Eco-Fascism

[peopleb4money]

These are basically people who believe that the earth is in danger and that the subhuman filth of the earth, as they believe, needs to be purged to save the planet. They're environmentalists for totally different reasons than most people. They're extremely far right and are in it for an anti-human agenda. I on the other hand, believe it isn't the earth that's in peril. It can get along fine without us. I'm an environmentalist for completely humanistic reasons. i want less death, war, and genocide over resources, where they don't. I'm really afraid that people on the right will lump this nut fringe in with every other environmentalist.

There was some guy who made a bomb threat at the Discovery Channel headquarters against their programming, and conservatives are already lumping him in with the left. In his demands, though, he mentioned getting rid of anchor baby filth and immigrants and how we should stop helping the poor and impoverished of the world so that they come to understand the true meaning of Darwinism and Malthusianism. That's an extremely far-right stance. In fact, Charles Dickens criticized Malthus in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge said in his famous line "If they're going to die, they better do it, in order to decrease the surplus population", an author famous for being class conscious and on the left.

To lump Eco-Fascism, an unusual mix of etnocentrism and environmentalism, with all the multi-culturalist liberals that are environmentalists is a contradiction, but I'm sure talk radio's going to do it or has done it already. Maybe the leftist environmentalists should differentiate their selves by coining a term like eco-pluralism or eco-humanism or something to remind opponents that there's a very stark difference between that fringe's misanthropic vision of environmentalism and the wide majority of environmentalists who are sane, caring individuals who wish for only the best in all of humanity.

[Taverner]

1. You are right except for the "far right"

If anything, these folks believe in a primitivist anarchy. That's right, set the clock back to 'Year Zero'

Just like a certain bunch of cretins in Cambodia once did.

[Odin2005]

2. Unfortunately we have a few of them here on DU.

Eco-Primitivism is inherently reactionary.

I consider myself a Technogaianist, who beleives that only technology can solve out environmental problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogaianism

---
This point of view is different from the default position of radical environmentalists and a common opinion that all technology necessarily degrades the environment, and that environmental restoration can therefore occur only with reduced reliance on technology. Technogaians argue that technology gets cleaner and more efficient with time. They would also point to such things as hydrogen fuel cells to demonstrate that developments do not have to come at the environment's expense. More directly, they argue that such things as nanotechnology and biotechnology can directly reverse environmental degradation. Molecular nanotechnology, for example, could convert garbage in landfills into useful materials and products, while biotechnology could lead to novel microbes that devour hazardous waste.<1>

While many environmentalists still contend that most technology is detrimental to the environment, technogaians point out that it has been in humanity's best interests to exploit the environment mercilessly until fairly recently. This sort of behaviour follows accurately to current understandings of evolutionary systems, in that when new factors (such as foreign species or mutant subspecies) are introduced into an ecosystem, they tend to maximise their own resource consumption until either, a) they reach an equilibrium beyond which they cannot continue unmitigated growth, or b) they become extinct. In these models, it is completely impossible for such a factor to totally destroy its host environment, though they may precipitate major ecological transformation before their ultimate eradication. Technogaians believe humanity has currently reached just such a threshold, and that the only way for human civilization to continue advancing is to accept the tenets of technogaianism and limit future exploitive exhaustion of natural resources and minimize further unsustainable development or face the widespread, ongoing mass extinction of species.<2> Furthermore, technogaians argue that only science and technology can help humanity be aware of, and possibly develop counter-measures for, risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth such as a possible impact event.<1>

One controversial example of technogaian practice is an artificial closed ecological system used to test if and how people could live and work in a closed biosphere, while carrying out scientific experiments. It is in some cases used to explore the possible use of closed biospheres in space colonization, and also allows the study and manipulation of a biosphere without harming Earth's.<3> The most advanced technogaian proposal is the "terraforming" of a planet, moon, or other body by deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, or ecology to be similar to those of Earth in order to make it habitable by humans.<4>

Sociologist James Hughes mentions Walter Truett Anderson, author of To Govern Evolution: Further Adventures of the Political Animal, as an example of a technogaian political philosopher;<5> argues that technogaianism applied to environmental management is found in the reconciliation ecology writings such as Michael Rosenzweig's Win-Win Ecology: How The Earth's Species Can Survive In The Midst of Human Enterprise;<2> and considers Bruce Sterling's Viridian design movement to be an exemplary technogaian initiative.<1><6>
---

[txlibdem]

4. I learned a new term today. Thanks!

From a brief skimming of the definition I'd have to say that I am a TechnoGaianist as well because I,too, believe that an intelligent application of science can and will provide the answers and the solutions to our problems. Burning coal is, by the way, NOT in my definition of science (or at least sure as hell not an intelligent application of science).

:hi::woohoo:

The only question is, will we elect leaders who understand science or ones who think the Universe was made in 6 days. The latter spells our certain doom as no scientific or technological advance can combat the willfully ignorant.

[Odin2005]

8. You're welcome!

:hi:

[The2ndWheel]

14. Unfortunately, people think we can solve the problems

No matter what we do, we're going to have problems. Technology hasn't solved problems. It just increases the scale of the problems. It also creates its own set of particular problems, which wouldn't exist without it. The same way less technology creates a set of particular problems that don't exist with technology.

"Technogaians believe humanity has currently reached just such a threshold, and that the only way for human civilization to continue advancing is to accept the tenets of technogaianism and limit future exploitive exhaustion of natural resources and minimize further unsustainable development or face the widespread, ongoing mass extinction of species."

How can the continued advance of human civilization accept limits?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limit?show=0&t=1287954754

The definition of limit.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advance

The definition of advance.

Two different things. In opposition. It's one or the other.

[txlibdem]

16. Technogaianists

Your critique makes it sound like a bad thing that Technogaianism believes we must "limit future exploitive exhaustion of natural resources and minimize further unsustainable development"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogaian

That "limit" isn't a limit at all. We're the cop arresting you for peeing on the side of a building. "Don't limit where I can go pee, man!" you say? Wrong. You have done something wrong, something that hurts everyone else so you need to STOP IT.

The key tenet of Technogaianism is that intelligently applying scientific and technological advances will help us overcome the problems in our environment and lives that have been caused by a decidedly UNintelligent application of science/technology.

Exploitative exhaustion of natural sources? That is not a good thing to do. Once you've used the dredge nets to kill all the corals and baby fishes what do you think will happen to your profitable fishing industry? Well, the answer is: exactly what HAS happened. Fisheries are depleted, species are disappearing. It's the dumbest thing you could do to destroy the fish for decades just so you can have a little bit more profit this year.

Unsustainable development. Let's just suffice to say: it's bad. It's bad.

[The2ndWheel]

18. "That "limit" isn't a limit at all."

Exactly.

"We're the cop arresting you for peeing on the side of a building. "Don't limit where I can go pee, man!" you say? Wrong. You have done something wrong, something that hurts everyone else so you need to STOP IT."

What if the building is hurting everyone(other species, or even our own)? What if the addition of other buildings hurt more? What if roads destroy habitats? "Don't limit where I can build, man!" you say?

"The key tenet of Technogaianism is that intelligently applying scientific and technological advances will help us overcome the problems in our environment and lives that have been caused by a decidedly UNintelligent application of science/technology."

That's all we have to do? Wonder why we didn't do that before. Or maybe we did, and thought it was intelligent at the time.

Once we overcome the problems caused by unintelligent application, what about the problems caused by intelligent application?

"Your critique makes it sound like a bad thing that Technogaianism believes we must "limit future exploitive exhaustion of natural resources and minimize further unsustainable development""

As you said, the limit isn't actually a limit. My critique is that we can't advance civilization and accept limits at the same time.

[GliderGuider]

19. Advancing in the face of limits

You say, "we can't advance civilization and accept limits at the same time." In the sense you probably mean that, I agree. When most people talk about civilization they think in terms of "modern industrial civilization" with a heavy emphasis on "industrial". Making stuff, altering the landscape, humanity at the helm, that sort of thing. If that's the definition of civilization, they you're absolutely right - bumping into a biophysical limit can cause such a civilization to collapse - it's happened many times before.

It might be useful to think of other meanings for the word "civilization" and "advance" that aren't dependent on making stuff or altering the landscape. Fewer bass boats, more art; less air travel, more meditation; fewer trips to Disneyland, more sense of community. A civilization like that might be able to continue advancing even in the face of biophysical limits.

[The2ndWheel]

21. We're not a civilization like that though

We not only want a federal stimulus project, to put people back to work making stuff and altering the landscape, but it should have been even bigger then what it was.

I guess it would be possible that when jobs and money aren't central to our collective daily lives, then maybe we can have a civilization like the one you briefly described. Not sure how a society whose only real binding force are taxes would function with less emphasis on jobs and money, but it would be interesting to find out.

[txlibdem]

20. Wonder why we didn't do that before. Or maybe we did, and thought it was intelligent at the time.

No, we didn't. We made the decisions about how many buildings to build, where to build them, and what materials to build them with based on an economic ponzi scheme called Capitalism where all the benefits rise to the top and all the costs and pain drop onto the "little people."

Your assertion that we at any point in the past 100 years have used an intelligent application of science and technology without corruption by Capitalista priorities is just plain wrong. I can't think of a single example. Politicians and wealthy greedy bastards have said (and pounded it into our heads) that we have and we are. There is a difference between truth and rhetoric.

Under a Capitalista-controlled ponzi scheme there is no way to advance civilization without severe and draconian limits on the non-anointed masses because they control the wages, the supply, and the prices. And Capitalista greed knows no limits.

[The2ndWheel]

23. I'm not sure we can blame just capitalism

"Your assertion that we at any point in the past 100 years have used an intelligent application of science and technology without corruption by Capitalista priorities is just plain wrong."

I don't think I asserted that. I know that if I did, I wouldn't have stopped at 100 years, because this is an complex issue with countless variables that has, at least, thousands of years of history and momentum behind it.

"based on an economic ponzi scheme called Capitalism where all the benefits rise to the top and all the costs and pain drop onto the "little people.""

Don't we do that as a species though? We privatize the resources of the planet for the wants of a single species, and socialize the costs to the planet/the rest of life.

I like to think of each species as a corporation, and the planet as a government. In human society, we like the government to regulate corporations. We don't want corporations writing rules and controlling our government. It's the same environmentally. The planet needs to be able to regulate all the different species, for the same reasons we want governments to regulate corporations. But our species wants to write the rules, in our favor of course. Then we wonder why Exxon, or Monsanto, or Wal-Mart(or whatever) do what they do. They do so because humans are the equivalent of Exxon, Monsanto, or Wal-Mart, when it comes to the environment. We don't like limits. We don't like having to pay our fair share. We want it all.

[txlibdem]

25. Yes we can

Your description is a portrait of the government under "Dubya" absolutely. No regulations were enforced, no limits were imposed on greed, corruption, and corporate and white collar crime. And we ended up in a disaster.

With the planet, we are doing the same thing. Our species wants all the rules in our favor, yes, but for very good reason. Haven't you heard of people being attacked and killed by wild animals? It happens all the time.

Malaria kills millions of people in the developing world so scientists are working on a genetically modified mosquito that will no longer spread this disease.

Now for the first time, University of Arizona entomologists have succeeded in genetically altering mosquitoes in a way that renders them completely immune to the parasite, a single-celled organism called Plasmodium. Someday researchers hope to replace wild mosquitoes with lab-bred populations unable to act as vectors, i.e. transmit the malaria-causing parasite."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715172002.htm

Most humans in the world live in primitive conditions and have difficult, painful and usually shorter lives.

• Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
  
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world's 7 richest people combined.
  
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.

...snip...

Cutbacks in health, education and other vital social services around the world have resulted from structural adjustment policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as conditions for loans and repayment. In addition, developing nation governments are required to open their economies to compete with each other and with more powerful and established industrialized nations. To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people.

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

We can agree to disagree on the point but I fervently believe that we absolutely can blame Capitalism for much of the environmental destruction and human suffering that is going on in the world today. When 7 people have more wealth than the entire GDP of 41 nations there is a problem in the system.

We, as a species, are wasting most of the resources we use today. An electric car goes 4 to 5 times as far as a gasoline car on the same amount of energy and produces less pollution doing it (even if the electricity is 100% generated from coal). Yet we're only just now dipping a toe into the electric vehicle solution at the end of this year -- the Nissan Leaf and GM Volt. In the last decade, GM spent billions to kill the electric car. Why? Some say that the CEO and board members are just elites who don't want ANYBODY telling them what to do. Some say that electric cars need far less maintenance than ICE (internal combustion engine) cars so it would cut into their profits. Whatever the reason, the Capitalistas wanted to be in complete control of their sphere of influence and worked tirelessly to keep themselves in power, despite the damage to the planet that did and will in future occur.

[The2ndWheel]

26. "Our species wants all the rules in our favor, yes, but for very good reason."

I'm sure corporate interests have a very good reason for attempting to write the rules in their favor too.

"Your description is a portrait of the government under "Dubya" absolutely. No regulations were enforced, no limits were imposed on greed, corruption, and corporate and white collar crime. And we ended up in a disaster."

Right. And if the planet can't regulate the human species, then we'll see where we end up. We won't self regulate, that would be ridiculous. That's like hoping huge corporations will regulate themselves.

"We can agree to disagree on the point but I fervently believe that we absolutely can blame Capitalism for much of the environmental destruction and human suffering that is going on in the world today."

Sure, today. I think that means it's more of a symptom than a cause though.

Change one word from your last sentence...

"Whatever the reason, the humans wanted to be in complete control of their sphere of influence and worked tirelessly to keep themselves in power, despite the damage to the planet that did and will in future occur."

and it fits just the same.

[kristopher]

22. Unsustainable development. Let's just suffice to say: it's bad. It's bad.

Then why the hell do you push nuclear power?

I love it when the nukies try to portray themselves as "anti-capitlaists" (justifies picking the public's pocket on behalf of the MIC) and as nuclear environmentalists who are advocate of sustainable development.

Nuclear power goes hand in hand with an outlook based on brute force and the ensuring the machinery of war is maintained to perpetuate it no matter the costs in lives or treasure.

The key words you are not putting into practice are "intelligently applying". You can't dismiss all independent evidence and accept the word of the industry sales force and pretend that you are "intelligently applying" anything.


http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[txlibdem]

24. I love this guy, I swear.

You are always good for a laugh, K.

I've posted on more than one occasion that:
1. We should NEVER build plants that are the same as existing designs - 40 year old designs are not what we need
2. The construction industry is responsible for cost overruns, partial blame goes to simpleton politicians who sign contracts that do not punish contractors for delays and mistakes. This needs to NEVER be repeated.
3. Only through mass production of identical components for these power plants can we get the costs down low enough.
4. The approval process needs to be locked in and needs to be streamlined. Constantly changing the requirements for a project still in construction is the best way to raise costs and ultimately fail.
5. Thorium should be the fuel we use for our nuclear power plants.

"Intelligently applying" only the 5 above points will go a long way to making nuclear power plants compete on a cost basis with coal and even renewable energy projects.

[guardian]

3. Discovery Channel gunman

FYI the full text of the Discovery Channel gunman's manifesto can be found at http://savetheplanetprotest.com/. Below are are some excerpts. I have to say that many of his themes and language are reminiscent of posts by some in this forum. When I see posters making ridiculous comments that "we are doomed" because the maple syrup season started early or because there is a drought in Australia makes me wonder if these posters are of the same dangerous nut job mindset as the gunman or just spouting mindless hyperbole for the sake of thumping their own chest.



6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population.
11. You're also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing.
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human's lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis.
Also, war must be halted. Not because it's morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures.

[txlibdem]

5. What a moron

Over 99% of the life forms that ever existed on Earth are extinct -- and practically all of those went extinct before Humans even evolved.

• At the end of the Permian period (about 245 million years ago) - Trilobites go extinct. 50% of all animal families, 95% of all marine species, and many trees die out.
  
• The late Triassic (208 million years ago) - 35% of all animal families die out. Most early dinosaur families went extinct, and most synapsids died out (except for the mammals).
  
• At the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (about 65 million years ago) - about half of all life forms died out, including the dinosaurs , pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ammonites, many families of fishes, clams, snails, sponges, sea urchins, and many others.
  

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/extinction/

Note: the link above shows a chart depicting extinctions going back 600 million years. Stupid Humans and their time traveling extinction policy!

A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,<2>... Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.<2><3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

So, yeah, let's learn about Determinism, Calvinism, Humanism, Malthusianism, and Asteroid-ism. Sure, why not! But most importantly let's learn about TechnoGaianism!!!

[kestrel91316]

6. I am an environmentalist, but I happen to care as much about ALL THE OTHER

LIFE FORMS ON EARTH, and the ecosystems they form, as I do about humankind. Perhaps more. The earth is a lump of minerals and will survive, but those lovely interwoven webs of millions of kinds of creatures, known and unknown, will not if we continue down this path. Shame on those who only care about their own kind. It's as bad as only caring about one's own race or gender.

[GliderGuider]

7. I think that the idea of moving humanity away from the center of the web of life

makes some people uncomfortable. It's almost as though they see it as disrespectful or even a rejection of human value. Perhaps that's where some of the broad dark brushstrokes come from :shrug:

I see humanity as one partner in the dance of life, in which all all other creatures have their own intrinsic value. I don't think humanity has a special dispensation to be at the center of the web. I also believe that our gift of self-awareness and reason brings with it a balancing responsibility to be mindful not to step on our partners' toes as we dance. Does this make me a monster?

[peopleb4money]

9. I think reality would agree with you.

Were really more dependent on the earth than it is on us. Its really our life support. At best, humanity is its child. At worst, its some sort of parasite that's going to be purged during the next ecological collapse. I think where humans have a special place is that were manifestations of the universe subjectively experiencing itself and coming to know itself. This in my mind, is more than mere existentialism, which juxtaposes that we have no intrinsic value and that we make meaning for our selves. In my view, we have intrinsic purpose, but we choose to either ignore it or acknowledge it. I think existentialism has it backwards.

If we can't evolve culturally and get past xenophobia and in fighting among our species, though, were gonna end up destroying our selves and the whole planet with atomic weapons. When we go, I think there's a chance that we could possibly take the entire earth with us. On the other hand, it has much more of a chance of surviving our own genocidal rage than we do our selves. Some eukaryotic life might manage to survive and evolve into a new tapestry of biological life 500 million or 1 billion years into the future. Depends on how badly the nuclear apocalypse will affect the atmosphere. Best case scenario for humans is that a few small bands of people find their self back somewhere in the stone age.

I think if humanity does come to grips with itself, though, we could go on to accomplish something with a true cosmic purpose behind it. We may just be no more than chimpanzees evolved enough to build nuclear weapons but dumb enough to keep fighting amongst itself.

[peopleb4money]

10. Yah, the human ego is so inflated...

...that people forget they're a part of nature. I think were really more like a planetary consciousness or a possible precursor to it. Previously, there was nothing on the planet that was aware of itself or was able to contemplate ecology and destiny and that sort of thing. Whether we realize it or not, were really just organs dependent on the whole. We influence others, others influence us, nature influences us, and we influence nature. So, yah, I have to agree with you about only caring about one species. We could have all the human solidarity in the world, but if we don't do things to keep our life support intact, we'll all die, possibly in a struggle between each other for limited resources.

[TheMadMonk]

11. And herin lies the conundrum. We ARE a "pest species" of sorts.

However, we also have the ability to consciously direct our path.

One thing we won't do is roll over and play dead. We'll either precipitate a huge extinction/correction event, or well figure out a way to have our cake and eat it.

The Earth isn't going to get off scott free. I think it's an unfortunate given that most of the megafauna of this era is doomed. We are going to "wrap" nature around our needs. The trick will not be preseving what we have. That is beyond our power. The trick will be preserving as much as possible. It will mean making calculated sacrifices.

And new ways of looking at things. For example open pit mines that are exhausted. Current best practice is remediation as best as is possible to the original land contours and vegetation.

Why not line the hole with clay and make a deepwater lake if there is a suitable water source near enough for diversion?

Why not pile up the non-toxic overburden from these mines, not in great unstable mullock heaps, but to create bucolic rolling hillsides?

Consider flooding sub-sealevel basins from the ocean. It would have a minor, but still useful effect on rising sealevels. Power could be generated from the flow. Inccreased evaporation should increase precipitation "downstream" whithout negatively impactive rainfall patterns elsewhere. The Dead Sea is already under consideration for such a project. Simply compensating for the lack of inflow from the Jordan River and returning shorelines to historical levels would generate a huge amount of power. Power which could be used for desalination among other things.

Any time Lake Eyre in South Australia fills with water, Victoria enjoys higher than average rainfall, why not keep it full all the time. If we can develop a taste for seabirds, we'd be home and hosed.

Rolling back the desert a la Las Vegas is undoubtedly an environmental nightmare/catastrophe, but there is nothing inherently noble about preserving desert simply for its own sake. Of all land environments it's the one that can be sacrificed with the least overall loss.

Whether we pave it over with solar power plants or flood ten thousand square kilometres, if it lessens our impact elsewhere it's a positive thing.

[hunter]

12. So, you know about deserts are, do you?

:grr: Leave my deserts alone.

I say we "sacrifice" retail space and highways and low density housing and toxic monoculture corn fields instead, okay?

Iowa might be a good place to start. If there's enough solar power for the corn, there's enough for solar panels. Pave those useless corn fields over with solar panels since the corn is only fed to animals or made into HFCS or ethanol. Better to make electricity...

[TheMadMonk]

17. I happen to concur with you on a lot of that.

Malls and suchlike should be sandwiched between basement and rooftop parking AND capped with some sort of solar collectors. Not surrounded by acre after acre of heat adsorbing blacktop.

Corn for feed and HFCS and fuel is IMHO bloody stupid.

However, those fields remain valuable growing or grazing land once you get the BT corn out of them. Though I would most certainly dual purpose the land with rectena to receive microwaves from space based solar if and when.

A major problem with suburbia is not too low density. Older true low density suburbia can do a hell of a lot to support itself with home vegetable gardens and a few chickens on a 1/4+ acre block. Modern medium density housing where the building occupies 50% or more of a pocket handkerchief block is useless for anything: no free range kids; no large pets; certainly no food animals; no significant food crops. Just barely room for a genteel BBQ. Weirdly enough, it's actually easier to grow a small crop or a 1/2 doz chooks in cheek to jowl terrace housing than MD suburbia, even with the same neighbours.


My point is, Mankind isn't going away unless it's by precipitating a world enveloping disaster.

And Mankind will keep doing more to fit the world to our needs, than changing ourselves and our habits to suit the world.

I have no idea what effect the flooding of Death Valley would have. It would have to be carefully modeled before such hard to reverse projects were undertaken. However, we do have historical records and climate proxies to give us a fair idea of the effect of adding water to the Dead Sea. And while the Australian record is much shorter, there is a fairly clear connection between a full Lake Eyre and a wet South Eastern Australia.

Desert is simply the default minimum biome. And it does seem that as a general rule of thumb, that when deserts get wet it has a positive effect elsewhere.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

15. The people that I have heard use the term "eco-fascism"

use it to describe all environmentalists. And basically do not understand eco-systems and that humans are part of and dependent on nature.

[harvey007]

27. John Lennon's perspective on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRh5NNiFG0