Thread: Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

They're not in the middle of a desert. They're in the middle of a city. Very few would be able to scratch it out in a forest.
Last words are only famous if there's someone left to hear them.

Cheers,


AetheLove

While i agree to a larger degree on them being in the city i do however have to point out odds are the 872 sq miles isnt all buildings. With the city being in the middle of the desert i have to say its most likely they inhabit both in and around the city.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Dogs only reach that sort of population density in proximity to humans. Though it's likely that most of those dogs aren't pets, they depend on humans (rather, human activity) to stay alive.

You say you've volunteered overseas. I spent 2 months working for an SPCA in Visakhapatnam, India. One of the programs was dog control. To the vast majority of Indians, the concept of a dog as a pet is completely bizarre. Dogs inhabit their cities the same way pigeons or squirrels inhabit ours - except that dogs can be more dangerous. Usually they aren't dangerous but it's a real problem anyway.

Lots of fun (or, you know, not fun) stories there, but where I was going with it was that the "cull a million stray dogs" story should be taken with a dump-truck sized grain of salt. I have no doubt someone official quoted that figure, or that stray (feral) dogs are a big problem, but my experience in India was that many figures like that are made up.

I'm happy to share my experiences if anyone is interested, but I see by scanning this thread that we got to dogs via feral cats. I lived in a small town in NC that had a miserable feral cat problem. I think of myself as an animal lover, but if someone came up with a credible plan to eradicate them, I'd be in favour. I'd feel guilty about it, but it'd be for the best.

I ran into that shit all over the south - when people don't want a cat, or a dog, they simply turn them lose. WTF is up with that?

... and I guess we came to cats from something do with algae that shits diesel fuel, and so we can now in good conscience kill all the trees.

Fucking trees. About damned time.

Cheers,


AetheLove

I guess in a round about way i volunteered to be over seas. I got stationed there and in japan dog is most definitely on the menu. As for the number of dogs in bahgdad well that grain of salt gets a lot smaller. They have had the issue for a long time and the war along with the aftermath multiplied the problem. Although it is a given that with a number that size you can pretty much bet no one has done a physical count.

I remember up north the family pet was a family member for most people. Down here they are a disposable toy.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

This heat wave is only long in recent history... it is the abruptness (rate of onset) of the heat wave that is of concern. Models show many different possible extinction figures. I just hope the numbers aren't too bad in about 50 years (according to one instructor and somewhat by texts (again, variability)) I had we will feel the effects of our activity now in full in fifty years ... and with most industrialized nations recognizing it, many are taking measures; hence, fifty years (theoretically, according to some) is the peak of that particular phenomena.

I would get upset about potential extinctions because it indicates potential problems, and is worth inquiry; also, any of those species could be a keystone species. In some cases it could be really bad. And also, could be good... but the probability of bad is considerably higher. Biodiversity is important for Earth to maintain its homeostasis.

I have said this before: The Earth's atmosphere. The very material we breathe in and out, is essentially a waste bath of all organisms on the planet combined. Some organisms waste is bad for some, and some is good for some. The effect being there is a balance of organisms that keeps our atmosphere at specific concentrations of the many chemicals we and everything else exchange. That makeup also in part determine the effect of solar energy (the Earth's source of power ... our source of power) on climate, and many other factors in every discipline of natural science.

Humans have a much bigger footprint on that makeup now than they did when we adapted to the generally homeostatic environment of our relatively young planet. We may not have the ... ability to survive a severe shift in homeostasis. Whether from a space rock or a bomb or... Again: Biodiversity is a significant factor in Earth's homeostatic state and extinctions reduce biodiversity by mutual definition.


In the end back to the Trees and why I hug so many of them: Why not try to predict what might cause a giant homeostasis shift and work to prevent it. Especially because as we move along "greener" paths we are picking up cool new technologies based on biological systems. Nature is certainly not perfect, but some things, like certain parts of a cell that process energy but produce very little heat compared to our technology processing the same amount of energy. We have a lot to learn from Earth's and in the end the Universe's nature; and it is our heritage.

Appearntly you just dont understand.







JK Good post soy. I just feel the weakest of points dont need to have focus put on them. After all changing those will do basically nothing. So focusing on the larger issue you can gain the most usefull knowledge and changes from. To go back to the rock metaphore. Why study the small one on the ground when the big one is about to land on your head.

Ugh. Are you serious?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Lets take a look at what you have proven people wrong with.

First post.


Perfectly valid post.

Second post.


A responce to a post about a video discussing a book. No where in the previous posts was anyone saying anything about being antienvironment. Yet your already into "Your ignorant because you dont share my view mode.".

The post that I was responding to mentioned "the environmentalist nutcases," which also hadn't appeared before that post. I was describing the opposite end of the spectrum. Does that not comply with your apparently arbitrary rules of discussion?

Third post.


Clearly a valid post and on topic but chop full of your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions.

Forth post.


Started out good but quickly went down hill. No one said we should ignore what we do has an environmental impact and no one said cats and dogs were or were not at sustainable populations. However Considering that bagdad alone has 1.25 million stray dogs and the US has 78 million. Those strays in bagdad alone seem to be doing just fine all on there own. The only reason anything is being done is human interest. So take us out of the picture who here thinks they are qualified to say what the sustainable population really is. Dogs wouldnt be the only animal breeding uninterupted without us plus habitat would be much more vast. So once again your opinion poised as fact.

Two people, yourself included, stated that they didn't "feel bad" about driving. This was a direct, and appropriate response to those statements. As for pet populations and their natural levels:

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc;

In any case who is to say what the animal population would be if we weren't here.

You brought it up, and the answer is, plenty of people: Carrying capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrying capacity is a well-described phenomenon. Read up on it.

Fifth post.


The article isnt good because they didnt update number that dont change the outcome hardle at all? However still a valid post and i wouldnt argue that someone isnt entitled to their opinion.

Sixth post.

Actually, that was one of the keystones of the argument, and it was wrong, and not corrected. That's why it's a bad article.

True enough but no one ever said our lifestyles dont impact the environment.

I didn't say that anyone had.

We'll skip seventh due to it just asking for clarification and we'll skip eight because the ninth is a repeat of it.
So ninth post.


Fair enough by all means tell me what the population of any animal would be in any given area without humans exsisting? I mean you do know and i dont understand (second and third time for your normal line) so you must have the numbers correct? That is what you implied when you responded to my post so prove it.

Again, carrying capacity is a well understood phenomenon.

Tenth post.


True enough.

Eleventh post.


How is this proving me wrong when my comment was in regards to your eighth and ninth posts? So you think changing a certain area into the planet somehow means my posts have been proven wrong? Not even close.

I wasn't talking about a certain area, I was speaking globally, and once the global carrying capacity is reached, there's no place to migrate to.

Twelfth Post.


I didnt argue that they are or arent at sustainable populations. I said who is to know what they would be without humans exsisting.

And I'm saying that this is well understood. See how often you bring up the same questions, even though they've been answered?

Thirteenth post.


Who said anything about us not being able to cause the extinction of any species? Fifth time with the dont understand line. Which equate in just this thread you average every 38.46 post contains a comment about someone not understanding something because they dont agree with your view point. Of which by the way bounces all over the damn place and your attention to what people have said lacks to say it politely.

I was respoding directly to your post:

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

For all we know our effects on the planet wont be the end of the huamn race.

And was only discussing the extinction of the human race because you brought it up. How is it possible that you can't follow this? And if I point out that you're speaking about things that you don't understand, that's only because you do that so often. Here, you're claiming that environmental science hasn't been able to make any predictions, but that's absolutely incorrect. That doesn't stop you though, from making these grand statements. So if you're going to do that, be ready to get called out on it.

Shit like this,

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You have no way of knowing what animal populations would be if we were not here. Evolution would have taken its course and there is no pretending we know what the next step is. Lets not forget wild dogs, wolves, cats, and wild cats can bread out of proportion in the wild when we do not interveen.

Is just wrong, and a simple google search before you post would confirm this, but you don't. You choose not to, and then you get offended when you get called out. Sorry.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I guess in a round about way i volunteered to be over seas. I got stationed there and in japan dog is most definitely on the menu. As for the number of dogs in bahgdad well that grain of salt gets a lot smaller. They have had the issue for a long time and the war along with the aftermath multiplied the problem. Although it is a given that with a number that size you can pretty much bet no one has done a physical count.

I remember up north the family pet was a family member for most people. Down here they are a disposable toy.

No need to do a physical count. A very accurate survey could be done by a small team pretty quickly. Perhaps a little less quickly in Baghdad (security issues?). Sampling, done properly, is amazingly powerful.

I glanced at those links you had. The figures, and the way they were quoted, (and the picture of two guys slinging a dead dog onto a truck), were instantly familiar. It really took me back. Anyway, those numbers stink of inflation. I don't doubt that the actual numbers are still impressive, but everyone in the "get rid of dogs" business has an incentive to adjust their figures upward.

Cheers,


AetheLove