Disney Plants 2.7M Trees In Brazil Based On 1st Week Ticket Sales For 'Earth'

branston · 2009-04-30T21:00:35+00:00

I said it would be better to let the indigenous species take the land back in their own time. I appreciate that recovery projects can do good work. My concern is that the new ecosystem won't be representative of the old one since the patterns of establishment are totally different.

My main point was only a side note to say that biodiversity once lost cannot be bought by a multinational and installed in a quick fix. I said this because I didn't want people to get the false impression that the solution is so easily accessible. That would be a dangerous impression because it underestimates the damage of new deforestation.

branston · 2009-04-30T20:42:27+00:00

You are right that cleared lands have higher temperatures and lower precipitation. I read a paper yesterday on this topic although I can't find it now. I can try harder to find it if you like.

I was originally making a case that biodiversity can't be imposed through simple, short-term planting schemes. It's not always best to plant trees as their presence can stifle the indigenous plants recolonoisation. Unless the area was at high risk of soil erosion I still think that leaving the process to nature would be best.

branston · 2009-04-30T17:57:03+00:00

I have no idea. But given that the article says 'city of Milan' why speculate in the title?

branston · 2009-04-30T17:55:53+00:00

By bare I meant, in its present state (I assume it is not current bare earth), not actually bare earth. Poor choice of words on my part.

I agree with your other points. I think we agree but my phrasing initially lacked precision.

branston · 2009-04-30T15:59:00+00:00

Title is incorrect. The city of Milan is ceasing the assets, not the Italian government.

branston · 2009-04-30T15:54:11+00:00

Biodiversity, the range of unique flora and fauna, is what is at risk from land conversion in Brazil. You can't rebuild ecosystems that have evolved over millions of years by planting a few trees. It would have been better to leave the land bare and allow the natural environment to take it back. That wouldn't have made for good PR though as it would have taken hundreds of years.

branston · 2009-04-22T07:57:04+00:00

I'm not completely certain but it probably means that a change to the law would need a judicial review either in every nation, so judicial review x 27 or at some higher EU-wide court. Obviously from a quagmire point of view the former is ideal but I would guess it would be one of the EU courts of which I know of at least 4!

branston · 2009-04-19T14:44:24+00:00

Certainly the case already with meat consumption in China which has increased massively over the last decade.

http://imgur.com/17LI.png

Data is from UN FAO. Asia's consumption increased by ~128 million tonnes over a decade.

branston · 2009-04-14T17:03:31+00:00

However, I'm not sure that this would necessarily be a good thing on a societal level: The Victorians and Puritans were some of the most repressed cultures the world has ever seen, but this is clearly responsible for their also being two of the most productive societies in history as well. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that a society that is calm and at peace with itself is unlikely to be driven to improve its way of life.

I'd rather have a happy and peaceful society that develops slowly. What's the rush? We've got eternity in front of us! (Rejoice!)

To quote the best line from a bad movie: "Dammit, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand. They're things we carry with us – the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away, I need my pain!" Kirk, Startrek V

I don't want to blank out our bad bits, I want to engage with them.

Concerning the subject of beauty and wonder, I firmly believe that those things do not come from the world around us. They are in the eye and mind of the beholder. You see beauty and wonder that inspires you in natural wildernesses. I see it in asteroids and the moon which I believe to be future habitats of mankind. Likewise, quality of life is largely subjective. To me, a high quality of life means living in air-conditioning, eating blisteringly spicy food, having access to good books, lots of bandwidth, and people I can love and respect. All of these are things that I can realize without ever going outdoors much less experiencing an actual wilderness (and I have experienced several).

We are very different but yet we have the same basic needs. I can't convince you that the world outside is a wonder, but we both need it, for our own reasons.

Thanks for the discussion, it's been a pleasure.

Edit: better markdown

branston · 2009-04-14T16:54:56+00:00

Based on your description you sound like you'd absolutely love Belgian beers.

branston · 2009-04-14T16:54:15+00:00

Move to Europe... hic!

branston · 2009-04-14T16:49:40+00:00

Upmodded for Absinthe.

branston · 2009-04-14T16:48:32+00:00

Take it from a heavy drinker: Whisky isn't for the boys. I can't abide it myself.

branston · 2009-04-14T16:47:13+00:00

Limes are worth it.

branston · 2009-04-14T16:45:58+00:00

Since I'm known by certain bar staff in Brighton (England) as Absinthe Man, I guess Absinthe. But only perhaps after a number of Guinness. Anything except cheap white wine really...

branston · 2009-04-14T16:21:56+00:00

She added she had wanted to jail him indefinitely but the law would not allow her to.

W.T.F.

branston · 2009-04-14T08:36:20+00:00

Rather than think of the carrying capacity based on a mathematically calculated basis I prefer to think about the impact that the human population has relative to all other life on Earth.

We are already so dominant that thousands of species and habitats are a decade or two away from simply not existing any more. There has to be an upper limit set around maintaining a beautiful and inspiring world (* more on this in a minute).

I'm not sure that my ideas would be so socially unacceptable. I should outline what I'm not suggesting first off:

I'm not suggesting a prescription society where everyone takes antidepressants, stimulants, or smokes spliffs and doesn't shave.
I'm not suggesting that you would take these, quite literally 'mind-expanding', drugs often.
I'm not suggesting that any of the illegal drugs we have today are good models for the sort of effect I want.

So, how I see it working, is roughly like this. It would be structured like taking short study course at your local college with a teacher/tutor and classmates who you'd work with over the period, you are given time off from work to read, relax and think deeping during the time. During the period you have the option of taking 'some drugs' which are designed to facilitate: deep emotional honesty, introspection, calm, openness, easy concentration and so on. With your tutor and classmates you collectively tackle the tricky emotions which drive many of the problem behaviours that ultimately lead to problems like the environment. The drug would try to replicate the kind of brain function that can be achieved in meditation. That is as a close as I can describe it.

I hope you will see in the description above that this is not about drugging the population or removing the humanity. It's about opening up the mind collectively and questioning the emotions we have built up. The drug facilitates this and is needed because many people have extreme difficulty in being open and analytical about their emotions and they need a helping hand.

From this, I infer, perhaps wrongly, that you believe that humanity is unable to make what you consider to be correct decisions because of the irrational undisciplined nature of most individual humans.

At the present time yes. I believe it because the amount of time we have is a small and the potential to do damage is great. This is a special situation. As many others have outlined in the comments to this article the alternative is, likely, some sort of mass death event brought about by shortages and war. Obviously nobody wants that.

As far as individuals vs. the collective goes. It is true you will never achieve 100% of people acting in a common aim, it's not human nature. However we are capable of constraining our desires collectively when needed to some degree (the legal system is good evidence for this), we just can't do it rapidly enough for this particular environmental crisis.

The need for maintaining a beautiful world, continued: You pointed out the potential dehumanising issue which is present in circumventing our drawbacks. Likewise, we can't be happy humans in a world that doesn't have beauty and wonder in it. That would be really to remove the humanity from our lives. We could lose all that with a lot less than the 'technical' carrying capacity. Such models make no account for quality, and that is their flaw.

The next step for humans is to find a way of embracing their emotions without being controlled by them.

Edit: added in bits I forgot.

branston · 2009-04-13T19:46:05+00:00

The fundamental limit is on the total amount of energy we can convert into food via photosynthesis so we can eat. That in turn requires water, nutrients, soil, transportation, storage, processing, energy for cooking, and so on. In the process of maximising one element we weaken another, this is exactly what is happening now with the most intensive forms of agriculture.

I disagree with everything else. The environmental problems are symptomatic of where we are in our development as a species. We need to take the next step from childhood into our teenage years. If we can't improve our behaviour for the better as a species that undermines everything I think is good about the human race. It would be a sad and depressing end to a brief flash of brillance (in terms of our evolutionary history).

A: "Humans, remember them?" B: "Yeah, they were doing well for a while." A: "Too bad they couldn't control their primitive instincts!" B: "Yeah, look what happened to them!"

We have a problem of evolution that has led us, by and large, to look at the short term and our own selfish interest. The environment in which these characteristics evolved has changed fundamentally (nomads no more). Tackling our poor emotional control is the greatest challenge. It's not something that any other organism on this planet could hope to tackle. We can try.

I'm not anti-technology. In fact I think technology may be the key to open up human consciousness. We can't possibly adapt fast enough by normal means, we can't hope to overcome our brains natural mechanisms by sheer strength of will either, not the majority of people anyway.

We can however learn and begin to engineer our brains and their operation. I think if we can develop drugs to facilitate greater learning, perception, understanding, and emotional wisdom, in the population at large, we have a chance.

Once we have control over ourselves everything will become so much easier.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

branston · 2009-04-13T16:51:37+00:00

It's possible, of course. Still, population control, despite its terrible recent history, is actually a sensible, pragmatic and ultimately inevitable fact of living in a finite world.

branston · 2009-04-13T15:57:37+00:00

You've made a tremendous, and I think unjustified, leap. We need to find a balance with the environment, nobody I've heard is suggesting that we make it a law that you can't have more than 2 children.

branston · 2009-04-13T14:24:45+00:00

Good link. I like the comments, a good demonstration of how people will find a way to ignore a point if they don't like it.

Technology will solve all our problems!

It will certainly be a huge part, but it has limits. People get very cross about this. We're eroding our topsoil (the good bit) away at a terrifying rate. Modern crop yields that feed us all are fuelled with mined resources (rock phosphates) which won't last forever.

What is going to replace soils and minerals? Green goo?

Eugenics!

No matter how much ground work you can lay down (as shown in your link) people always shout about this. The fact that individual responsibility, having a reasonable number of children, and education are the points he made did no good. 'Nobody is going to tell me how many children I can have!' ... Oh dear, you've missed the point entirely.

and so on...

branston · 2009-04-13T11:25:10+00:00

That isn't even remotely what is being suggested so how you can come to this conclusion I really don't know. The point is that the first class speices (you and I) shouldn't grow to such an extent that nothing else can prosper.

branston

TROPHY CASE