|
Posted by seahunt on March 01, 2014 at 06:29:07:
In Reply to: Re: Ancient California posted by Labugman on February 28, 2014 at 14:22:41:
I have to think that you may have missed something in your reading. Notice how it mentions that populations came and went based on the environment. When the environment was good, people thrived. When it was bad, they left. In the modern world, that is far harder to do, because of our extensive investment in the civilization and infrastructure that supports us. Humans have created civilization because the past 10,000 years since the last Ice Age has been particularly stable with very favorable weather. Part of the reason civilization has endured is because the ocean levels did not fluctuate greatly and so harbors supported maritime civilizations and trade. The world was colonized by boat.
The problem is that Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC), is very unlikely to change things for the better. Actually, all models show what we have been seeing, more chaotic weather. Harder rain at less regular times. More violent storms. Droughts causing unprecedented fires that threaten ancient forests. Humans thrive on order. as climate change progresses, it increases the chaotic state that we must survive in.
Civilization is an investment. If we carelessly break the environmental systems we depend on, we are breaking our investment.
Human strategy is long. Nature does not care that a volcano or other disaster kills most life in any place. It will recover in time. That is not the view of a human though and is not appropriate for a human. We live in nature, but we cannot afford to be completely subject to nature like a simple plant or animal. We must make our niche in nature and care for it. Are we to be like animals, to perish and recover in the cycles and whims of nature or are we something more that builds and preserves our world?
Much of human agriculture is based on the grafting of fruit trees. Fruit trees tend to either have good root systems or produce good fruit, not both. So farmers have learned to grow both and then graft superior fruit bearing trees onto the roots of plants with superior root systems, leading to treas that are bountiful producers. The trouble is that these trees are very sensitive to the weather and temperatures. In chaotic weather systems, the cycle gets disrupted, flowers freeze at times of unusual late frosts. There are many other factors that can cause orchards to just not produce one year... or another year... or another... and then it is just uneconomical. These are not theories or hypotheticals. These is just what is going on in California today as well as around the world. The unprecedented drought has made farmers in the rich agricultural central valley uproot orchards (as they have) that are long term investments that are lost as well as the fruit on your table.
Around the United States and the World, chaotic weather is frequently causing local disasters of many kinds including agricultural failure. Where infrastructure is well developed, food distribution can prevent a human toll, but the toll on nature is high as is the toll on the individuals of the area. (I will skip the larger social ramifications that I cover in my book).
This goes much further. Humans are adaptable and have developed a wide variety of survival strategies. Our adaptability has allowed us to inhabit almost every imaginable niche in the world, including some that are quite marginal. Unfortunately as a natural consequence, we have an over population problem. Over population is where there are too many people for the available niche. Well, the nature of climate change is almost certainly going to reduce the size of the human niche. You say that climate change is a constant, but you seem to ignore the cost. Most of humanity lives near coastal zones, the areas most likely to be impacted by climate change.
Oh yes, you say that climate change is normal and the fossil record supports that, but what is not shown in the fossil record is what is not in the fossil record. There is no fossil record that shows the Sahara desert as a barren, lifeless place, but there is a record showing when it was not, not so long ago, when it was a vital place of abundant life. If the projections are correct, much of the world could become a desert and certainly that will support less life. There is much of my problem with your position and others with a similar position. It is ideological and contemptuous of reality. It is not that you say that the cries of danger from the scientists might be wrong. No, yours is the ideological bellow meant to discard and drown out consideration and thought. If it was thoughtful, you would say, "maybe they are wrong, but maybe we had better be careful". No, the voice of the ideologist says my contempt for your beliefs makes me work to thwart you, so I will do what I can to make it worse to prove you wrong. There are things that could be done, but I refuse to consider them just to show my contempt for your beliefs. Well, what if they are right? What then? Are you giving to your children, a damaged life support system. Are you risking damaging the world as it supports humanity? No Mel, you are a smart guy. You should be acting as a leader. A leader worries about the future, but you are being irresponsible and contemptuous of it. Disagree if ACC that is what you believe, but there is no excuse not to work to preserve the health of the natural world that we live in and that we as divers find intoxicatingly exciting and beautiful. Ask yourself, what are you protecting when you attack that. We do not want to go back to our roots in nature red in tooth and claw. We cannot continue in the transient ecologies we have existed in in history. We must move to a sustainable niche in an ecology that we create and husband for the benefit of humanity. WE have our different roles in life, but I charge you with that task. It is your responsibility and certainly you must not endanger our future or attack those that would husband it.
Enjoy the diving, seahunt
|
