The Anthropocene

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
You don't have to believe in global warming to understand what the Anthropocene era is about. It is a change where homo sapiens are almost an infestation of the earth, or an invasive species.
We pollute the oceans with huge islands of plastic and micro plastics that are now a part of the aquatic food chain. We strip mine and decimate forests for agriculture. We poach endangered animals almost to extinction.

I first understood the concept around 1982 when the film Koyaanisqatsi came out. It is Hopi for life out of balance. I don't recommend you watch all of it unless you are in the right mood of the slow pace of the beginning and like the mesmerizing music of Philip Glass. However this segment, part 6 of 9 parts, is fast moving and better illustrates the point. Be sure and use full screen mode.

oh my god - i watched this eons ago, (at least 15 years) and over time i could never remember the name of it, but i think this is it, or at least part of it. it was very different drunk (as was i 15 years ago, usually drunk)

things like this - cleaning the planet, i can get behind. but all the WE'RE DOOMED IF WE DON'T ACT NOW pushes people away cause it's been done far too many times.
I remember movie too, it keft a huge impression on that continues today.

What concerns me though, in environmental matters including climate change, is where is the tipping point?





According to the "experts" we have passed at least 7 tipping points. Every few years, when they don't get their way, they trot out another scaremongering story and warn us of impending doom if we don't do what they say.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,559
Reaction score
4,923
Points
290
You don't have to believe in global warming to understand what the Anthropocene era is about. It is a change where homo sapiens are almost an infestation of the earth, or an invasive species.
We pollute the oceans with huge islands of plastic and micro plastics that are now a part of the aquatic food chain. We strip mine and decimate forests for agriculture. We poach endangered animals almost to extinction.

I first understood the concept around 1982 when the film Koyaanisqatsi came out. It is Hopi for life out of balance. I don't recommend you watch all of it unless you are in the right mood of the slow pace of the beginning and like the mesmerizing music of Philip Glass. However this segment, part 6 of 9 parts, is fast moving and better illustrates the point. Be sure and use full screen mode.

oh my god - i watched this eons ago, (at least 15 years) and over time i could never remember the name of it, but i think this is it, or at least part of it. it was very different drunk (as was i 15 years ago, usually drunk)

things like this - cleaning the planet, i can get behind. but all the WE'RE DOOMED IF WE DON'T ACT NOW pushes people away cause it's been done far too many times.
I remember movie too, it keft a huge impression on that continues today.

What concerns me though, in environmental matters including climate change, is where is the tipping point?





According to the "experts" we have passed at least 7 tipping points. Every few years, when they don't get their way, they trot out another scaremongering story and warn us of impending doom if we don't do what they say.
and for this reason and even if ONLY this reason, its very difficult to take these "threats" seriously.

yes we need to work better within our environment
yes we need to clean up after ourselves better
yes we need to adjust what we do so these things are easier and 2nd nature to us

no we are not a virus on this planet anymore than any other living being on it. we just happen to be the most intelligent (debatable yes) and the only species on this planet who demands we feel guilty for being alive at times. i would agree the entire "virus on this planet" is difficult to take seriously and demeans the underlying thought process of the natural question of "what are we doing here" mankind has kicked around since clubbing their first cavewoman and dragging her home.

the need to be so "extreme" is what makes the vast majority of the rest of us look away and/or laugh. while i'm all for digging into the meaning of life and our spiritual existence in all this, i don't need the drama around it. while we are in fact capable of massive harm to this world, we are also capable of incredible good. we do both. daily. why people want to ignore one to amplify the bad i'll never understand except its simply how they feel.

nothing wrong with that no. but i wont always take how people feel seriously. that's just how i feel.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
However, to equate mankind with a virus is asinine.
It certainly is asinine. But you sure misunderstood what I said. A virus causes diseases, it is not commonly considered an invasive species. Secondly I said we are almost an invasive species.
Wikipedia:
An invasive species is a species that because of the lack of its natural predators as they aren't in their native region, have a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.​
We are no longer in fear of natural predators. We are our own predators. We have spread to a degree that has caused damage to our environment. We are not the viruses.The intense concentration of people and world wide mobility have enabled a continuing spread of disease from viruses.

Technology has elevated mankind out of the depths of poverty. You people preach about "sustainable" economies, but they don't exist. If you are merely managing a sustainable lifestyle the first natural disaster that comes along is going to wipe you out.
You are jumping to conclusions again about "You people". I'm not talking about sustainable economies nor a sustainable lifestyle. I'm talking about a sustainable earth.

westwall said:
Technology reduces birth rates. Western civil society reduces pollution. You want to see terrible pollution? Go to any third world country and it will be right in front of you.
I am talking about the entire world. Why do you think that I'm only talking about the West?

This AGW horse poo has done real damage to the conservation efforts of anti pollution groups worldwide because instead of investing in real solutions, the money goes to groups working to enact socialism worldwide.
AGW? To enact socialism worldwide? If you want to talk about AGW and socialism. Don't reference my post. I'm not interested in that deflection.

The OP is about the new era where man is changing the earth. The clip I referenced, Koyaanisqatsi, is Hopi for life out of balance, and illustrates my point. It is related to the OP. I'm not interested in your deflections and don't appreciate your misinterpretations of my points.

.


.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
However, to equate mankind with a virus is asinine.
It certainly is asinine. But you sure misunderstood what I said. A virus causes diseases, it is not commonly considered an invasive species. Secondly I said we are almost an invasive species.
Wikipedia:
An invasive species is a species that because of the lack of its natural predators as they aren't in their native region, have a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.​
We are no longer in fear of natural predators. We are our own predators. We have spread to a degree that has caused damage to our environment. We are not the viruses.The intense concentration of people and world wide mobility have enabled a continuing spread of disease from viruses.

Technology has elevated mankind out of the depths of poverty. You people preach about "sustainable" economies, but they don't exist. If you are merely managing a sustainable lifestyle the first natural disaster that comes along is going to wipe you out.
You are jumping to conclusions again about "You people". I'm not talking about sustainable economies nor a sustainable lifestyle. I'm talking about a sustainable earth.

westwall said:
Technology reduces birth rates. Western civil society reduces pollution. You want to see terrible pollution? Go to any third world country and it will be right in front of you.
I am talking about the entire world. Why do you think that I'm only talking about the West?

This AGW horse poo has done real damage to the conservation efforts of anti pollution groups worldwide because instead of investing in real solutions, the money goes to groups working to enact socialism worldwide.
AGW? To enact socialism worldwide? If you want to talk about AGW and socialism. Don't reference my post. I'm not interested in that deflection.

The OP is about the new era where man is changing the earth. The clip I referenced, Koyaanisqatsi, is Hopi for life out of balance, and illustrates my point. It is related to the OP. I'm not interested in your deflections and don't appreciate your misinterpretations of my points.

.


.



The Earth is an inherently stable platform. While everything we see appears chaotic, in fact it is remarkably stable. So stable that life has been able to evolve over billions of years to what we are now.

The one thing that can destroy that stability is an asteroid strike.

At least once in the past all life was nearly wiped out by just such a catastrophe.

Mankind is the first creature to evolve on this planet that has the capacity to protect the earth from another asteroid strike.

Your choice of language to describe mans impact on the planet is not useful. It is too general and is useful only to push a political agenda.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
The Earth is an inherently stable platform. While everything we see appears chaotic, in fact it is remarkably stable. So stable that life has been able to evolve over billions of years to what we are now.

The one thing that can destroy that stability is an asteroid strike.

At least once in the past all life was nearly wiped out by just such a catastrophe.

Mankind is the first creature to evolve on this planet that has the capacity to protect the earth from another asteroid strike.

Your choice of language to describe mans impact on the planet is not useful. It is too general and is useful only to push a political agenda.
Again you are missing the point. I was not talking about the stability of the planet under catastrophic events. There is a difference between that and
strip mining; and
decimating forests for agriculture; and
poaching endangered animals almost to extinction; and.
polluting the oceans with huge islands of plastic;
and micro plastics that are now a part of the aquatic food chain;
and so on.

That is not too general nor is it pushing a political agenda. The whole world is doing it.

.
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,293
Reaction score
426
Points
140
Sounds odd, but when you pick it apart, there are some interesting ideas here...and evolution of world consciousness is occurring.


‘A Reckoning for Our Species’: The Philosopher Prophet of the Anthropocene


The Anthropocene is not only a period of manmade disruption. It is also a moment of blinking self-awareness, in which the human species is becoming conscious of itself as a planetary force. We’re not only driving global warming and ecological destruction; we know that we are.

One of Morton’s most powerful insights is that we are condemned to live with this awareness at all times. It’s there not only when politicians gather to discuss international environmental agreements, but when we do something as mundane as chat about the weather, pick up a plastic bag at the supermarket or water the lawn. We live in a world with a moral calculus that didn’t exist before. Now, doing just about anything is an environmental question. That wasn’t true 60 years ago – or at least people weren’t aware that it was true. Tragically, it is only by despoiling the planet that we have realised just how much a part of it we are.

Morton believes that this constitutes a revolution in our understanding of our place in the universe on a par with those fomented by Copernicus, Darwin and Freud. He is just one of thousands of geologists, climate scientists, historians, novelists and journalists writing about this upheaval, but, perhaps better than anyone else, he captures in words the uncanny feeling of being present at the birth of this extreme age.


The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The Earth is an inherently stable platform. While everything we see appears chaotic, in fact it is remarkably stable. So stable that life has been able to evolve over billions of years to what we are now.

The one thing that can destroy that stability is an asteroid strike.

At least once in the past all life was nearly wiped out by just such a catastrophe.

Mankind is the first creature to evolve on this planet that has the capacity to protect the earth from another asteroid strike.

Your choice of language to describe mans impact on the planet is not useful. It is too general and is useful only to push a political agenda.
Again you are missing the point. I was not talking about the stability of the planet under catastrophic events. There is a difference between that and
strip mining; and
decimating forests for agriculture; and
poaching endangered animals almost to extinction; and.
polluting the oceans with huge islands of plastic;
and micro plastics that are now a part of the aquatic food chain;
and so on.

That is not too general nor is it pushing a political agenda. The whole world is doing it.

.




Yes, but by pushing a political agenda, THOSE very real issues are being ignored.

That was my point. How did you miss it?
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Yes, but by pushing a political agenda, THOSE very real issues are being ignored.

That was my point. How did you miss it?
I don't consider it political.
I assume you are referring to AGW. Some are pushing it because they are concerned about their future. Is that political? Some are saying that GW is not caused by man and don't want to be involved in wasting money on it. If politicians want to look at it that way why don't they more strongly promote controlling plastic and land use. It would may require stronger industrial regulations.

.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Yes, but by pushing a political agenda, THOSE very real issues are being ignored.

That was my point. How did you miss it?
I don't consider it political.
I assume you are referring to AGW. Some are pushing it because they are concerned about their future. Is that political? Some are saying that GW is not caused by man and don't want to be involved in wasting money on it. If politicians want to look at it that way why don't they more strongly promote controlling plastic and land use. It would may require stronger industrial regulations.

.




AGW is a theory that was disproved, scientifically, years ago. The fact that political leaders still use it for their goals tells you it is about power and nothing else.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
AGW is a theory that was disproved, scientifically, years ago. The fact that political leaders still use it for their goals tells you it is about power and nothing else.
That is a non sequitur. How political leaders use their power concerning carbon based energy has nothing to do with the OP or my main concern in post #25.

.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,893
Points
280
Yes, but by pushing a political agenda, THOSE very real issues are being ignored.

That was my point. How did you miss it?

.
Then you are stupid.

What was the area of a cubic meter of atmosphere again? I never got an answer...and how much of that "area" is even capable of radiating? And how much would be radiating at any time?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
AGW is a theory that was disproved, scientifically, years ago. The fact that political leaders still use it for their goals tells you it is about power and nothing else.
That is a non sequitur. How political leaders use their power concerning carbon based energy has nothing to do with the OP or my main concern in post #25.

.





It has everything to do with your post because they control the purse strings and use taxpayers money how they choose. These are important points that you either choose to ignore for your own gain, or don't understand.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
AGW is a theory that was disproved, scientifically, years ago. The fact that political leaders still use it for their goals tells you it is about power and nothing else.
That is a non sequitur. How political leaders use their power concerning carbon based energy has nothing to do with the OP or my main concern in post #25.
It has everything to do with your post because they control the purse strings and use taxpayers money how they choose. These are important points that you either choose to ignore for your own gain, or don't understand.
As far as cleaning the environment of ocean plastics, deforestation, smog, etc I think the governments of all countries should be concerned, but they are not.

It seems you want to steer this thread to the politics of AGW. Yes, that is important, but this is not the place. There are plenty of threads concerned with that.

.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
AGW is a theory that was disproved, scientifically, years ago. The fact that political leaders still use it for their goals tells you it is about power and nothing else.
That is a non sequitur. How political leaders use their power concerning carbon based energy has nothing to do with the OP or my main concern in post #25.
It has everything to do with your post because they control the purse strings and use taxpayers money how they choose. These are important points that you either choose to ignore for your own gain, or don't understand.
As far as cleaning the environment of ocean plastics, deforestation, smog, etc I think the governments of all countries should be concerned, but they are not.

It seems you want to steer this thread to the politics of AGW. Yes, that is important, but this is not the place. There are plenty of threads concerned with that.

.




They are not concerned because actually cleaning pollution up doesn't give them power.

Use your head.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
623
Points
315
The Earth is an inherently stable platform. While everything we see appears chaotic, in fact it is remarkably stable. So stable that life has been able to evolve over billions of years to what we are now.

The one thing that can destroy that stability is an asteroid strike.


At least once in the past all life was nearly wiped out by just such a catastrophe.

Mankind is the first creature to evolve on this planet that has the capacity to protect the earth from another asteroid strike.

Your choice of language to describe mans impact on the planet is not useful. It is too general and is useful only to push a political agenda.
This is another of your incredibly stupid posts.
Because you THINK the earth is "inherently stable" doesn't mean it and it's systems/environment can't be destroyed from within. ie "absolutely stable."
We are not a metallic asteroid, we are on a living breathing system that we are dramatically changing the balance of.

Lakes are "inherently stable" but some have been drained dry by our agricultural needs or polluted/acidified beyond use.

Vans are "inherently stable" until you cram the 18th person in. Or 25th.
It's unbelievable stupid to think the human explosion and it's needs/byproducts can't harm it.


Man's population was "inherently stable" until we reached a certain ability to overcome "Inherent Nature."
Other species are stuck with "inherently natural" elimination by local conditions.
We Used to be too.
No longer.
We can ship 500,000 tons of wheat to China
We can save a whole continent, and half a planet from things like AIDS and EBOLA.

Human's life span was local and app 30 years for 99.9% of our existence.
We have exceeded the "Inherent" abilities and number of any other species.
We have conquered Nature and are over running it.

Someone mentioned plastics in the ocean, etc.
That's Cosmetic BS compared to warming, acidifying, and Filling our Oceans with human waste products and fertilizer necessary to feed 7.7 Billion people on land otherwise not nourishing enough to feed that population.

There are Plagues of seaweed, Green and Reg Algae now common in our own/USA Southern Seas fed by these human and agricultural byproducts.
I see them increase yearly now along with the destruction (by human runoff, lawn, ag fertilizer, 100 kinds of waste) of estuaries/reefs needed to nurse sea life/fish we feed on.

When I was born (even 25) here were virtually no farmed fish.
Now the majority is because we have in good degree fished out and polluted their "Inherently stable" populations.

And not only humans have contributed to this destruction, our livestock and the grain/fertilizer needed to feed it has.

I don't want to make this dependent on the obvious AGW (that Every respectable Scientific org and Country agrees on) as all the above would be enough. But obviously that too is a huge problem and sea level will be/has started taking it's toll as well as other effects.

Nothing is "Absolutely Stable", your real if UNWITTING assertion implying the earth can take anything but an asteroid hit.
That is so obviously Untrue/ignorant it's impossible to debate such an idiotic premise.

If the human population went to 3x more, is it still "inherently stable", or is there a number we may already have reached that starts destroying the very eco-system we need?
Of course there IS such a number, and we're there.

Is the human population and it's byproducts "inherently stable"?
NOT remotely.




`
 
Last edited:

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
They are not concerned because actually cleaning pollution up doesn't give them power.

Use your head.
You seemed obsessed about this. What is your point? Are you mad that AGW is giving some political group power? You have to understand that I don't think like you do, so don't give me that "use your head" crap. What is in my head is not the same as what is in your head. There is a great weltanschauung divide between people especially in the western world.

.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,581
Reaction score
16,281
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The Earth is an inherently stable platform. While everything we see appears chaotic, in fact it is remarkably stable. So stable that life has been able to evolve over billions of years to what we are now.

The one thing that can destroy that stability is an asteroid strike.


At least once in the past all life was nearly wiped out by just such a catastrophe.

Mankind is the first creature to evolve on this planet that has the capacity to protect the earth from another asteroid strike.

Your choice of language to describe mans impact on the planet is not useful. It is too general and is useful only to push a political agenda.
This is another of your incredibly stupid posts.
Because you THINK the earth is "inherently stable" doesn't mean it and it's systems/environment can't be destroyed from within. ie "absolutely stable."
We are not a metallic asteroid, we are on a living breathing system that we are dramatically changing the balance of.

Lakes are "inherently stable" but some have been drained dry by our agricultural needs or polluted/acidified beyond use.

Vans are "inherently stable" until you cram the 18th person in. Or 25th.
It's unbelievable stupid to think the human explosion and it's needs/byproducts can't harm it.


Man's population was "inherently stable" until we reached a certain ability to overcome "Inherent Nature."
Other species are stuck with "inherently natural" elimination by local conditions.
We Used to be too.
No longer.
We can ship 500,000 tons of wheat to China
We can save a whole continent, and half a planet from things like AIDS and EBOLA.

Human's life span was local and app 30 years for 99.9% of our existence.
We have exceeded the "Inherent" abilities and number of any other species.
We have conquered Nature and are over running it.

Someone mentioned plastics in the ocean, etc.
That's Cosmetic BS compared to warming, acidifying, and Filling our Oceans with human waste products and fertilizer necessary to feed 7.7 Billion people on land otherwise not nourishing enough to feed that population.

There are Plagues of seaweed, Green and Reg Algae now common in our own/USA Southern Seas fed by these human and agricultural byproducts.
I see them increase yearly now along with the destruction (by human runoff, lawn, ag fertilizer, 100 kinds of waste) of estuaries/reefs needed to nurse sea life/fish we feed on.

When I was born (even 25) here were virtually no farmed fish.
Now the majority is because we have in good degree fished out and polluted their "Inherently stable" populations.

And not only humans have contributed to this destruction, our livestock and the grain/fertilizer needed to feed it has.

I don't want to make this dependent on the obvious AGW (that Every respectable Scientific org and Country agrees on) as all the above would be enough. But obviously that too is a huge problem and sea level will be/has started taking it's toll as well as other effects.

Nothing is "Absolutely Stable", your real if UNWITTING assertion implying the earth can take anything but an asteroid hit.
That is so obviously Untrue/ignorant it's impossible to debate such an idiotic premise.

If the human population went to 3x more, is it still "inherently stable", or is there a number we may already have reached that starts destroying the very eco-system we need?
Of course there IS such a number, and we're there.

Is the human population and it's byproducts "inherently stable"?
NOT remotely.




`






Yes, the planet is inherently stable. Morons, like you, can only think in terms of your infinitely small lifespan because you are incapable of large scale thinking.

The Earth is old. Very, very old. It's operating on time scales that span not just your puny life. But the lives of civilizations.

Things that are beginning now, will not reach their end for hundreds of years. The thought that man, in a few decades can affect things on a global scale is incredibly arrogant.

We can bring about a climate catastrophe. that being a nuclear winter. We are capable of throwing enough dirt, and crap up into the upper atmosphere, which takes years to cleanse itself, that a little ice age type catastrophe is possible.

But generating enough energy to raise the temperature of the globe?

Get real. We are centuries from that capacity.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top