Man is 'Killing the Planet'

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by duendy, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    Methane is called ''fossil fuel'' by nobody but fringe quacks. Hell, you produce methane when you eat fast food and then sit your lard ass down in your SUV to rush home to watch Football on the tube . . . farting along the way.

    Would Googling on anything ''convince'' YOU then?! Cool! You know that aliens from other planets are really behind this all right? If you are not convinced try a google with "Michael E. Salla" -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    No, of course not, Gravity. Google is a useful tool, but it is not Google who will convince me. Its only me, and the new information I might get and the analysis I make of it. That info will be contrasted against other sources, and in the case of scientific matters, against basic ironclad laws in different fields. I told you to look for further information on Thomas Gold and his abiogenesis theory.

    The fossil origin of fuels never caught my approval since I learned in school about the theory that states oil was formed by decomposition of ancient jungles and other organic matter. When I was in high school, we learned that oil drillings usually go down 2000 or 3000 meters, and I wondered where all those sediments came from (2000 meters high!) for covering jungles and dinosaurs. As I had some familiar training in geology and mineralogy (my family had the biggest limestone quarry in Argentina, and I had to learn the trade and everything involved with it) finally it became clear that the origin of petroleum was not in jungles or decomposition of organic matter.

    Although methane is ALSO formed by organic processes, the main source of methane is deep down in the Earth crust. I guess you have heard about “methane clathrates” in the ocean bottom. Which is the origin of those clathrates?

    Even so, methane is still being referred to as a “fossil fuel” by the “mainstream” media, you like it or not. But my reference of oil as a renewable resource was directed at the final product of the mixing of methane and helium: petroleum.

    It looks as you don’t own a SUV (neither do I), you don’t watch Football (me neither –I watch, always, Argentina’s national soccer team matches) I barely watch the dumb box /TV). You seem to be a writer (I have books written on the environment subject), you a IT consultant, I am consulted in environmental issues by schools, universities, newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations in Argentina (and from Spain, Mexico, Peru, too).

    I also enjoy skiing, and was the ski instructor for my whole family (starting from 1973 until today), I have been also an excellent skydiver (and instructor, between 1975-1980). I am handicap 5 in golf, and was handicap 4 in Polo. I have been exploring the Amazon jungle since 1971 (I have even lived there for 3 years in a row, taking tourists to Adventure Travel trips into the jungle: see here: <a href=>Amazon 1</a> and here: <a href=>Amazon 2</a>)

    So after all that kind of activity I never had the chance to grow a lard ass. In fact, I have been always walking on the skinny side of life. See the pictures and see where you find a lard ass. I am tempted to say that I rather have a lard ass than having too much fat in the brain.

    BTW, How is Snow Mountain, VT? I skied there back in 72, but it was then starting to develop – and was not a good skiing as Aspen, or Portillo, Chile; or St. Moritz, or Bariloche, in Patagonia.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, but the hydrocarbons we know and mine for fuel are indeed the result of millions of years of solar energy being stored as organic matter, and altered by the heat and pressure underground. They are not renewable, and the people that sponsor the kind of phony research that says so are, you guessed it, the OIL companies.

    Some oil wells appear to replenish to some extent because much oil is in small cracks and fissures in the earth, and when the main body of oil is extracted, a little flows back into the cavity.

    Actually, much of the increased productivity of farmland is due to fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel tractors, all petroleum based. Also the increased ability to drill down into deep aquifers has helped, but this isn't sustainable either. It has every sign of slowing down. Oil has increased the carrying capacity of the Earth, and allowed increased populations, and when that starts to run out, there will be famines again of historical proportions.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    Dude, Mr. Gold is a neocon/petrochemical industry tool:

    "Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993 study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global production to date, Lewan said. "

    Gold et al. are surely taking the argument too far to suggest that all oil is abiotic.

    "No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it." -- Colin Campbell on abiotic oil

    Even if oil was abiotic in origin, which is actually not the concensus, quite the opposite, according to Colin Campbell, it doesn't change the fact that the discovery curve has been heading down since the 1960s, and Thomas Gold's projects have all been dry holes so far.

    Skiing in New England sucks. I was a Ski School Director, Extreme Skiing Competitor, writer, ski photo model and Instructor Trainer in Colorado for over a decade - it was nice there. (Aspen pales compared to places like Telluride, Crested Butte and Wolf Creek by the way) I did summer ski training in South America many summers, lived in Europe for three years and competed there. And more.

    I love many things about Vermont, and am happy to live here - but its made me fall out of love with the ski industry! Mt. Snow? Sucks.
  8. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Spidergoat and Gravity:

    Mining hydrocarbons? They are liquid --or at least bituminous (like Canada sand oils) Or perhaps you meant drilling? “Mining” fossil fuels is correct when it implies coal, that definitely has a biogenic origin; but you find coal making mountains (as in Great Britain, Germany, EEUU, etc) and sometimes down to about 300 meters. But then, coal is not found deeper. No jungles covered by sediments at 1000, 2000, 8000 meters deep.

    Yes, you will find thousands of links in the Internet saying Dr. Gold was (he`s dead now) a shill for oil (that excuse has worn out long ago!), that the theory has no consensus (consensus is not science, if there is consensus then there is politics). But you will also find many as others saying the man is right. If you want to know what Gold said in his webpage (at Cornell University) go to

    You can also see other serious scientists speaking about the issue: Excerpts from the paper by P.N. Kropotkin, entitled <a href=>"On the History of Science: Professor N.A. Kudryatsev (1893-1971) and the Development of the Theory of Origin of Oil and Gas"</a>

    In <a href=>Recharging of oil and gas fields</a> you will find the explanation for the phenomenon, and it is worth consideration –if you are scientifically minded and not biased or prejudiced.

    It marveled me the reference to “Colin Campbel on oil”. The guy is Big Oil, and you trust him? Why he, and not the others? Colin Campbell says something that makes my point: “But the oil that remains is going to be increasingly expensive to produce and it will tend to be of a lesser quality, necessitating higher refining costs, than what has already been used. All of those costs will have to be passed on in the form of price hikes or -- in some cases -- spikes.” He simply says that as people believe oil is getting scarce, they will be willing to pay more for it. That I call a shill for oil.

    Then Campbell says: “Another misleading idea is about oilfields being refilled. Some are, but the oil simply is leaking in from a deeper accumulation.” I guess you didn’t pay attention to this. It means that oil, as Dr. Gold said, is upwelling from the bottom, carried by helium (not sinking down pulled by gravity as it might be natural).

    Then, one link to wikipedia ( said this: “That this theory is receiving increasing attention from Western geologists is indicated by the fact that the <a href=;jsessionid=1hco3z2slcwdb?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=American+Association+of+Petroleum+Geologists&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a>American Association of Petroleum Geologists</a> scheduled a conference to meet in Vienna in July 2004 entitled "Origin of Petroleum—Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production". The conference had to be canceled, however, due to financial considerations. Instead, AAPG will be holding a one-day session on the topic at the June 2005 annual meeting in Calgary, Alberta. If the theory is correct, then it could greatly change <a href=;jsessionid=1hco3z2slcwdb?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Future+energy+development&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a>future energy development.</a>

    Pessimists like Paul Ehrlich and the like have been warning since the early 60s that oil was running out and it was going to disappear from Earth in 30 years. Then, as more oil reserves were discovered, they moved the Doom date to 50 years in the future. Now they keep saying that oil will run out in… 50 years. But reserves have been discovered in places that according to the orthodox theory of “fossil” origin there could never be oil. Russian and Vietnamese followed Dr. Gold’s theory and drilled where it was impossible to find oil. They found it, and they are using it.

    Which is Earth’s carrying capacity? And capacity for carrying what? Animals? Humans, plants, fish? Microbes? If you have traveled by plane over Third world countries (I did a lot of flying) you are impressed by the huge extension of inhabited territory that can be used for agriculture, cattle breeding, mining, well managed forestry, etc –and then look at the sea, where we have not yet scratched the surface.

    Who are the ones that have established what Earth’s carrying capacity is? The same ones that have established the extinctions of species amount to 40,000 a year. I guess you don’t know the origin of that estimate, and it is interesting –and enlightening towards the way greens behave when it comes to hard science.

    Let me quote what Bjorn Lomborg says about the issue. He was one of you, but when he started to research facts and evidences for contradicting Julian Simon (the “paid by Oil liar”) liar”), he made a jump towards this side of the street. So this is what Lomborg said (not that we didn’t know long before he “discovered the light”:

    <dir>“The original estimate of 40,000 species lost every year came from Myers in 1979. His arguments make astonishing reading. He states, as above –though without references—that until de year 1900, one species became extinct every four years. Then Myers quote a conference in 1974, which “hazarded a guess” that the extinction rate had now reached 100 species a year. This figure does not just cover mammals and birds, but it has an “overall extinction rate among all species, whether known to science or not,” and it is not surprisingly, therefore, much larger. The crucial part of the argument is this:<dir>
    “Yet even this figure seems low – Let us suppose that, as a consequence of this man-handling of natural environments [the clearing of tropical forests], the final one-quarter of this century witnesses the elimination of 1 million species – a far from unlikely prospect. This would work out, during the course of 25 years, at an average extinction rate of 40,000 species per year, or rather over 100 species per day “</dir>
    This is Myers argument in its entirety. If we assume that 1 million species will become extinct, that makes 40,000 species a year. A perfectly circular argument. If you assume 40,000 then you get 40,000. One naturally refuses to believe that this can be the only argument, but Myer’s book provides no other references or argumentation.

    Note the massive deviation between the observed rate of one quarter, one and perhaps 100 per year, and Myers’ estimate of 40,000. This assertion is 40,000 times greater than his own data, 10,000 times the maximum guess as seen in figure 131.”

    All environmental ONGs and many UN agencies (as the IPCC) cites Myers’ study and extinction rates as the Gospel, claiming for taking immediate action to stop “man’s destruction of the environment” caused by deforestation and global warming.

    If they use this patent pseudoscientific hoax as one of the main pillars for their claims for immediate action, then we are entitled to doubt about any other claim about “endangered Earth”, extinctions, warming, polar icecaps melting, rising sea levels, and the rest of the Green Litany.
  9. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    So, wait a second, though history shows that many species have over-run their resources before and paid big time for it . . . there is no chance we are doing anything wrong?

    There is not much chance of your house burning down, do you have fire insurance? Why?

    Should we just say ''damn the torpedo's - full speed ahead"? GeeeeZHuuus will save you right?

    I have kids, I believe in trying to cover our asses if possible.
  10. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Risks are good for your health

    Not everything we do is OK, of course. But most things that we have done wrong are being fixed and improved. That’s the way of gaining experience. I don’t know about species that have over-run their resources, but the panda would qualify for carrying the flag in that parade. What I know about is that there is something called the “biochron”, that is, the life span of a species in a given environment. If the specie does not adapt, then it is history.

    Take the case of whales. They are mammals that didn’t fully adapt to dry ground and returned to the sea, as dolphins and other marine mammals. It is like being defectors. Speaking romantically (and very unscientifically) it’s as if Mother Nature didn’t like they turned their back on her and returned to the sea. Gaia had provided all the tools for the species to adapt and develop and thrive successfully on firm land (as other species did), but they were ungrateful and went back to the ocean. So Gaia resented that and made their life miserable from there on.

    Whales have a very rough time in surviving, they have very bad sight, they reproduce with difficulty, they lose their way and get stuck in shallow waters, they need several tons a day of krill and plankton to survive, don’t have weapons (fangs or claws) for defending themselves, etc. Other sea mammals as killer whales became carnivorous in order to survive and developed sharp teeth and aggressive behavior. But the whale’s “biochron” is up. They will eventually disappear, and we could not do anything to prevent that. It might take thousands, or tens of thousands of years, but it will come the time when they will be gone, even without the help of whalers.

    Another example of a stupid animal is de beloved panda. It has developed a taste for eating only bamboo tender sprouts and leaves. Bamboo is a terrible vegetal to eat, because it does not contain nutrients as other plants do. As a matter of fact, it is the only herbivorous that eats bamboo. So poor pandas must eat carloads of bamboo and very soon they deplete any bamboo forest. When men started to spread in China, and converted some bamboo forest into agricultural land, they began to be in trouble, if you add the hunting for their skins. Primitive people used skins for making their protective clothes against cold weather.

    Tough luck that of pandas and whales. If I must choose between the panda and the Chinese, or the whales and whalers, I choose the man, of course. Perhaps you don’t like Chinese too much, but I don’t have problems with people with different skins, type of eyes, traits, culture, etc – unless they are attacking me, or are threatening to exert violence on my family or my people. It has something to do with self defense. The Law of the Jungle, at its best.

    No, I don’t have fire insurance in my home; I never did, and will never have. I do have my car insured, though, (against fire, theft, destruction and damages to third parties) and I have my home insured against theft and burglary, because we have noticed that such things happen more frequently, they are real risks, and want to invest in security. We don’t insure our homes against tornadoes or hurricanes (as they do in Florida, the Carolinas, the tornado Alley, etc) in most provinces in Argentina because they are not frequent, although some strong winds blow roofs in some places once or twice a year.

    We analyze our environment, the real observed events and the risks they impose, and act accordingly. I guess that is done all over the world, too. Down here, we build houses with bricks, and wood is seldom used (furniture, perhaps). Only first class houses have wood flooring, and not in all rooms. Most of the houses have ceramic flooring. Home fires are quite strange and infrequent down here in Argentina, at least in houses. So I don’t know anyone that has his home insured against fire.

    A different story is with apartments. Although buildings are built here with a concrete structure and bricks, most apartments have wooden flooring and wall to wall carpeting. Sometimes, once in a while, there is a fire in an apartment, but the fire does not spread to neighboring apartments or buildings. It is the way we make our houses, in a country where cement and bricks are cheap and wood extremely expensive, the reason for not having fire insurance in homes. Industry and vehicles are also a different story.

    And of course, many homes have anti-theft insurance, because burglary is widespread down here, as assaults, breaking into houses for looting and taking hostages, etc. We are not in a terrible situation as Colombia, though, but we must be careful.

    If you see the torpedo coming, YES, BY ALL MEANS!

    “GeeeeZHuuus will save you right?”

    I don’t know. Maybe. Who knows? I think Jesus has nothing to do with our lives down here. If you believe in Divine intervention, and that makes you happy, OK, go ahead. I know Jesus existed (historians have left chronicles about him, especially Flavius Josephus who met him, but there things start to get fuzzy). We are going to save ourselves if we keep a cool head and use our brains. Those who panic and become hysterical cannot reason and are easy prey for catastrophes, lions, muggers, tigers, snakes, etc.

    I have kids, I believe in trying to cover our asses if possible.

    I do too, and also grandsons. But I have succeeded in covering our heads and backs (not caring too much for their asses, though, they can take care for those themselves). But, as I said, keeping a cool head, planning in advance, leaving room for improvisation in front of the unexpected, evaluating risks with the aid of some scientific knowledge and/or advice is the best thing we can do. Play it safe, yes, but look not for zero risk. There is no such thing as zero risk. If you want to live with zero risk, then don’t get up in the morning and don’t get out of your home. But be careful when taking a shower –you may slip and break your neck.

    Risks? I love them. As a skydiver, a motorcycle driver since boy, and an Amazon explorer for years I can tell you that a life without risk is boring. Don’t you love when schussing down at 70 mph, feeling the wind in your face? Do you think about the risk before schussing down? Yes, you do. But you have evaluated the risk and know you have 99 to 1 chance of getting away with it. You know that if you schussed down a slope in your third of ski school you have 99 to 1 chances of breaking a bone. Practice makes the master. Experience makes wisdom. Once you got experience, use it. It’s that simple.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2005
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Even if petroleum was still being produced in the Earth, that's all the more reason to stop using it. If we continue as we have, the greenhouse effect would wipe out most life on the surface of the Earth, and since it's all connected, everything dies, the oceans evaporate, game over man.

    Semantics, you know what I mean.

    The peak of oil production in the United States already happened, and the rest of the major fields will follow sometime soon, depending on the rate of oil extraction. Oil production in the US is not increasing, in spite of more wells, it is falling. Long before oil runs out altogether, there will be a point at which more energy is needed to extract it than comes from it. At that pont, it will no longer be economically feasable to continue using oil as an energy source.

    The ability of mankind to feed themselves. This increase in the ability to support larger populations is the result of the industrial revolution, which used to run on coal, now we use oil.

    Your argument about species lost is a strawman, species are dissapearing, it doesn't matter if we can't accurately predict the rate, since only a fraction of all species are known, much less the point at which they go extinct.
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Stop using oil? Why? Would you stop using antibiotics just because they saved billions of lives? Would you stop using oil just because it has provided mankind with a world and a way of life that has been tremendously improved compared with previous centuries? What kind of a suicidal person are you?

    You seem to ignore what the Greenhouse effect really is. It seems you believe it is “catastrophic global warming”, while greenhouse effect is so vital that in its absence there wouldn’t be any life on Earth. Increasing observed temperatures are well within the natural range of increase, as other centuries were much warmer than the 20th century (from the 9th to 12th century it was an average of 2ºC warmer than today). It is clear you have been the victim of all that hysterical propaganda about “dangerous warming”, and the urge to take urgent action. All claims made by all the “warmers” have been contradicted by scientific studies and real world observations.

    Do you hate oil, or are afraid of it? Stop using it. You will regret it quite soon, however.

    Granted. Then go nuclear. Alternative energies as wind and solar are not enough for providing the energy needed. Hydrogen doesn’t seem too promising. Fabricating hydrogen consumes the same or more energy that the one it outputs.

    Well, that’s a fact we all know. Then, what’s your point? Because neither you nor anyone else has determined which is Earth's carrying capacity. Figures, we need figures, real ones, not crazy estimates (40.000 species per year!!!).

    Strawman? You are wrong. In any case it would be a "red herring" --which is not. You said it quite clearly: “since only a fraction of all species are known, much less the point at which they go extinct.” you say species are disappearing. Good. Who told you so? Myers? Don’t believe him. He’s been pout to shame. How many species are disappearing and why? Did you now that in Puerto Rico there are now more bird species than the early 1900s? In future post I can provide you with the corresponding scientific studies and data proving this point. you may belive them or deny its validity --but we need proofs for your rebuttal.

    If we are going to enact policies related to extinctions, policies that would affect millions of people, then we must (not should) be able to determine and predict the rate of extinctions – otherwise, we would be shooting in the dark, away from the target, wasting resources, time and energy.

    As climatologist Patrick Michaels say: “…simply knowing that human activities are impacting the climate is not grounds for "urgent action" to do something about it. Especially given that the overwhelming majority of these human activities<b> have made the world a better place</b> and one capable of <b>supporting a growing human population</b> that now tops 6.5 billion people. A prudent person, or Administration, would think long and hard about <b>scaling down such activities without compelling evidence</b> that the results of not doing so will prove more detrimental than the active pursuit of their curtailment.”
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I agree, we did think long and hard, and there is compelling evidence for it. You can take your medicine one way or another, slowly, so we can adapt, or quickly, which is catastrophic. BTW, the analogy to anti-biotics is a good one. The over use of anti-biotics results in anti-biotic resistant strains of infection, so in the future there will be no way to fight them. Similarly, over use of fossil fuels will lead to our eventual destruction, whatever short-term profits we make now.

    I know what the greenhouse effect is, and that we depend on it, but the natural balancing mechanisms act more slowly than the rate at which we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, to say nothing of the ozone layer.

    That's an idea. I prefer birth control, human and horse power.
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Unbelievable arrogance.

    Damaging the planet????????


    That's just retarded.

    The planet cannot be damaged by puny humons.

    We should watch our asses, a'fore the planet damages US.

    Note please, that we're flying about, stuck in the gravity well of the local star... on a ball of cooled molten cosmic junk that sprouted ecosystems. Each ecosystem is eventually destroyed by some planetary scale badness - and none of them had cars.

    Enjoy what you have while you have it, because tomorrow the calderas may come uh knockin.

    The planet doesn't give a shit about your green movement.

    It will function regardless of your whinings.

    It will, at some point in the probably not too distant future (on the geological time scale) extinctificate 90% of life on the planet.

    Seems to me our concern as a species should be making sure we don't end up like the dinosaurs... which seems to be well under way. Hopefully as a species we'll withstand whatever calamity kills almost all life every 650 million years or so.

    And you worry about the planet.

    I assure you, it's not worried about you.
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The planet doesn't care if there's life on it or not, but I do. I say, as the most rapidly changing and destructive creature on Earth, that maybe we should wonder wether life is really as robust as we have come to think. The arrogance is all yours, nerd. Many civilizations have died out as a result of environmental disasters caused by the civilization itself. I wouldn't care to have my own civilization be counted among them.
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    You agree with me, and call me arrogant.

    Are you confused, or are you calling yourself arrogant as well.

    You didn't notice the theme of surviving up there?

    You think I don't want the species to survive?

    IMO, what's stupid is to say "save the planet".

    But I'm all about "save the species", at whatever cost (even if we "damage the planet" in the process. Note that much of the "damage" to the planet is what's currently keeping the species in sustanence)
  17. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Spidergoat, that's an interesting point you have brought up. Of those many civilizations that where destroyed by "environmental disasters" caused by those civilizarions, please <b>name one</b>, and provide the approximate date.
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    What about the Mayans? I hear they chopped down large parts of the rainforest to fuel the production of plaster for temples...

  19. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Well, that’s one of many theories, and as it a classic, I knew you were going to mention it. But climatology tells a different story. I wished you could read Spanish, because there is a webpage by the most famous and respected Spanish climatologist (he would kill me if he reads this, because he’s basque –but he’s a good friend of many years) where he speaks about the Mayas and the droughts they suffered. Just for seeing the maps go to: <a href=>Mayas</a> and also to <a href=>Yucatan</a>

    Anyhow, I will translate what’s the Mayans page:

    • “It is possible that the end of the Classic period of the Mayan civilization in Yucatan was linked to intense and prolonged droughts occurred between the years 800 AD and beginning of the 900s AD, related to variations in the seasonal position in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), or in the insolation intensity. It could have happened that, in those catastrophic years, the ITCZ didn’t ascend enough in latitude and failed the rains of the wet season.”

      “In the first map above we see that rains in the Caribbean abound in times in which the ITCZ positions itself over this region, while in the lower map it is indicated they are replaced by a regime of trade winds, somewhat dry, when the ITCZ moves away to the south.”

      “Studies performed in lakes of the Mayan territory (Yucatan), as those in the marine basin of Cariaco (out the Venezuelan coast), of similar climate, coincide in pointing failures in summer rains during dos centuries when the Mayan civilization collapsed.”

    (References: Hodell D. et al., 2001, Solar forcing of drought frequency in the Maya lowlands, Science, 292, 1367-1370; Haug G. et al., 2003, Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization, Science, 299, 1731-1735

    Of course, there is another good theory that goes quite well with the Malthusian hypothesis of famines for increasing population. This, coupled with the droughts can be a perfect explanation of their collapse. As the population increased, the Mayans had to extend more and more their crop lands (maize, yucca, manioc, potatoes, pumpkin, etc) to feed the increasing population (they amounted to some several hundred thousands then, close to the million) but the climate didn’t help. As they didn’t improve their agricultural technology, it was quite difficult to get good yields from exhausted lands and failing rains. The people started to move out of the region, debilitating the empire. Their enemies (olmecas, etc) did the rest.

    But you could have given a much better example of stupid behavior leading to their extinction: the Eastern island civilization, those idiots building the huge stone faces (Moais) and deforesting completely their very small island, resting without wood to make canoes and fishing ships. They starved to death. Had they the present technology for transporting their stone statues (tractors, heavy equipment) they wouldn’t have to chop all the trees for making rollers to transport the stone faces to their place. As one webpage says:

    "The population of Easter Island reached its peak at perhaps more than 10,000, far exceeding the capabilities of the small island's ecosystem. Resources became scarce, and the once lush palm forests were destroyed - cleared for agriculture and moving the massive stone Moai. In this regard, Easter Island has become, for many, a metaphor for ecological disaster."

    Once man has mastered one technology, it keeps developing and improving that people’s lives. But, perhaps you don’t know, there was a civilization that left carved stones in Ica, Peru, telling fantastic stories, as men hunting dinosaurs. The stones and the carving have been dated in the German University at Bonn --at 65 millions years ago. According to the images carved in those stones (the Stones of Ica) that civilization was performing hearts transplants and also brain transplants. The images show a man being transplanted with a heart and a pregnant woman connected to the patient, giving her blood –that technique was later used by Dr. Chris Barnard for lowering the risk of organ rejection. You see, there is nothing new under the Sun.

    They also recorded the Halley and Kohutek comets in their carvings. Just for fun, make a search in Google with (Ica stones) and be happy!
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    There is a point that needs to be considered regarding complex systems, the butterfly effect, economics, ecology and problem solving. I'm writing this as a reminder to me to start a thread about it.
  21. Roman Banned Banned

    Fuck yes please do.
  22. Golgo 13 The Professional Registered Senior Member

    A few things:

    Re: Peak Oil, corroborated at exhaustive length in this thread.

    Re: Abiotic Oil nonsense, refuted in this thread.

    And as far as Colin Campbell being "big oil", that is false. Colin is a retired and thus disinterested senior petroleum geologist that has been bringing the facts of hydrocarbon depletion to the dinner table, reguardless of how unpalatable they are.

    Same goes with Kenneth Deffeyes and Jean Laherrère.

    Matthew Simmons, who is the energy advisor to the Presidency, has also been warning of the ramifications of oil depletion.
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Interesting that the Mayans didn't cause the drought, yet were killed right off because of it. Perhaps they were sacrificing the wrong things to their gods. What idiots.

Share This Page