Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 . . . 35 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1389890 - Posted: 11 Jul 2013, 23:58:55 UTC - in response to Message 1389886.
Last modified: 12 Jul 2013, 0:00:18 UTC

Not only does a volcano pump out CO2 it pumps out every other greenhouse gas known to man. ...

... It just so happens that submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 then the ones above water.

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans...

Your comments are very definitely for the Denialists thread. Please give some hard evidence rather than just wild random 'feelings'.


Just regarding Ian Plimer, volcanoes, and CO2:

Wikipedia: Ian Plimer Volcanoes and CO2

Plimer has long argued that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes...

The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis." This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.


Not much then...!

Further comment over on Denialists please. This thread is for SOLUTIONS.


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1389918 - Posted: 12 Jul 2013, 1:33:13 UTC - in response to Message 1389890.

Not only does a volcano pump out CO2 it pumps out every other greenhouse gas known to man. ...

... It just so happens that submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 then the ones above water.

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans...

Your comments are very definitely for the Denialists thread. Please give some hard evidence rather than just wild random 'feelings'.


Just regarding Ian Plimer, volcanoes, and CO2:

Wikipedia: Ian Plimer Volcanoes and CO2

Plimer has long argued that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes...

The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis." This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.


Not much then...!

Further comment over on Denialists please. This thread is for SOLUTIONS.


All on our only planet,
Martin


Wild random 'feelings'?

In case you missed it, I offered my solution. I think we need to spend the same amount of monies on both hypothesis.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1390167 - Posted: 12 Jul 2013, 16:20:39 UTC

All a game of crazy politics or of political graft?


Call to pay landowners to save peat

Britain’s rich landowners are fuelling climate change by clearing peat bogs for grouse shooting...

... Landowners burn off the peat to encourage the growth of heather, which feeds the sporting birds. The Committee on Climate Change says they should be paid to leave the bogs to store carbon and water.

If the peat is drained, the carbon stored in organic material is exposed to air, decomposing and forming CO2. The report by the committee’s sub-group on adaptation says around 30% (nearly 1,000 sq km) of upland deep peat has become dominated by heather for grouse. "It really makes no sense to be draining peat when we are trying to cut carbon emissions," ...

... The Country Landowners Association (CLA) said it expected to be compensated if it is expected to conserve peat bogs. ... "The sooner we get market-based payments for protecting peat the better.” He said the CLA was discussing the idea of payments with government.

The idea may prove controversial as it could see some of the UK’s richest people who own large tracts of uplands effectively paid for doing nothing.

The committee says sheep farmers are to blame, too, for draining peatbogs. The bogs also provide a valuable service in storing water, which inhibits flooding and filters water for drinking. ...



Quite a thorny one...

Note how we have restrictive planning regulation for building and land use in city areas and national park areas...

All a game of subsidies?

Should we have a 'price' for inherited carbon storage and water catchment?

Should there be a carbon pollution charge if change of land use adds to pollution?


All a game of politics...

All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1391787 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 22:08:04 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jul 2013, 22:08:55 UTC

A brief collection from the flurry from President Obama's 'Climate Speech':


Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan

The President’s comprehensive plan has three main objectives:

One – to prevent the worst effects of climate change by reducing our carbon pollution. ...

Two – to prepare this country for the impacts of climate change we can’t avoid.

And three – to lead the rest of the world around combating changing climate.



US and China to extend co-operation in effort to curb climate change

New initiatives announced in Washington by both countries – who jointly account for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions

America and China agreed on Wednesday to work together to develop cleaner trucks, expanding joint efforts against climate change by the two greatest emitters and raising prospects for a global climate deal.

The new initiatives announced in Washington on Wednesday would see China and the US extend their climate co-operation to five new areas – beginning with heavy trucks, which are a significant cause of greenhouse gas emissions in both countries. ...



Can Jim Yong Kim end World Bank backing for coal-fired power

... this proposal is a big step forward for an agency that has supported some of the world's largest and dirtiest coal plants for years. It is also a key opportunity for World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim to lead the World Bank into a clean energy future. ...


Is Obama's climate plan enough to 'stop the planet being beyond fixing'?

Barack Obama has laid out his 'climate action plan', but will it be enough to halt the rise in carbon emissions?...



Too little too slow too late, or good hope and a call to urgent action?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

(The trucks and chimneys in that YouTube clip are particularly apt...)
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1392820 - Posted: 20 Jul 2013, 12:15:20 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jul 2013, 12:16:22 UTC

Quite a mixed bag of reporting. Is this partly a journalistic backlash to 'balance' against the Obama 'Climate Speech'?


Can Germany afford its 'energy bender' shift to green power?

Germany's rapid transition to renewable energy is said to be the country's biggest and most expensive project since the fall of the Berlin wall - but with rising costs for consumers and industry, will this great energy experiment succeed? ...


Battle over wind turbines in the land of Sleeping Beauty

Plans to expand wind energy into the most scenic parts of Germany are fuelling increasing opposition across the country.

Anti-wind campaigners are angry that areas including the forests made famous by the tales of the brothers Grimm are among the targets for new turbines. For the first time they have formed a national opposition group to thwart the expansion. ...

... "I want the green movement, I want green technology, I don't want nuclear power - but they should be made in the right way and not by destroying the forest. ...

... Some of those involved believe that unlike solar power, which has been adopted by many individual householders, wind parks are essentially speculative investments with electricity consumers guaranteeing a return for developers. ...



Let's go solar: How communities make energy together

... in part of south London, the thoughts of Agamemnon Otero are on the kilowatts per hour being generated on local rooftops.

"It's a great summer to install solar panels," he says. "On a day like today, in the full sun, we'll be creating more energy than all these buildings need."

But his enthusiasm is not only a result of Britain's soaring temperatures. ...




For Germany, here's hoping that crass couldn't-care-less commercialism doesn't spoil the party. How do we cost in a more holistic picture rather than just destructively working blindly for cold commercial profit?

And there is an awful lot of unutilized roof area that can be utilized for solar electric and solar heating!

Also note the complete absence in those articles of any mention of costing for the cost of fossil fuels pollution...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1395174 - Posted: 26 Jul 2013, 15:20:32 UTC

An interesting rebirth, provided there is none of the sort of "sharp practice" as has been pioneered in the IT world:


Bill Gates' nuclear firm plans hot, salty push into power

And a royalty payment from every home

The nuclear power firm being hailed by Bill Gates as the answer to mankind's future energy needs is planning a proprietary approach to an old atomic idea to further its global ambitions...

...the main area the firm is working on is a traveling-wave reactor (TWR).

A TWR mostly burns depleted uranium fuel, which is stacked in a long candle-like column and then ignited with a cap of enriched uranium. Such a fission reactor would take 50-100 years to burn itself down, with virtually no maintenance required or spent fuel to dispose of...

... One area the firm won't be seriously looking into is fusion power. This might seem odd, since Gilleland was the US managing director of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) fusion plant, based in France, before joining TerraPower, but he said that the payoff period for research is too long.

"I have a soft spot in my heart for fusion, having run the ITER program and things like that, but it's something I can't count on for my grandchildren," he said. "We're focused more on fission rather than fusion. Fusion just takes so much more development and so much more time."...



One particularly apt comment is:

Re: "Proprietary" and "patents"

...Still, nice to see some moves on safer and more efficient fission. Amazing what can happen when there's less pressure to generate useful side products for the military and actual make sane design choices.



Good indeed to see saner alternatives being looked at again... So whatever did happen to the Thorium ideas and also the inherently fail-safe Candu style nuclear fission reactors?


All on our only one world,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12999
Credit: 7,665,619
RAC: 6,296
United States
Message 1395777 - Posted: 28 Jul 2013, 5:40:30 UTC

Even simple solar power is not without environmental problems ...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/the-real-death-panels-endangered-birds-killed-by-solar-plants/
http://cochise.az.gov/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Zoning/Agendas_and_Meeting_Minutes/Solar%20One%20Avian%20Mortality%20Study.pdf

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1395960 - Posted: 28 Jul 2013, 21:35:11 UTC - in response to Message 1395777.
Last modified: 28 Jul 2013, 21:37:26 UTC

Even simple solar power is not without environmental problems ...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/the-real-death-panels-endangered-birds-killed-by-solar-plants/
http://cochise.az.gov/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Zoning/Agendas_and_Meeting_Minutes/Solar%20One%20Avian%20Mortality%20Study.pdf

Thanks for that, interesting unexpectedness... Hopefully not too many birds will be dumb enough to be so confused... That problem might suggest the use of the more non-reflective black looking solar panels instead?


Also, do not underestimate the death and destruction to birds from other man-made causes:

Why Coal and Nuclear Plants Kill Far More Birds than Wind Power

... Risks to wildlife vary substantially by life cycle stage. Higher risks are generally associated with the resource extraction and power generation stages, as compared to other life cycle stages. Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife...


Avian mortality from wind power, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity

Fossil-fueled facilities are 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per GWh basis than wind power. ... but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear 327,000. ...

... After surveying wind development in California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming (the 10 states with more than 90% of total installed wind power capacity), the US GAO (2005) calculated that building windows are by far the largest source of bird morality, accounting for 97-976 million deaths per year. Attacks from domestic and feral cats accounted for 110 million deaths; poisoning from pesticides 72 million; and collisions with communication towers 4-50 million...



11 Facts about the BP Oil Spill

... In the BP Oil Spill, more than 200 million gallons of crude oil was pumped into the Gulf of Mexico for a total of 87 days, making it the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.

16,000 total miles of coastline have been affected, including the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

Even though the gushing well was capped in July 2010, oil is still washing up on shores...



BP's oiled animals: Where are they now?

... More than 1,100 miles of shoreline were oiled by the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, ... about 340 miles of those beaches and bayous remain "subject to evaluation and/or cleanup operations." ...

... Thousands upon thousands of people have also been affected in the three years since, and in a wide range of ways. Some were physically sickened by oil or its fumes during the cleanup, while others lost fortunes or entire businesses to prolonged slumps in fishing, shrimping and tourism. BP set up a $20 billion fund to compensate ... it pleaded guilty to 12 felony charges as part of a $4.5 billion settlement with the U.S. government... It also reached a $7.8 billion settlement last spring with private-sector plaintiffs, and a civil trial is currently under way in New Orleans. ...




Fossil fuels come out as particularly dirty, poisonous, and deadly...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9043
Credit: 36,978,716
RAC: 15,633
United States
Message 1396059 - Posted: 29 Jul 2013, 4:55:50 UTC

Why dont we stop spending on war crap and just build a Dyson sphere. That would solve our enegy needs. And it would put every one to work so the GOV. could tax the hell out of us.
____________

Old James

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,741
RAC: 8,199
United Kingdom
Message 1396448 - Posted: 30 Jul 2013, 2:57:34 UTC

In an area that there is probably vast oil fields, up to 50 billion as-yet untapped barrels of oil, say some. Which if exploited will cause more warming, is Kivalina, The Alaskan village set to disappear underwater in a decade

US President Obama's promise to take bold measures to combat climate change has provoked strong domestic opposition, but Americans are now facing the impact of global warming in their own country.

Almost no one in America has heard of the Alaskan village of Kivalina. It clings to a narrow spit of sand on the edge of the Bering Sea, far too small to feature on maps of Alaska, never mind the United States.

Which is perhaps just as well, because within a decade Kivalina is likely to be underwater. Gone, forever. Remembered - if at all - as the birthplace of America's first climate change refugees.


Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2621
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1396562 - Posted: 30 Jul 2013, 9:21:10 UTC - in response to Message 1396448.

This is a solutions thread. What is your solution ??

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,741
RAC: 8,199
United Kingdom
Message 1396570 - Posted: 30 Jul 2013, 10:38:42 UTC - in response to Message 1396562.

This is a solutions thread. What is your solution ??

It is also a greenhouse effects thread.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1396609 - Posted: 30 Jul 2013, 12:52:49 UTC - in response to Message 1396570.

This is a solutions thread. What is your solution ??

It is also a greenhouse effects thread.

The 'solution' for Kivalina looks to be enforced relocation. Possibly the first directly due to forced rapid climate change.


And the Arctic is suffering the fastest change...

Meanwhile, do we have a useful solution possible with the present hot-air-little-action politics?

All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Message 1396670 - Posted: 30 Jul 2013, 21:49:35 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:31:09 UTC

--

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1396956 - Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 12:39:57 UTC - in response to Message 1396670.
Last modified: 31 Jul 2013, 12:40:21 UTC

The solution is to kill off >99% of the human population so the remaining <1% can ...

That's the only real solution.

If we want to save our only planet...

We should not need anything like as drastic as that.


Hopefully, our civilization can advance far enough for education, politics and cooperation to save our civilization from a bad bust after our industrial boom.


Here's hoping for the next Age of Man... The Age of Green Enlightenment?

All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1396957 - Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 12:46:55 UTC

Is this a solution of 'realism' or procrastination?

IEA's Didier Houssin: the world's energy future is not hopeless

... Didier Houssin of the International Energy Agency

... "The present world energy system is still not compatible with a two degree scenario," Houssin admits. "We are probably somewhere between the 4C and 6C degrees. We use the scenario to make it clear that to mitigate our impact on climate and environment we need to rethink policies and the industrial system."

So far, the worst mistake has been to underestimate the role of emerging economies as contributors to the rise in global emissions. ...

... Coal-based power generation "has by far outweighed the growth from non-fossil energy sources. That has been the case for the last 10 years. ...

... Houssin is putting his hope in a sharp decline of carbon emission by 2050, to avoid warming of up to 6C. "We see a future where the power system is almost entirely decarbonised," he says, "and this definition doesn't mean that we only rely on renewables. Much can be achieved by implementing electric vehicles, for example. We should also invest more in carbon capture and storage, because a fair amount of CO2 will always be there and needs to be removed from the atmosphere."

Renewable technologies will play a prominent role in his map of a future decarbonised world: "In our best case scenario renewables would represent about 57% of total power generation. ...

... innovation will be needed to make the available technologies more competitive and effective.

But he maintains that the ultimate potential for change lies in people. "The awareness about climate change is growing, because we've started to see it happening, as natural disasters tend to multiply, for example. The problem is that over the last years the economic crisis became more serious, and people have tended to focus on problems such as unemployment, low salaries, energy bills."

But the outlook will be poor without a long-term vision that encompasses changes in individuals' behaviour. "Better energy management also means less consumption and lower bills...



Whichever, developments need to move away from continued CO2 pollution, and more quickly. Whether that means going clean, green, or just less intensive!


All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9043
Credit: 36,978,716
RAC: 15,633
United States
Message 1397806 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 6:00:30 UTC

And any movement to force power copmanys or any company that produces C02 to pay a carbon tax will just be passed on to us the consumer. All your green dreams if they were really viable would take off and fly with out Gov. subsidies.

The last I knew humans and most other living things breath oxygen and exhale C02. Well there are a hell of lot more humans in the last 100 years. I know lets put a carbon tax on breathing.

Lets sink more money into Fusion. Just another 50 years and we will have it. Trouble is Ive seen that every ten years for the last 50 yeas.

Martin, I personally belive global warming is true. But all your pie in the sky cures are not fiscally possible for the vast majority of poeple.
____________

Old James

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32342
Credit: 14,276,873
RAC: 7,693
United Kingdom
Message 1397880 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 10:07:55 UTC

At the present moment "green policies" are the flavour of the month. Given public opinion and scare stories by a desperate press to stay in business, any talk of carbon reduction, solar and wind power is a vote winner. The tree huggers are in their nirvana. There is global warming going on, we can see it and we can detect it, but how much it is warming up is still disputed. Also disputed is how much mankind is adding to it. The earth had had major and mini ice ages in the past and will again, the 11 year sunspot cycle also figures in the equation somewhere.

One day in hundreds or maybe thousands of years time, Oil, coal, and gas will run out, it has to, there are finite amounts of it. Solar, wind, tidal power, and various other renewables won't cover more that 10% at most of the worlds energy requirements. Therefore in time to come it will be a nuclear world, and within that I include fusion and other derivatives.

In the meantime the left wing open toed sandal brigade pat themselves on the back, and sleep well at night. Good for them but not so good for the future for everyone else.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1397910 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 13:33:34 UTC - in response to Message 1397806.
Last modified: 2 Aug 2013, 13:34:35 UTC

And any movement to force power copmanys or any company that produces C02 to pay a carbon tax will just be passed on to us the consumer. All your green dreams if they were really viable would take off and fly with out Gov. subsidies.

Indeed so, that is the nature of their business. However, you already get to pay extra in the subsidies and tax breaks given to fossil fuels and in ignoring their pollution.

We get a big win all round by going clean. However for that, we need to break away from the fossil fuels funded FUD and sabotage. There are already better ways than their old style pollution. Unfortunately, we can expect ever more intense FUD as the old-style power plants string out their operation for as long as possible for extra dirty profits.

New clean power plants do cost slightly more to be clean. Their payback though is greater profit for everyone in the world...


The last I knew humans and most other living things breath oxygen and exhale C02. Well there are a hell of lot more humans in the last 100 years. I know lets put a carbon tax on breathing.

The excess CO2 from biology including our population is insignificant to that being industrially produced... One human operator of a machine can easily dump many millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year...


Lets sink more money into Fusion. Just another 50 years and we will have it. Trouble is Ive seen that every ten years for the last 50 yeas.

And have you seen what happens to the funding and politics?!... We could have had power-station-scale fusion over a decade ago just for the cost of a few oil wells or one transcontinental oil pipeline... All a game of priorities?

Hell! The BP Gulf Oil Spill payouts could have instead funded multiple parallel fusion development programs... Why is BP or the USA not investing in that...?



Martin, I personally belive global warming is true. But all your pie in the sky cures are not fiscally possible for the vast majority of poeple.

Exactly so at the moment. Which is where the politics and fiscal practices need to evolve to survive. However, the fossil fuels industry has a lot of fiscal lobbying power to corruptly procrastinate their prominence for years to come yet...

How long has the tobacco industry FUD machine been successfully running? And for how much longer yet for continued dirty deadly practices?...


Amazing stuff for which children can't believe that adults can be so selfishly stupid!

All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8574
Credit: 4,234,019
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1397912 - Posted: 2 Aug 2013, 13:38:38 UTC - in response to Message 1396956.

... Hopefully, our civilization can advance far enough for education, politics and cooperation to save our civilization from a bad bust after our industrial boom.


Here's hoping for the next Age of Man... The Age of Green Enlightenment?



There may be innate hope yet:


Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative...


... "Darwin himself was puzzled about the co-operation you observe in nature. He was particularly struck by social insects," he explained.

"You might think that natural selection should favour individuals that are exploitative and selfish, but in fact we now know after decades of research that this is an oversimplified view of things, particularly if you take into account the selfish gene feature of evolution.

"It's not individuals that have to survive, its genes, and genes just use individual organisms - animals or humans - as vehicles to propagate themselves."

"Selfish genes" therefore benefit from having co-operative organisms.



All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 . . . 35 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Copyright © 2014 University of California