. Early humans worshipped a vast variety of deities, some male, some female, some neither, some both. You can say Minoa was matriarchal, or scattered societies elsewhere, but to say the whole prehistory of humanity was matriarchal goddess-worship has exactly zero empirical evidence for it. Stop reading Gerald Gardner and Mircea Eleade for your sources on archaeology and start reading the peer-reviewed archaeology literature, or textbooks about archaeology and primitive religion.
zebrasays
On Definition Debates and Begging The Question,
Back at #162, I made the very simple, easy to understand statement:
This is another case where what the words mean matters.
You have to distinguish between scientific method and the enterprise of science as it is practiced currently.
For example, at some point in the development of ceramics and metallurgy within a given culture, the practitioners almost certainly employed abstract theoretical reasoning guiding empirical discovery.
So far, I have seen no actual disagreement with this. Rather, once again, people want to engage in a middle-school-level definition debate…not just with me, but in various combinations.
“Scientific Method” is a well established concept, and the consistent element among slight variations is that it is practiced by an individual.
“The enterprise of science as it is practiced currently” is also a well established concept. It is obviously not separable from the existing socio-economic paradigm. The use of Scientific Method is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Once again, you can’t have a useful, rational, scientific ‘debate’ if people don’t agree what the words mean.
Example from Ray:
The techniques developed were considered highly proprietary, so there is no public record of the process, and hence no peer review, replication, control of errors. I do not dispute that it represents a significant technical achievement, but it was not science in the modern sense.
What follows from that is that people with a PhD in Materials Science who work for a manufacturer that keeps developments as proprietary are not doing “science in the modern sense”.
This is the problem with serial question-begging instead of having a reasoned discussion.
Nemesissays
Correction of my comment #189:
… The cowork of the menfolk in procreation were not obvious without some astrological observations…”
Should be:
… The cooperation of the menfolk in procreation were not obvious without some astronomical observations…”
You need to have a concrete measurement of time, you need to count days and months via astronomical observation in order to realize the cooperation of the menfolk in procreation. And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science. And those who are able to measure time are able to predict events like solar eclipses ect, wich gave them some sort of power as well. No agriculture, no complex society, no ruling class (priests and emperors) ect without the measurement of time.
The provision of reliable capacity (MW) in a decarbonized electricity system is fundamentally separate from the provision of energy (MWh). The capacity resource that pairs best with a high VRE system is one with very low capital cost, because its role is to provide reliability for a limited number of hours per year (average capacity factors ~10%; Figures 7b and S17), rather than zero‐carbon energy in bulk. In this analysis, reliable capacity came mostly from thermal generation using gas without carbon capture (Figure S28). The much higher initial capital cost of CCS and nuclear plants as currently forecast could not be justified for such low utilization rates, and at the same time, they were uncompetitive with VRE for the bulk of operating hours unless VRE buildout was constrained. The gas generation fleet in the central case was 590 GW and ranged between 470 and 675 GW across scenarios, compared to 480 GW today (Figure 7a). To remain within carbon constraints, gas‐fired plants without carbon capture either burned carbon‐neutral fuels or natural gas for which emissions were offset elsewhere, depending on the carbon budget, resource constraints, and relative costs (see section 7.2).
It’s a fraud from top to bottom.
Nemesissays
@mike
There have been some people who truely lived like the indigenous, one of the most remarkable was Bruno Manser:
He tried to support the Penan people against the logging mafia. Then he suddenly disappeared, killed by the logging mafia (like countless activists have been killed for funny money), end of story. THAT’S how it works and it will simply go on for funny money = power until no more quickly. I can’t wait to see the end of the funny money machine and I WILL see that end during my lifetime I swear.
Nemesissays
@Pjotr, #197
” Nemesis @138 “I don’t think farming was the main cause of hierarchies, inequality ect.”
I find the opposing view more convincing – e.g. Elle Beau: “How Patriarchy, Dominance, and Agriculture Ruined Our Quality of Life”.
Prior to [agriculture], people lived in highly cooperative and egalitarian bands of about 25–50. But with agriculture, for the first time, you have substantial personal property, property that you’d like to go to your heirs. In order to ensure paternity (hence the name patriarchy) women had to be controlled and their sexuality policed.”
You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you? In Germany eg live roughly 80 000 000 people, if they would turn into hunter/gatherers again, all wild animals ect would be eaten within a few days and then the Germans would easily starve to death ;)
Nemesissays
@BPL, #201
” Nemesis 189: There is archeological evidence that earliest human spirituality worshiped female goddesses, not male gods.
BPL: No, you have neo-pagan propaganda from the 1950s confused with archaeology…”
Cool, so god has always been a (christian^^) white MAN wearing a long, white beard up, up in heaven and the MEN are creating the VERY BEST planet EVER for sure in colaboration with that masculine, almighty god as we surely can see all around us oh so beautifully. Enjoy:
Thumbs up to all the MEN who always ruled the planet (AND the heavens) and who will SURELY save the planet, rofl.
“laying back, enjoying the funniest end-show of my life”
zebrasays
Astringent #198,
“I don’t think the human mind has changed”
Exactly! And while I don’t romanticize Neolithic peoples, or think they had some special mystical communion with nature, I have to be very impressed by their ‘scientific’ accomplishments.
Consider the process I describe at #185. It’s obvious that the person(s) who accomplished that journey from no pottery to the first pot were extraordinary in multiple ways. They certainly had more capacity for imagination than many of the people here.
There was no formal enterprise called “science” to support them, no textbooks, no Royal Society or Nobel Prize or patents to honor and reward them. Just their curiosity, and their ability to acquire and order information, and their genius for making connections about cause and effect.
(But if one really did want to get all mystical, one might observe that their synthesis was of earth, air, fire, and water. Pretty darn groovy, as our resident unrepentant hippies here might say.)
Nemesissays
Enjoy christian MEN at work and never forget to carry your crucifix with you:
Ah, the near-term future will be marvelous, dear kids <3
Ray Ladburysays
Zebra: ““Scientific Method” is a well established concept, and the consistent element among slight variations is that it is practiced by an individual.”
I disagree, science is inherently a collective activity–how else can you have replication of results? Any individual scientist can fall in love with a theory and refuse to accept the implications of an adverse experimental outcome. Publication is part of the scientific method. Peer review is part of the scientific method. Citations are part of the scientific method. Scientific consensus is part of the scientific method, as is consilience.
And yes, a scientist working on highly proprietary research that cannot be published in the open literature (e.g. pharmaceuticals, materials sceince…) may well not be doing science (again, no replication).
Max Planck said, “Physics advances one funeral at a time.” It is kind of hard to rationalize that sentiment with the idea of science being an individual activity.
nigeljsays
Zebra @ 202 says
“Example from Ray: “The techniques developed were considered highly proprietary, so there is no public record of the process, and hence no peer review, replication, control of errors. I do not dispute that it represents a significant technical achievement, but it was not science in the modern sense.”
Zebra: “What follows from that is that people with a PhD in Materials Science who work for a manufacturer that keeps developments as proprietary are not doing “science in the modern sense”.
Yes. That person with a PhD in Materials Science working for a corporation is most likely doing APPLIED SCIENCE, or ENGINEERING. He is not doing science as in investigating the natural or man made world to figure out how it works and creating a theory and testable predictions. Of course his job might require he wears both hats.
I heard this amusing definition of what doing science was from a scientist talking on the radio. He said the conventional definitions were too narrow and doing science is just “using your noodle (brain) and getting on with it”.
nigeljsays
Just reading this last night from the latest Economist Journal “Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. Has an interesting perspective. You can sign up for free, and get the article for free.
When arguing “telling” arguments by bolding one should honestly bold the actual “telling” point. Interesting you left out the introductory 3 words of the core “telling” bolded phrase: “In this analysis…”.
Here’s an intro from the source that might be more honestly bolded:
“Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use.”
But nice cherrypick.
jgnfldsays
Re. EP @”What would Mycle Schneider say if he could get a NuScale or BWRX-300 delivered to site 2 years from the order?”
What would you say the odds are of ordering a commercially viable NuScale or BWRX-300 today and having it delivered and useable 2 years from now? I’ll take .0 odds. You can bet on > .0 odds.
Maybe Mycle is pie-in-the-sky or whatever and shouldn’t be listened to. OK. That “logic” has precisely zero bearing on the fact you are arguing about some wonderful new tech that is still years away from practical commercial demonstration. We have zero assurance that such tech will work magic or be deliverable at low cost within what time frame. But it is poetically beautiful to contemplate, I guess.
This ignores all the other operating, safety, disposal, insurance, and funding issues with all nuclear reactor tech you already routinely ignore.
jgnfldsays
*****MODS*****
Re. EP @”What would Mycle Schneider…
is my comment. It may have gone in as anonymous.
nigeljsays
Nemesis @203
“You need to have a concrete measurement of time, you need to count days and months via astronomical observation in order to realize the cooperation of the menfolk in procreation. And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science. And those who are able to measure time are able to predict events like solar eclipses ect, wich gave them some sort of power as well. No agriculture, no complex society, no ruling class (priests and emperors) ect without the measurement of time.”
Were they doing science or just observing and analysing repeating patterns intelligently and assuming they would continue, a form of inductive logic, and denoting a unit of time? Its just that if we start saying this sort of thing is science, then just about any analytical thought could be claimed to be science. Next you will have the churches saying they are doing science. I think science is something more than all this and closer to the wikipedia definition I posted. That said, obviously ancient peoples thought in a way similar to science, and sometimes they used an approximation of the modern scientific method, which is a part of science. Im not putting them down.
Nemesis @200
“The concept of aluna, translated here as “inner reality,” tells him (the novice) that the mountains are houses, that animals are people, that roofs are snakes, and he learns that this manipulation of symbols and sign is …”
The kogis worldview is perhaps an understanding that the essence of everything is contained within everything.
But do all these other drug indiced states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?
nigeljsays
Nemesis. Correction: But do all these other drug “induced” states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?
N 199: rising up from the dead like Jesus does NOT fit to that kind of science
BPL: Nor is it supposed to. It was a miracle. Science doesn’t enter into it, so it’s absurd to say that science has somehow disproved it.
Nemesissays
@nigelj, #216
I didn’t say, early astronomy were science. Let’s just agree on that as it makes the entire discussion beautifully easy for all of us:
The western, white culture and science and religion and ecology ect ect ect is the very best mankind ever had and we will see a wonderful future.
” The kogis worldview is perhaps an understanding that the essence of everything is contained within everything.
But do all these other drug indiced states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?”
The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people. End of story for my part.
Nemesissays
@BPL, #219
Dear BPL, you should read my comments #175 and #199 about the MATERIALISTIC/MECHANISTIC version of modern science way more carefully^^
Anyway, you say “it was a miracle” and I am FINE with that. You know, the christian “book of revelation” says that Jesus will come back very soon and perform MORE MIRACLES, he will save all beautiful christians and send the heathens (like me^^) to Hell where they belong anyway^^ So everything will be fine, excellent, amazing, marveleous, just trust in your god, the performer of miracles. End of story for my part.
“laying back, enjoying the very best, funniest end-show ever and waiting for JAHWE to send me to Hell where I belong”
zebrasays
Ray Ladbury #210,
Zebra: ““Scientific Method” is a well established concept, and the consistent element among slight variations is that it is practiced by an individual.”
Ray: I disagree, science is inherently a collective activity–
So, I say “apples are red”, and you say “I disagree, peas are green.”
But here’s what Wiki says:
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
And that method has consistently been applied by humans, long before it was named and formalized. There is no mention of “collective activity”.
“Scientific Method”, as I’ve pointed out multiple times, is not a synonym for “science”. So either you have some kind of dyslexic issue, or you are just unable to admit being wrong.
The process by which specific Neolithic cultures went from not having pottery to having pottery involved the (yet to be named) Scientific Method, applied by individuals, as I suggest in #185. That’s the only way it could have happened.
(If you ‘disagree’, then describe the alternative way it could have happened.)
nigeljsays
Nemesis @206
“You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you? In Germany eg live roughly 80 000 000 people, if they would turn into hunter/gatherers again, all wild animals ect would be eaten within a few days and then the Germans would easily starve to death ;)”
Exactly right, although I doubt that Piotr was suggesting we should live like that. And it gets worse. Traditional non industrial types of farming might struggle to feed a population of 80 million Germans adequately as well. Yet industrial agriculture is killing the planet, so what do we do? We could do regenerative agriculture but some parts of it may need to be phased in slowly so the system can adjust.
No till and limited till farming have negligible effects on productivity if you look into the scientific literature so could be used immediately. Pesticides are devastating insect populations so should be phased out or their use reduced asap. Much of their use is to do with product appearance rather than productivity so they are not vital.
Industrial nitrate fertilisers boost productivity so we might have to keep them, or phase them out slowly over time, so their removal is compensated for by increases in productivity from breeding programmes and genetic engineering. Monoculture might have to also be phased down rather than ended immediately. There are others aspects of RA that could be adopted immediately. The thing is to use traditional approaches to farming, but modify them or phase them in, to suit the current reality of over population, and keep industrial farming methods where they make sense and are relatively environmentally benign.
Piotrsays
Re: Nemesis (206): “ You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?”
That’s why the intention of my post was narrow – I questioned your _historical_ claim that “farming was [not] the main cause of hierarchies, inequality etc.”.
Now if you want to move the argument from the past into the future, I have not advocated abandoning agriculture, well at least until we can grow most of our food in vitro. ;-) Rather, the question is: can we learn from history?
My first response would be: “no” – if history teaches us anything, it is that hardly anybody learns from history – generals fighting the previous wars, stock -market analysts saying: “Now, this time is different…”
But since this answer is an intellectual dead-end, we may consider the less likely, but more productive premise – that we could learn from history.
In such case the question would be how we can lessen the agriculture’s damage to ecosystems and social structure. The former is being discussed on and off again by others, so I’ll concentrate on the social damage, and, more specifically, on the one in which my previous post comes into play:
“ with [introduction of] agriculture, for the first time, you have substantial personal property, property that you’d like to go to your heirs. In order to ensure paternity (hence the name patriarchy) women had to be controlled and their sexuality policed. ”
So can we have agriculture (and society) that do NOT cause women to be controlled by men? Such situation would not be more just and fair, but would have MAJOR
sustainability implications: education of girls and empowerment women are known
to limit the root cause of the current unsustainability – the high population growth.
Plus, it might change things in more general sense: _perhaps_ the world co-ruled by women might be less zero-sum competitive, and more cooperative; less obsessed with individualism and consumption NOW, and more considering of the longer-term effects of our consumption – the climate and the world we are leaving to our children. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding… ;-)
Piotrsays
Nemesis (220) “ The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people.”
Assuming that these are not your views, but merely your “reductio at Hitlerum ” of Nigel’s arguments, how would _you_ answer somebody, let’s call them hypothetically: “Nemesis (206)”, saying:
“ you still can’t go back to [substitute “hunting/gathering” with: “slash-and-burn farming of Kogi”] on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?“
nigeljsays
Nemesis @220
“I didn’t say, early astronomy were science. Let’s just agree on that as it makes the entire discussion beautifully easy for all of us:”
Hmmm. Nemesis @203: “And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science.” But if you are now saying it wasn’t science ok.
“The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people. End of story for my part.”
I didn’t say any of that. Quite the contrary there are obvious things we can learn from indigenous people ,from their culture of sharing, conservation and not taking more than they need from nature etc, etc. Even their mystical world view is interesting and probably has value.
But I wonder if using cannabis really achieves much other than fun. I used it a couple of times when young and don’t remember cannabis ever really giving me any insight into anything, it was just good fun. Although there’s some evidence emerging it is a pain killer so maybe they used it for that.
Cocoa leaves stimulate feel good endorphins. Fun really. Peyote is hallucinogenic but does this giving people insights into reality or themselves, or is it just a distortion of things?
Drugs like kava that the fijian people use relax, and stimulate discussion. I guess that is some real use although there are risks using that stuff.
Killiansays
Exactly right, although I doubt that Piotr was suggesting we should live like that. And it gets worse. Traditional non industrial types of farming might struggle to feed a population of 80 million Germans adequately as well. Yet industrial agriculture is killing the planet, so what do we do?
Stop repeating this propaganda.
Killiansays
206 Nemesis says:
19 Mar 2021 at 1:28 PM
You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?
N 207: Cool, so god has always been a (christian^^) white MAN wearing a long, white beard up, up in heaven and the MEN are creating the VERY BEST planet EVER for sure in colaboration with that masculine, almighty god as we surely can see all around us oh so beautifully.
BPL: Beautiful illustration of a straw man argument–and of course, it directly contradicts what I explicitly said about “a variety of gods and goddesses.” You don’t actually read what anybody says to you, do you? You just fill in what your imagination supplies.
N 220: The western, white culture and science and religion and ecology ect ect ect is the very best mankind ever had and we will see a wonderful future. . . . The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people.
BPL: The beauty of straw man arguments is that you never have to address what your opponents are actually saying. You can just set up whatever foul imaginary threat you like and knock that down, and then pretend you’ve defeated your opponents’ actual arguments. Sarcasm substituting for logic.
N 221: he will save all beautiful christians and send the heathens (like me^^) to Hell where they belong anyway^^ So everything will be fine, excellent, amazing, marveleous, just trust in your god, the performer of miracles. End of story for my part.
BPL: Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.
Ray Ladburysays
Zebra, I’m disagreeing with you because you are wrong. Period. Science differs from “natural philosophy”. It differs from simple empirical inquiry.
To see the difference, you need only look at the pace at which knowledge accumulates–there is an inflection point starting in the 1600s. Prior to that point, knowledge accumulated by fits and starts. A progressive enclave might arise for a few decades–in China, in India, in Baghdad, perhaps even in Florence. Then the regime would change, the researchers would scatter and much of the knowledge would be lost.
After 1600, things change. The change resulted from a variety of factors that all happened to come together in European capitols at relatively the same time–accidents of history, but they changed things. Suddenly people were actually doing science. Newton was writing his Principia–but you never would have had people reading the Principia without the Royal Society (and Edmund Halley, in particular).
And at the same time, Newton was also carrying our his alchemy studies, which were anything but science, and his optics, which combined elements of both science and unscientific method. (Note: Newton’s grandeur imposed the straight jacket of his corpuscular optics on British science for a full generation, retarding progress in this field of study even as mechanics continued to evolve. How can you look at that history and not see that things were changing in a fundamental way?)
Look, what Newton, Halley, Hooke, Huygens, Descartes… were doing would have been incomprehensible to Aristotle or even Eratosthenes. That is why we call Aristotle and Eratosthenes natural philosophers and we call Newton et al. scientists.
Nemesissays
@BPL, #231
” Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.”
I hear you^^ and thank you very much for reminding me, I seriously appreciate that a lot. I will just shut up now, I need to shut up completely as climate discussions just interfere with my inner peace, lol, all discussions interfere with my precious inner peace and freedom. I found out most trouble comes from human beings – no people, no trouble. Say goodbye to Europe/Germany (drying up while we speak) and the funny money machine, it will be gone within a flash. End of story.
” Come thou, thou last one, whom I recognize,
unbearable pain throughout this body’s fabric:
as I in my spirit burned, see, I now burn in thee:
the wood that long resisted the advancing flames
which thou kept flaring, I now am nourishinig
and burn in thee.
My gentle and mild being through thy ruthless fury
has turned into a raging hell that is not from here.
Quite pure, quite free of future planning, I mounted
the tangled funeral pyre built for my suffering,
so sure of nothing more to buy for future needs,
while in my heart the stored reserves kept silent.
Is it still I, who there past all recognition burn?
Memories I do not seize and bring inside.
O life! O living! O to be outside!
And I in flames. And no one here who knows me.”
R. M. Rilke
Hail the Fire!
Nemesissays
Sorry, I forgot to add the title to Rilke’s poem. The title is as simple and telling as it can be, the title simply is:
” Death”.
Hail the Fire!
Over & out (I won’t come back I promise).
mikesays
Nemesis at 205: “There have been some people who truely lived like the indigenous, one of the most remarkable was Bruno Manser:
Thanks for sharing this link. It’s a wonderful piece of filmmaking that tells a rather sad story. The story illustrates why the Kogi can no longer retreat to a safe distance from “civilized man.” The Penan people could not establish indigenous right to protect the jungle environment in Borneo that they inhabited in something close to a sustainable manner. The Kogi face a similar problem. We can’t protect them from the consequences of the way we live in the industrial world. I think we can’t protect ourselves from the same consequences. It’s all a tragedy, but it’s also a cosmic-scale injustice that peoples and cultures who have done the least to deplete the natural world are likely to experience the highest and earliest impacts of that same depletion.
I still haven’t gotten to watching the first Kogi film, but maybe this week.
Seems like good legislation to me. Its the sort of thing that might get very broad support as its not a “tax” and it does a range of good things environmentally. Its not the perfect solution to the climate issue, but I’m all about what can be realistically done in this world full of competing interests and entrenched views and ideologies.
Killiansays
237 nigelj says:
25 Mar 2021 at 1:54 AM
“Details behind Biden’s ’30 by 30′ U.S. lands and oceans climate goal”
Seems like good legislation to me.
Ah, so completely inadequate to the task. Thanks for the warning.
And meanwhile, in Canada the carbon tax is officially a Constitutional ‘go’, as the Supreme Court notes that climate change is an “existential threat.”
David,
Yes. The Biosphere experiments showed how soil organism respiration trounces plant photosynthesis. Woo that plants grow, random number, 10% faster if the same drivers result in decaying organisms revving up so as to double (again, fake number) decay.
And it has long puzzled me why forests are considered by definition to be superior to grasslands when grasslands sequester gobs of carbon.
Uh, tropical forests accumulate almost no carbon. Would we do ourselves and our planet a favor by turning the Amazon rain forest into the Amazon savannah?
nigeljsays
Killian #238, you should give Biden at least SOME positive feedback for his plan. If all he gets is negativity he will eventually just give up on the climate issue. Its not as if hes short of other issues that need attention and probably of more immediate concern to his voter base. Governments cant solve all the climate problem, but we want governmenets doing all they can to help combat the climate problem.
If dead trees are removed via pyrolysis followed by sequestration of the solid fraction trees ought to be superior to savannah.
Richard Caldwellsays
BPL: Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.
RC: Uh, the story he described wasn’t his. It was, per his opinion, you and yours’ story. In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”.
Your response boils down to “I know you are but what am I?”
Perhaps a better response would explain why Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”.
Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?
Adam Leasays
I notice some brief discussion about agriculture and feeding people without industrial agriculture. I had a quick look at the estimated land area required to feed one person on a vegetarian diet (8000 sq feet or 743 sq m (https://www.growveg.co.uk/guides/growing-enough-food-to-feed-a-family/)). The UK is about 245,000 sq km in area or 245 x 10^9 sq m. With a population of around 70 million people, and if they require about 750 sq m of land per person, that equates to roughly 750 x 7×10^7 = 52.5 x 10^9 which is about 20% of the UK land area.
Seems doable but you have to allocate land for other uses such as shelter and transportation, and accept the fact that not all of the UK has productive arable land (you can’t grow crops on the Cairngorm plateau for example), so I’d estimate it is theoretically mathematically possible to feed the UK without intensive industrial agriculture, but whether it could ever be realistic I would doubt it.
Piotrsays
Richard Caldwell(240) Uh, tropical forests accumulate almost no carbon. Would we do ourselves and our planet a favor by turning the Amazon rain forest into the Amazon savannah?
I am not sure – the “almost no” uptake of CO2 by tropical rain forest is not caused by the superiority of grass over trees, but is a result of the nutrient-poor soil which limits how much NEW carbon can you take up from air.
And the role of the Amazon is that it keeps it C in its biomass, as opposed to RELEASING it back into the air.
Basically, an ecosystem “uptakes” CO2 into two pools – adding to biomass (living and recently dead) and adding to soil. In the forest – the balance is shifted toward biomass, in grasslands toward soil, but that does not prove that for a given location and climate the COMBINED biomass+soil sequestration in grasslands is larger as that of the forest
If there is a difference it would be linked to:
a) ability of an ecosystem to procure new nutrients and to prevent loss of the existing ones
b) efficiency of the carbon uptake per unit of the limiting nutrient (i.e. C/N or C/P ratios)
Re: a) i.e nutrient gain and losses by an ecosystem
If phosphorus (P) is the limiting factor – I don’t think there much an undisturbed ecosystem can do either procuring some new or to prevent the loss of the existing ones.
Disturbance by humans can, either by adding massive amounts of fertilizers or by increasing the LOSS from the system. We see the latter in Brazil, the very country that is already implementing your modest proposal, getraly accelerated by the president Bolsonaro: burning the Amazon forest to convert it into pasture (Brazil is already the largest exported of beef).
This almost certainly leads to the LOSS of P from the system:
– when you burn a tree – its C gets mainly into CO2 , while its N and P would be in the ashes – and the portion of the smoke that deposits outside Amazon removes its part of N and P from Amazon.
– the ash that _remained_ and the soil from the burn area – after the burn are being washed out by the torrential rains, with surface of the soil no longer protected against the elements by the dense canopy.
That’s the reason why the “new” pastures in the Amazon do not last long – after a few years, the initial pulse of nutrients from the ash is gone, so the beef industry moves onto to the next piece of the Amzon forest …
If N was a limiting factor in the Amazon (in most of terrestrial systems it is P, not N) – then the loss of ash and washout desribed for P would also apply, but the things would be further complicated by the biological processes that “produce” and “destroy” biologically available N (N-fixation and denitrification, respectively).
I don’t think we can count on the biological supply of N in grass ecosystems being so much better as to offset the loss of N in smoke and washout AND also to make a large surplus needed for the net CO2 sequestration.
b) efficiency of sequestering C per unit nutrient – C/P or C/N ratio in the wood, grass, and organic detritus in the soil. I don’t think it be SUBSTANTIALLY better
for grass replacement – most of tree dry weight is wood – which contains A LOT of C and hardly any P and N. And quite a bit of it is in the form of lignin – more difficult to break down (and release CO2) than the cellulose.
Grassland, on the other hand, have little if any lignin, so its C is more prone to decomp, leading to the lower the C/P and C/N ratio, and lower potentail for sequestration.
So no, I don’t think replacing tropical rain forest with tropical rain grassland pasture, would sequester much new CO2 if any.
Piotrsays
Richard Caldwell (243) BPL: “Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.”
RC(243): “Uh, the story he described wasn’t his. It was, per his opinion, you and yours’ story. In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”.”
Uh, it sound like what _you_ wanted to tell. The BPL’s post was not “spreading religion”, but merely a comment about … an annoying language mannerism: “End of story” is not only arrogant, but apparently has not applied to oneself – Nemesis CONTINUED to talk AFTER his “End of story” statement.
So your attempts at oh so-biting sarcasm: “In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”. Wwhy Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”. Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?”
missed the mark, badly:
– BPL didn’t invoke his “god” as an argument in this discussion,
– his supposed demand for eternal adulation apparently exist only in your head,
– since Nemesis used the “End of story” phrase to THREE different people (to Mike(205), Nigel(220) and BPL(221)), then the phrase was not some clever dismissal of “false religion”, but his recycled (3 times to 3 authors within 2 days) turn of phrase. Self-plagiarism the most sincere form of self-flattery ?
A sarcasm built on made-up claims of an opponent discredits only its author. Particularly, if done in such a juvenile style:
“explain why Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”. Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?
Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?
Good to see you back, R!
But, though BPL can speak for himself, and probably already has, I confidently can say you’re misframing the question. Per orthodox doctrine, *nobody* actually deserves “eternal flowers”; but nevertheless they’re freely on offer and all you have to do is accept.
There is a bit of a sticky wicket, though, in that the quid pro quo of belief may not be strictly voluntary, Blaise Pascal notwithstanding.
Killiansays
241
nigelj says:
26 Mar 2021 at 10:25 PM
Killian #238, you should give Biden at least SOME positive feedback for his plan.
I doubt he reads this forum.
If all he gets is negativity he will eventually just give up on the climate issue.
OK, that’s just dumb rhetoric. Think, man.
Killiansays
Food production, Wiki:
Green Revolution (GR): 8,000 kg/ha
Gervais Family, Orange Co., CA: 6,000 lb on 1/10 acre
GR equivalent: 1,763 lb on 1/10 acre.
Rodale: (simple) Regenerative more productive.
Regenerative: Continually improves the soil, improving production from on-site inputs.
Conventional: Depletes the soil using off-site inputs.
Regenerative: Improves soil health, including soil biota and insects.
Conventional: Destroys soil, kills soil biota and insects.
Regenerative: Stacks functions resulting in far higher yields overall, though perhaps less of specific crops such as corn and soy – which we need far less of. This is why the Gervais family gets so much from so small a plot.
(California weather helps with this, so the 6k lbs should be compared to other warm climates rather than, say, Manitoba. Remember: Design is local.)
Conventional: Monocrops. This has vastly diminished the variety of foods eaten in industrialized countries, and particularly the US, which impacts health and greatly increases the need for and cost of health care.
Regenerative: 40~60% more nutrient-dense, improving health, reducing total food by weight needed for health, reducing the land area needed for food production per capita.
Conventional: 40~60% less nutrient-dense, reducing health, increasing total food by weight needed for health, increasing the land area needed for food production per capita.
Regenerative: Keeps soil in place; any runoff would enhance deltas, estuaries, etc.
Conventional: Creates ocean dead zones from soil runoff full of inputs, insecticides, herbicides, etc.
Regenerative: Sequesters far more water due to higher organic matter, reducing the need for water, improving groundwater, refilling aquifers, improves the water cycle – including downrange rains.
Conventional: Prevents water sequesters due to lower organic matter, increasing the need for water, reducing groundwater, depleting aquifers, causing desertification and droughts, disrupting the water cycle – including diminishing downrange rains.
Etc.
Simple is as simple does. When one claims conventional ag is more productive than regenerative ag, one should not think simply.
Additionally, when one thinks of regenerative ag one should not think merely no-till and cover crops. This simplistic thinking is why people are able to make specious claims that regenerative is less productive: They are not talking about regenerative, they are talking about pseudoorganic.
Elements under the regenerative umbrella (Permaculture):
No-till
cover crops
co-planting
inter-planting
rotational grazing (can also apply to chicken tractors, other animals)
aquaculture
silvopasture
hugelculture
Food Forests
bio-char
bio-digesters
free-range animal inclusion
composting
vermicomposting
humanure
compost tea
I’m sure there are a number of other things I am forgetting off the top of my head.
Upshot: Comparing industrial ag output to the absolute minimum organic ag is a false dichotomy. If the study you refer to is not comparing industrial vs. a comprehensive regenerative system, it is not a valid comparison and the claims based on such comparisons are ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
We wondered if one small farm could help make a big change, and we are excited by the progress we’ve made using the regenerative farming practices that we inherited from Carver, Hamer, and the Ovambo people, and the progress in the larger movement.
We have restored the soil here on this mountainside to its pre-colonial levels of organic matter, and increased native biodiversity. We have witnessed neighbors across the capital region of New York pitching in to cover the cost of vegetable deliveries to those in need, allowing hundreds of people to receive a weekly share of fresh food. We have seen the power of small, localized food systems—which were able to turn on a dime when COVID hit—to keep people fed. We have seen thousands of new Indigenous, Black, and Brown farmers and food justice activists get trained in 35 states, and the majority of them go on to make powerful waves in the food system. And, for the first time since the early 1900s, the ag census recorded a small increase in the number of Indigenous farmers.
N 189: There is archeological evidence that earliest human spirituality worshiped female goddesses, not male gods.
No, you have neo-pagan propaganda from the 1950s confused with archaeology. Early humans worshipped a vast variety of deities, some male, some female, some neither, some both. You can say Minoa was matriarchal, or scattered societies elsewhere, but to say the whole prehistory of humanity was matriarchal goddess-worship has exactly zero empirical evidence for it. Stop reading Gerald Gardner and Mircea Eleade for your sources on archaeology and start reading the peer-reviewed archaeology literature, or textbooks about archaeology and primitive religion.
On Definition Debates and Begging The Question,
Back at #162, I made the very simple, easy to understand statement:
So far, I have seen no actual disagreement with this. Rather, once again, people want to engage in a middle-school-level definition debate…not just with me, but in various combinations.
“Scientific Method” is a well established concept, and the consistent element among slight variations is that it is practiced by an individual.
“The enterprise of science as it is practiced currently” is also a well established concept. It is obviously not separable from the existing socio-economic paradigm. The use of Scientific Method is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Once again, you can’t have a useful, rational, scientific ‘debate’ if people don’t agree what the words mean.
Example from Ray:
What follows from that is that people with a PhD in Materials Science who work for a manufacturer that keeps developments as proprietary are not doing “science in the modern sense”.
This is the problem with serial question-begging instead of having a reasoned discussion.
Correction of my comment #189:
… The cowork of the menfolk in procreation were not obvious without some astrological observations…”
Should be:
… The cooperation of the menfolk in procreation were not obvious without some astronomical observations…”
You need to have a concrete measurement of time, you need to count days and months via astronomical observation in order to realize the cooperation of the menfolk in procreation. And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science. And those who are able to measure time are able to predict events like solar eclipses ect, wich gave them some sort of power as well. No agriculture, no complex society, no ruling class (priests and emperors) ect without the measurement of time.
And if you’re wondering just how much fraud there is in the plans to “go green”, get a load of the blueprint for California’s putative de-carbonization. A telling quote (emphasis in bold added):
It’s a fraud from top to bottom.
@mike
There have been some people who truely lived like the indigenous, one of the most remarkable was Bruno Manser:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Manser
Here’s a wonderful documentary about his travels to the malaysian rainforest and his life with the Penan people:
” Bruno Manser – LAKI PENAN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNx9Np3wmEc
He tried to support the Penan people against the logging mafia. Then he suddenly disappeared, killed by the logging mafia (like countless activists have been killed for funny money), end of story. THAT’S how it works and it will simply go on for funny money = power until no more quickly. I can’t wait to see the end of the funny money machine and I WILL see that end during my lifetime I swear.
@Pjotr, #197
” Nemesis @138 “I don’t think farming was the main cause of hierarchies, inequality ect.”
I find the opposing view more convincing – e.g. Elle Beau: “How Patriarchy, Dominance, and Agriculture Ruined Our Quality of Life”.
Prior to [agriculture], people lived in highly cooperative and egalitarian bands of about 25–50. But with agriculture, for the first time, you have substantial personal property, property that you’d like to go to your heirs. In order to ensure paternity (hence the name patriarchy) women had to be controlled and their sexuality policed.”
You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you? In Germany eg live roughly 80 000 000 people, if they would turn into hunter/gatherers again, all wild animals ect would be eaten within a few days and then the Germans would easily starve to death ;)
@BPL, #201
” Nemesis 189: There is archeological evidence that earliest human spirituality worshiped female goddesses, not male gods.
BPL: No, you have neo-pagan propaganda from the 1950s confused with archaeology…”
Cool, so god has always been a (christian^^) white MAN wearing a long, white beard up, up in heaven and the MEN are creating the VERY BEST planet EVER for sure in colaboration with that masculine, almighty god as we surely can see all around us oh so beautifully. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rq9OvaJyRc
Thumbs up to all the MEN who always ruled the planet (AND the heavens) and who will SURELY save the planet, rofl.
“laying back, enjoying the funniest end-show of my life”
Astringent #198,
“I don’t think the human mind has changed”
Exactly! And while I don’t romanticize Neolithic peoples, or think they had some special mystical communion with nature, I have to be very impressed by their ‘scientific’ accomplishments.
Consider the process I describe at #185. It’s obvious that the person(s) who accomplished that journey from no pottery to the first pot were extraordinary in multiple ways. They certainly had more capacity for imagination than many of the people here.
There was no formal enterprise called “science” to support them, no textbooks, no Royal Society or Nobel Prize or patents to honor and reward them. Just their curiosity, and their ability to acquire and order information, and their genius for making connections about cause and effect.
(But if one really did want to get all mystical, one might observe that their synthesis was of earth, air, fire, and water. Pretty darn groovy, as our resident unrepentant hippies here might say.)
Enjoy christian MEN at work and never forget to carry your crucifix with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-7Tt7HFV6g
Ah, the near-term future will be marvelous, dear kids <3
Zebra: ““Scientific Method” is a well established concept, and the consistent element among slight variations is that it is practiced by an individual.”
I disagree, science is inherently a collective activity–how else can you have replication of results? Any individual scientist can fall in love with a theory and refuse to accept the implications of an adverse experimental outcome. Publication is part of the scientific method. Peer review is part of the scientific method. Citations are part of the scientific method. Scientific consensus is part of the scientific method, as is consilience.
And yes, a scientist working on highly proprietary research that cannot be published in the open literature (e.g. pharmaceuticals, materials sceince…) may well not be doing science (again, no replication).
Max Planck said, “Physics advances one funeral at a time.” It is kind of hard to rationalize that sentiment with the idea of science being an individual activity.
Zebra @ 202 says
“Example from Ray: “The techniques developed were considered highly proprietary, so there is no public record of the process, and hence no peer review, replication, control of errors. I do not dispute that it represents a significant technical achievement, but it was not science in the modern sense.”
Zebra: “What follows from that is that people with a PhD in Materials Science who work for a manufacturer that keeps developments as proprietary are not doing “science in the modern sense”.
Yes. That person with a PhD in Materials Science working for a corporation is most likely doing APPLIED SCIENCE, or ENGINEERING. He is not doing science as in investigating the natural or man made world to figure out how it works and creating a theory and testable predictions. Of course his job might require he wears both hats.
I heard this amusing definition of what doing science was from a scientist talking on the radio. He said the conventional definitions were too narrow and doing science is just “using your noodle (brain) and getting on with it”.
Just reading this last night from the latest Economist Journal “Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. Has an interesting perspective. You can sign up for free, and get the article for free.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/06/nuclear-power-must-be-well-regulated-not-ditched
@204
When arguing “telling” arguments by bolding one should honestly bold the actual “telling” point. Interesting you left out the introductory 3 words of the core “telling” bolded phrase: “In this analysis…”.
Here’s an intro from the source that might be more honestly bolded:
“Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use.”
But nice cherrypick.
Re. EP @”What would Mycle Schneider say if he could get a NuScale or BWRX-300 delivered to site 2 years from the order?”
What would you say the odds are of ordering a commercially viable NuScale or BWRX-300 today and having it delivered and useable 2 years from now? I’ll take .0 odds. You can bet on > .0 odds.
Maybe Mycle is pie-in-the-sky or whatever and shouldn’t be listened to. OK. That “logic” has precisely zero bearing on the fact you are arguing about some wonderful new tech that is still years away from practical commercial demonstration. We have zero assurance that such tech will work magic or be deliverable at low cost within what time frame. But it is poetically beautiful to contemplate, I guess.
This ignores all the other operating, safety, disposal, insurance, and funding issues with all nuclear reactor tech you already routinely ignore.
*****MODS*****
Re. EP @”What would Mycle Schneider…
is my comment. It may have gone in as anonymous.
Nemesis @203
“You need to have a concrete measurement of time, you need to count days and months via astronomical observation in order to realize the cooperation of the menfolk in procreation. And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science. And those who are able to measure time are able to predict events like solar eclipses ect, wich gave them some sort of power as well. No agriculture, no complex society, no ruling class (priests and emperors) ect without the measurement of time.”
Were they doing science or just observing and analysing repeating patterns intelligently and assuming they would continue, a form of inductive logic, and denoting a unit of time? Its just that if we start saying this sort of thing is science, then just about any analytical thought could be claimed to be science. Next you will have the churches saying they are doing science. I think science is something more than all this and closer to the wikipedia definition I posted. That said, obviously ancient peoples thought in a way similar to science, and sometimes they used an approximation of the modern scientific method, which is a part of science. Im not putting them down.
Nemesis @200
“The concept of aluna, translated here as “inner reality,” tells him (the novice) that the mountains are houses, that animals are people, that roofs are snakes, and he learns that this manipulation of symbols and sign is …”
The kogis worldview is perhaps an understanding that the essence of everything is contained within everything.
But do all these other drug indiced states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?
Nemesis. Correction: But do all these other drug “induced” states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?
BPL: I don’t have any racism.
K 192: Yes, you do
BPL: Do not.
(Future K:) Do so!
(Future me:) Do not!
(Repeat until bored.)
N 199: rising up from the dead like Jesus does NOT fit to that kind of science
BPL: Nor is it supposed to. It was a miracle. Science doesn’t enter into it, so it’s absurd to say that science has somehow disproved it.
@nigelj, #216
I didn’t say, early astronomy were science. Let’s just agree on that as it makes the entire discussion beautifully easy for all of us:
The western, white culture and science and religion and ecology ect ect ect is the very best mankind ever had and we will see a wonderful future.
” The kogis worldview is perhaps an understanding that the essence of everything is contained within everything.
But do all these other drug indiced states you mention achieve anything useful, other than having a fun time?”
The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people. End of story for my part.
@BPL, #219
Dear BPL, you should read my comments #175 and #199 about the MATERIALISTIC/MECHANISTIC version of modern science way more carefully^^
Anyway, you say “it was a miracle” and I am FINE with that. You know, the christian “book of revelation” says that Jesus will come back very soon and perform MORE MIRACLES, he will save all beautiful christians and send the heathens (like me^^) to Hell where they belong anyway^^ So everything will be fine, excellent, amazing, marveleous, just trust in your god, the performer of miracles. End of story for my part.
“laying back, enjoying the very best, funniest end-show ever and waiting for JAHWE to send me to Hell where I belong”
Ray Ladbury #210,
So, I say “apples are red”, and you say “I disagree, peas are green.”
But here’s what Wiki says:
And that method has consistently been applied by humans, long before it was named and formalized. There is no mention of “collective activity”.
“Scientific Method”, as I’ve pointed out multiple times, is not a synonym for “science”. So either you have some kind of dyslexic issue, or you are just unable to admit being wrong.
The process by which specific Neolithic cultures went from not having pottery to having pottery involved the (yet to be named) Scientific Method, applied by individuals, as I suggest in #185. That’s the only way it could have happened.
(If you ‘disagree’, then describe the alternative way it could have happened.)
Nemesis @206
“You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you? In Germany eg live roughly 80 000 000 people, if they would turn into hunter/gatherers again, all wild animals ect would be eaten within a few days and then the Germans would easily starve to death ;)”
Exactly right, although I doubt that Piotr was suggesting we should live like that. And it gets worse. Traditional non industrial types of farming might struggle to feed a population of 80 million Germans adequately as well. Yet industrial agriculture is killing the planet, so what do we do? We could do regenerative agriculture but some parts of it may need to be phased in slowly so the system can adjust.
No till and limited till farming have negligible effects on productivity if you look into the scientific literature so could be used immediately. Pesticides are devastating insect populations so should be phased out or their use reduced asap. Much of their use is to do with product appearance rather than productivity so they are not vital.
Industrial nitrate fertilisers boost productivity so we might have to keep them, or phase them out slowly over time, so their removal is compensated for by increases in productivity from breeding programmes and genetic engineering. Monoculture might have to also be phased down rather than ended immediately. There are others aspects of RA that could be adopted immediately. The thing is to use traditional approaches to farming, but modify them or phase them in, to suit the current reality of over population, and keep industrial farming methods where they make sense and are relatively environmentally benign.
Re: Nemesis (206): “ You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?”
That’s why the intention of my post was narrow – I questioned your _historical_ claim that “farming was [not] the main cause of hierarchies, inequality etc.”.
Now if you want to move the argument from the past into the future, I have not advocated abandoning agriculture, well at least until we can grow most of our food in vitro. ;-) Rather, the question is: can we learn from history?
My first response would be: “no” – if history teaches us anything, it is that hardly anybody learns from history – generals fighting the previous wars, stock -market analysts saying: “Now, this time is different…”
But since this answer is an intellectual dead-end, we may consider the less likely, but more productive premise – that we could learn from history.
In such case the question would be how we can lessen the agriculture’s damage to ecosystems and social structure. The former is being discussed on and off again by others, so I’ll concentrate on the social damage, and, more specifically, on the one in which my previous post comes into play:
“ with [introduction of] agriculture, for the first time, you have substantial personal property, property that you’d like to go to your heirs. In order to ensure paternity (hence the name patriarchy) women had to be controlled and their sexuality policed. ”
So can we have agriculture (and society) that do NOT cause women to be controlled by men? Such situation would not be more just and fair, but would have MAJOR
sustainability implications: education of girls and empowerment women are known
to limit the root cause of the current unsustainability – the high population growth.
Plus, it might change things in more general sense: _perhaps_ the world co-ruled by women might be less zero-sum competitive, and more cooperative; less obsessed with individualism and consumption NOW, and more considering of the longer-term effects of our consumption – the climate and the world we are leaving to our children. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding… ;-)
Nemesis (220) “ The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people.”
Assuming that these are not your views, but merely your “reductio at Hitlerum ” of Nigel’s arguments, how would _you_ answer somebody, let’s call them hypothetically: “Nemesis (206)”, saying:
“ you still can’t go back to [substitute “hunting/gathering” with: “slash-and-burn farming of Kogi”] on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?“
Nemesis @220
“I didn’t say, early astronomy were science. Let’s just agree on that as it makes the entire discussion beautifully easy for all of us:”
Hmmm. Nemesis @203: “And that astronomical observation resp the measurement of time (performed by men) might be some ancient form of real science.” But if you are now saying it wasn’t science ok.
“The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people. End of story for my part.”
I didn’t say any of that. Quite the contrary there are obvious things we can learn from indigenous people ,from their culture of sharing, conservation and not taking more than they need from nature etc, etc. Even their mystical world view is interesting and probably has value.
But I wonder if using cannabis really achieves much other than fun. I used it a couple of times when young and don’t remember cannabis ever really giving me any insight into anything, it was just good fun. Although there’s some evidence emerging it is a pain killer so maybe they used it for that.
Cocoa leaves stimulate feel good endorphins. Fun really. Peyote is hallucinogenic but does this giving people insights into reality or themselves, or is it just a distortion of things?
Drugs like kava that the fijian people use relax, and stimulate discussion. I guess that is some real use although there are risks using that stuff.
Exactly right, although I doubt that Piotr was suggesting we should live like that. And it gets worse. Traditional non industrial types of farming might struggle to feed a population of 80 million Germans adequately as well. Yet industrial agriculture is killing the planet, so what do we do?
Stop repeating this propaganda.
206 Nemesis says:
19 Mar 2021 at 1:28 PM
You may be right, but if so, you still can’t go back to hunter/gatherer culture on a planet with 7.5 billion people, can you?
Straw Man nonsense.
N 207: Cool, so god has always been a (christian^^) white MAN wearing a long, white beard up, up in heaven and the MEN are creating the VERY BEST planet EVER for sure in colaboration with that masculine, almighty god as we surely can see all around us oh so beautifully.
BPL: Beautiful illustration of a straw man argument–and of course, it directly contradicts what I explicitly said about “a variety of gods and goddesses.” You don’t actually read what anybody says to you, do you? You just fill in what your imagination supplies.
N 220: The western, white culture and science and religion and ecology ect ect ect is the very best mankind ever had and we will see a wonderful future. . . . The Kogi are just like f* uneducated hippies, they party all the time, unlike sober, super-rational white, christian men. There’s just nothing we could ever learn from indigenous people.
BPL: The beauty of straw man arguments is that you never have to address what your opponents are actually saying. You can just set up whatever foul imaginary threat you like and knock that down, and then pretend you’ve defeated your opponents’ actual arguments. Sarcasm substituting for logic.
N 221: he will save all beautiful christians and send the heathens (like me^^) to Hell where they belong anyway^^ So everything will be fine, excellent, amazing, marveleous, just trust in your god, the performer of miracles. End of story for my part.
BPL: Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.
Zebra, I’m disagreeing with you because you are wrong. Period. Science differs from “natural philosophy”. It differs from simple empirical inquiry.
To see the difference, you need only look at the pace at which knowledge accumulates–there is an inflection point starting in the 1600s. Prior to that point, knowledge accumulated by fits and starts. A progressive enclave might arise for a few decades–in China, in India, in Baghdad, perhaps even in Florence. Then the regime would change, the researchers would scatter and much of the knowledge would be lost.
After 1600, things change. The change resulted from a variety of factors that all happened to come together in European capitols at relatively the same time–accidents of history, but they changed things. Suddenly people were actually doing science. Newton was writing his Principia–but you never would have had people reading the Principia without the Royal Society (and Edmund Halley, in particular).
And at the same time, Newton was also carrying our his alchemy studies, which were anything but science, and his optics, which combined elements of both science and unscientific method. (Note: Newton’s grandeur imposed the straight jacket of his corpuscular optics on British science for a full generation, retarding progress in this field of study even as mechanics continued to evolve. How can you look at that history and not see that things were changing in a fundamental way?)
Look, what Newton, Halley, Hooke, Huygens, Descartes… were doing would have been incomprehensible to Aristotle or even Eratosthenes. That is why we call Aristotle and Eratosthenes natural philosophers and we call Newton et al. scientists.
@BPL, #231
” Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.”
I hear you^^ and thank you very much for reminding me, I seriously appreciate that a lot. I will just shut up now, I need to shut up completely as climate discussions just interfere with my inner peace, lol, all discussions interfere with my precious inner peace and freedom. I found out most trouble comes from human beings – no people, no trouble. Say goodbye to Europe/Germany (drying up while we speak) and the funny money machine, it will be gone within a flash. End of story.
” Come thou, thou last one, whom I recognize,
unbearable pain throughout this body’s fabric:
as I in my spirit burned, see, I now burn in thee:
the wood that long resisted the advancing flames
which thou kept flaring, I now am nourishinig
and burn in thee.
My gentle and mild being through thy ruthless fury
has turned into a raging hell that is not from here.
Quite pure, quite free of future planning, I mounted
the tangled funeral pyre built for my suffering,
so sure of nothing more to buy for future needs,
while in my heart the stored reserves kept silent.
Is it still I, who there past all recognition burn?
Memories I do not seize and bring inside.
O life! O living! O to be outside!
And I in flames. And no one here who knows me.”
R. M. Rilke
Hail the Fire!
Sorry, I forgot to add the title to Rilke’s poem. The title is as simple and telling as it can be, the title simply is:
” Death”.
Hail the Fire!
Over & out (I won’t come back I promise).
Nemesis at 205: “There have been some people who truely lived like the indigenous, one of the most remarkable was Bruno Manser:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Manser
Here’s a wonderful documentary about his travels to the malaysian rainforest and his life with the Penan people:
” Bruno Manser – LAKI PENAN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNx9Np3wmEc
Thanks for sharing this link. It’s a wonderful piece of filmmaking that tells a rather sad story. The story illustrates why the Kogi can no longer retreat to a safe distance from “civilized man.” The Penan people could not establish indigenous right to protect the jungle environment in Borneo that they inhabited in something close to a sustainable manner. The Kogi face a similar problem. We can’t protect them from the consequences of the way we live in the industrial world. I think we can’t protect ourselves from the same consequences. It’s all a tragedy, but it’s also a cosmic-scale injustice that peoples and cultures who have done the least to deplete the natural world are likely to experience the highest and earliest impacts of that same depletion.
I still haven’t gotten to watching the first Kogi film, but maybe this week.
Cheers
Mike
Possible to plant too many trees?
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-soils-absorb-co2-carbon-risebut.html
“Details behind Biden’s ’30 by 30′ U.S. lands and oceans climate goal”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/details-behind-bidens-30-by-30-u-s-lands-and-oceans-climate-goal/#:~:text=The%20initiative%20is%20charged%20with,and%20address%20the%20changing%20climate.%E2%80%9D
Seems like good legislation to me. Its the sort of thing that might get very broad support as its not a “tax” and it does a range of good things environmentally. Its not the perfect solution to the climate issue, but I’m all about what can be realistically done in this world full of competing interests and entrenched views and ideologies.
237 nigelj says:
25 Mar 2021 at 1:54 AM
“Details behind Biden’s ’30 by 30′ U.S. lands and oceans climate goal”
Seems like good legislation to me.
Ah, so completely inadequate to the task. Thanks for the warning.
And meanwhile, in Canada the carbon tax is officially a Constitutional ‘go’, as the Supreme Court notes that climate change is an “existential threat.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-pricing-climate-supreme-court-otoole-kenney-1.5964328
David,
Yes. The Biosphere experiments showed how soil organism respiration trounces plant photosynthesis. Woo that plants grow, random number, 10% faster if the same drivers result in decaying organisms revving up so as to double (again, fake number) decay.
And it has long puzzled me why forests are considered by definition to be superior to grasslands when grasslands sequester gobs of carbon.
Uh, tropical forests accumulate almost no carbon. Would we do ourselves and our planet a favor by turning the Amazon rain forest into the Amazon savannah?
Killian #238, you should give Biden at least SOME positive feedback for his plan. If all he gets is negativity he will eventually just give up on the climate issue. Its not as if hes short of other issues that need attention and probably of more immediate concern to his voter base. Governments cant solve all the climate problem, but we want governmenets doing all they can to help combat the climate problem.
Richard Caldwell @240 — Here are 4 pages of links to articles about planting trees:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/694/trillions-trees
If dead trees are removed via pyrolysis followed by sequestration of the solid fraction trees ought to be superior to savannah.
BPL: Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.
RC: Uh, the story he described wasn’t his. It was, per his opinion, you and yours’ story. In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”.
Your response boils down to “I know you are but what am I?”
Perhaps a better response would explain why Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”.
Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?
I notice some brief discussion about agriculture and feeding people without industrial agriculture. I had a quick look at the estimated land area required to feed one person on a vegetarian diet (8000 sq feet or 743 sq m (https://www.growveg.co.uk/guides/growing-enough-food-to-feed-a-family/)). The UK is about 245,000 sq km in area or 245 x 10^9 sq m. With a population of around 70 million people, and if they require about 750 sq m of land per person, that equates to roughly 750 x 7×10^7 = 52.5 x 10^9 which is about 20% of the UK land area.
Seems doable but you have to allocate land for other uses such as shelter and transportation, and accept the fact that not all of the UK has productive arable land (you can’t grow crops on the Cairngorm plateau for example), so I’d estimate it is theoretically mathematically possible to feed the UK without intensive industrial agriculture, but whether it could ever be realistic I would doubt it.
Richard Caldwell(240) Uh, tropical forests accumulate almost no carbon. Would we do ourselves and our planet a favor by turning the Amazon rain forest into the Amazon savannah?
I am not sure – the “almost no” uptake of CO2 by tropical rain forest is not caused by the superiority of grass over trees, but is a result of the nutrient-poor soil which limits how much NEW carbon can you take up from air.
And the role of the Amazon is that it keeps it C in its biomass, as opposed to RELEASING it back into the air.
Basically, an ecosystem “uptakes” CO2 into two pools – adding to biomass (living and recently dead) and adding to soil. In the forest – the balance is shifted toward biomass, in grasslands toward soil, but that does not prove that for a given location and climate the COMBINED biomass+soil sequestration in grasslands is larger as that of the forest
If there is a difference it would be linked to:
a) ability of an ecosystem to procure new nutrients and to prevent loss of the existing ones
b) efficiency of the carbon uptake per unit of the limiting nutrient (i.e. C/N or C/P ratios)
Re: a) i.e nutrient gain and losses by an ecosystem
If phosphorus (P) is the limiting factor – I don’t think there much an undisturbed ecosystem can do either procuring some new or to prevent the loss of the existing ones.
Disturbance by humans can, either by adding massive amounts of fertilizers or by increasing the LOSS from the system. We see the latter in Brazil, the very country that is already implementing your modest proposal, getraly accelerated by the president Bolsonaro: burning the Amazon forest to convert it into pasture (Brazil is already the largest exported of beef).
This almost certainly leads to the LOSS of P from the system:
– when you burn a tree – its C gets mainly into CO2 , while its N and P would be in the ashes – and the portion of the smoke that deposits outside Amazon removes its part of N and P from Amazon.
– the ash that _remained_ and the soil from the burn area – after the burn are being washed out by the torrential rains, with surface of the soil no longer protected against the elements by the dense canopy.
That’s the reason why the “new” pastures in the Amazon do not last long – after a few years, the initial pulse of nutrients from the ash is gone, so the beef industry moves onto to the next piece of the Amzon forest …
If N was a limiting factor in the Amazon (in most of terrestrial systems it is P, not N) – then the loss of ash and washout desribed for P would also apply, but the things would be further complicated by the biological processes that “produce” and “destroy” biologically available N (N-fixation and denitrification, respectively).
I don’t think we can count on the biological supply of N in grass ecosystems being so much better as to offset the loss of N in smoke and washout AND also to make a large surplus needed for the net CO2 sequestration.
b) efficiency of sequestering C per unit nutrient – C/P or C/N ratio in the wood, grass, and organic detritus in the soil. I don’t think it be SUBSTANTIALLY better
for grass replacement – most of tree dry weight is wood – which contains A LOT of C and hardly any P and N. And quite a bit of it is in the form of lignin – more difficult to break down (and release CO2) than the cellulose.
Grassland, on the other hand, have little if any lignin, so its C is more prone to decomp, leading to the lower the C/P and C/N ratio, and lower potentail for sequestration.
So no, I don’t think replacing tropical rain forest with tropical rain grassland pasture, would sequester much new CO2 if any.
Richard Caldwell (243) BPL: “Nemesis, stop saying “End of story” unless you actually intend to shut up.”
RC(243): “Uh, the story he described wasn’t his. It was, per his opinion, you and yours’ story. In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”.”
Uh, it sound like what _you_ wanted to tell. The BPL’s post was not “spreading religion”, but merely a comment about … an annoying language mannerism: “End of story” is not only arrogant, but apparently has not applied to oneself – Nemesis CONTINUED to talk AFTER his “End of story” statement.
So your attempts at oh so-biting sarcasm:
“In essence, he told you to stop spreading false religion, to “shut up”. Wwhy Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”. Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?”
missed the mark, badly:
– BPL didn’t invoke his “god” as an argument in this discussion,
– his supposed demand for eternal adulation apparently exist only in your head,
– since Nemesis used the “End of story” phrase to THREE different people (to Mike(205), Nigel(220) and BPL(221)), then the phrase was not some clever dismissal of “false religion”, but his recycled (3 times to 3 authors within 2 days) turn of phrase. Self-plagiarism the most sincere form of self-flattery ?
A sarcasm built on made-up claims of an opponent discredits only its author. Particularly, if done in such a juvenile style:
“explain why Nemesis and I and Ray and so many others DESERVE ETERNAL TORTURE for not believing in your punitive and sadistic “god”. Come clean. Why do you deserve eternal flowers and Others deserve eternal torture?
[A facepalm emoji here]
Richard, #253–
Good to see you back, R!
But, though BPL can speak for himself, and probably already has, I confidently can say you’re misframing the question. Per orthodox doctrine, *nobody* actually deserves “eternal flowers”; but nevertheless they’re freely on offer and all you have to do is accept.
There is a bit of a sticky wicket, though, in that the quid pro quo of belief may not be strictly voluntary, Blaise Pascal notwithstanding.
241
nigelj says:
26 Mar 2021 at 10:25 PM
Killian #238, you should give Biden at least SOME positive feedback for his plan.
I doubt he reads this forum.
If all he gets is negativity he will eventually just give up on the climate issue.
OK, that’s just dumb rhetoric. Think, man.
Food production, Wiki:
Green Revolution (GR): 8,000 kg/ha
Gervais Family, Orange Co., CA: 6,000 lb on 1/10 acre
GR equivalent: 1,763 lb on 1/10 acre.
Rodale: (simple) Regenerative more productive.
Regenerative: Continually improves the soil, improving production from on-site inputs.
Conventional: Depletes the soil using off-site inputs.
Regenerative: Improves soil health, including soil biota and insects.
Conventional: Destroys soil, kills soil biota and insects.
Regenerative: Sequesters carbon, reducing climate risks, flooding, erosion, etc., and associated costs.
Conventional: Releases carbon, increases climate risks, flooding, erosion, etc., and associated costs.
Regenerative: Reduces costs to farmer.
Conventional: Increases costs to farmer.
Regenerative: Reduces work.
Conventional: increases work.
Regenerative: Stacks functions resulting in far higher yields overall, though perhaps less of specific crops such as corn and soy – which we need far less of. This is why the Gervais family gets so much from so small a plot.
(California weather helps with this, so the 6k lbs should be compared to other warm climates rather than, say, Manitoba. Remember: Design is local.)
Conventional: Monocrops. This has vastly diminished the variety of foods eaten in industrialized countries, and particularly the US, which impacts health and greatly increases the need for and cost of health care.
Regenerative: 40~60% more nutrient-dense, improving health, reducing total food by weight needed for health, reducing the land area needed for food production per capita.
Conventional: 40~60% less nutrient-dense, reducing health, increasing total food by weight needed for health, increasing the land area needed for food production per capita.
Regenerative: Keeps soil in place; any runoff would enhance deltas, estuaries, etc.
Conventional: Creates ocean dead zones from soil runoff full of inputs, insecticides, herbicides, etc.
Regenerative: Sequesters far more water due to higher organic matter, reducing the need for water, improving groundwater, refilling aquifers, improves the water cycle – including downrange rains.
Conventional: Prevents water sequesters due to lower organic matter, increasing the need for water, reducing groundwater, depleting aquifers, causing desertification and droughts, disrupting the water cycle – including diminishing downrange rains.
Etc.
Simple is as simple does. When one claims conventional ag is more productive than regenerative ag, one should not think simply.
Additionally, when one thinks of regenerative ag one should not think merely no-till and cover crops. This simplistic thinking is why people are able to make specious claims that regenerative is less productive: They are not talking about regenerative, they are talking about pseudoorganic.
Elements under the regenerative umbrella (Permaculture):
No-till
cover crops
co-planting
inter-planting
rotational grazing (can also apply to chicken tractors, other animals)
aquaculture
silvopasture
hugelculture
Food Forests
bio-char
bio-digesters
free-range animal inclusion
composting
vermicomposting
humanure
compost tea
I’m sure there are a number of other things I am forgetting off the top of my head.
Upshot: Comparing industrial ag output to the absolute minimum organic ag is a false dichotomy. If the study you refer to is not comparing industrial vs. a comprehensive regenerative system, it is not a valid comparison and the claims based on such comparisons are ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
And then there are the benefits to the community:
https://civileats.com/2021/03/26/op-ed-an-afro-indigenous-approach-to-agriculture-and-food-security/
Emphasis mine.