Marc--

I actually agree with much of what you are saying, but what to do about it is unanswered by your remarks. I say we have to change OUR ways to make the big difference. You're saying the other guys have to change THEIR ways. Who's right? America will succeed in WW III just as she did in Vietnam. So how should we bring about the necessary changes to prevent that from happening?

Just as the fish had to do, we will sprout legs and walk, or we will die.

--Croak

Marc--

I actually agree with much of what you are saying, but what to do about it is unanswered by your remarks. I say we have to change OUR ways to make the big difference. You're saying the other guys have to change THEIR ways. Who's right? America will succeed in WW III just as she did in Vietnam. So how should we bring about the necessary changes to prevent that from happening?

Just as the fish had to do, we will sprout legs and walk, or we will die.

--Croak

Well, I think it clear, from reading Mike Alexander's post, what we need to do, Croaker.

Folks out there in the fruited plain are farting too much, Croaker! And we need to put a stop to this careless practise post haste. And given the fact that Americans aren't likely to reduce there farting on their own, its quite clear that we'll need a new department in the federal government to make sure they do.

Do you have any ideas on what we should call this new department, Croaker?

Well, I think it clear, from reading Mike Alexander's post, what we need to do, Croaker.

Folks out there in the fruited plain are farting too much, Croaker! And we need to put a stop to this careless practise post haste. And given the fact that Americans aren't likely to reduce there farting on their own, its quite clear that we'll need a new department in the federal government to make sure they do.

Do you have any ideas on what we should call this new department, Croaker?

Oh, you're too good, Marc. No, I don't have a name for it, because it probably would fail in the end. But in the end, there is a department, as it were, in the ranks of Mother Nature. She calls it her Department of Natural Selection.

--Croak!!!

Oh, you're too good, Marc. No, I don't have a name for it, because it probably would fail in the end. But in the end, there is a department, as it were, in the ranks of Mother Nature. She calls it her Department of Natural Selection.

--Croak!!!

Suz X:

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review.

You should not assume that everything posted is directed towards you. I wasn't speaking to you particularly with that post, and there's no reason to believe Eli was, either.

Suz X:

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review.

You should not assume that everything posted is directed towards you. I wasn't speaking to you particularly with that post, and there's no reason to believe Eli was, either.

SuzX: Try to dislodged that chip from your shoulder and don't take this all so personally. There are many more of us on this thread than are represented by the frequent posters. Remember, you are addressing an audience each time you post.

SuzX: Try to dislodged that chip from your shoulder and don't take this all so personally. There are many more of us on this thread than are represented by the frequent posters. Remember, you are addressing an audience each time you post.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Croaker, didn't the first plane hit the WTC at around 8:35 am? If the lawyers were sitll alive, they sure as heck weren't discussing tort reform any more! :o

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Croaker, didn't the first plane hit the WTC at around 8:35 am? If the lawyers were sitll alive, they sure as heck weren't discussing tort reform any more! :o

Justin:

It's not that they can't compete with the scumbags; just that a rational risk/payoff analysis where one of the risks is a lifetime of torture and sexual abuse (aka imprisonemnt in the US) -- and the financial crushing of your family to boot -- likely leads one to pursue other venues.

A druglord is more likely by far to meet torture, abuse (sexual or otherwise) and financial crushing at the hands of his competitors than at those of the U.S. government. If the government ceased enforcing drug laws, but left the drugs in illegal status, so that those in the industry could not call upon the law for protection without risking prosecution themselves, much the same results would obtain as at present (minus the stupid tax expenditures, of course).

Suz X:

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself.

Nobody here requires that you hate yourself, and the rest of us won't lie to you, either.

I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now?

Not a thing. Why must we resort to terms like "unnatural"? It is unwise, imprudent, self-destructive, and irresponsible. Isn't that enough? We are a part of nature, and what we do, no matter its quality, is natural. That doesn't make it right.

Justin:

It's not that they can't compete with the scumbags; just that a rational risk/payoff analysis where one of the risks is a lifetime of torture and sexual abuse (aka imprisonemnt in the US) -- and the financial crushing of your family to boot -- likely leads one to pursue other venues.

A druglord is more likely by far to meet torture, abuse (sexual or otherwise) and financial crushing at the hands of his competitors than at those of the U.S. government. If the government ceased enforcing drug laws, but left the drugs in illegal status, so that those in the industry could not call upon the law for protection without risking prosecution themselves, much the same results would obtain as at present (minus the stupid tax expenditures, of course).

Suz X:

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself.

Nobody here requires that you hate yourself, and the rest of us won't lie to you, either.

I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now?

Not a thing. Why must we resort to terms like "unnatural"? It is unwise, imprudent, self-destructive, and irresponsible. Isn't that enough? We are a part of nature, and what we do, no matter its quality, is natural. That doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

 In 1900 we lived an average 30 years. Now we live to 67.

 In 1970, 35 per cent of people in developing countries were starving. By 1996 the figure was 18 per cent and the UN predicts it to fall to 6 per cent by 2030.

 We have reduced poverty more in the past 50 years than in the preceding 500, in almost every country, according to the UN.

 In 1970 only 30 per cent of the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Now the figure is about 80 per cent.

Three of these points are clear-cut. The one about poverty is troubling.

It is likely that poverty (as a percentage of population) worldwide increased from 1450 through 1950. I am not certain of this. I have read things that have made this claim, but I have not really investigated the issue.

I wonder why the author didn't just say X percent of people lived on the edge of starvation 50 years ago and today it is Y percentage (with Y being lower than X). And if he couldn't find the statistics in this form then not say anything.

By saying that poverty was reduced more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500 doesn't strictly require that powerty was actually reduced at all. Poverty could actually have risen slightly and the statement would could be true. Yet the implication is that poverty has fallen.

Now I am reasonably sure that poverty has fallen, at least for most areas of the world, but this sort of presentation now makes me wonder if someone is being clever. Suppose the the source of the statistic is a UN anti-poverty agency--might not the bureaucrats want to make themselves look good even if the facts aren't?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

 In 1900 we lived an average 30 years. Now we live to 67.

 In 1970, 35 per cent of people in developing countries were starving. By 1996 the figure was 18 per cent and the UN predicts it to fall to 6 per cent by 2030.

 We have reduced poverty more in the past 50 years than in the preceding 500, in almost every country, according to the UN.

 In 1970 only 30 per cent of the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Now the figure is about 80 per cent.

Three of these points are clear-cut. The one about poverty is troubling.

It is likely that poverty (as a percentage of population) worldwide increased from 1450 through 1950. I am not certain of this. I have read things that have made this claim, but I have not really investigated the issue.

I wonder why the author didn't just say X percent of people lived on the edge of starvation 50 years ago and today it is Y percentage (with Y being lower than X). And if he couldn't find the statistics in this form then not say anything.

By saying that poverty was reduced more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500 doesn't strictly require that powerty was actually reduced at all. Poverty could actually have risen slightly and the statement would could be true. Yet the implication is that poverty has fallen.

Now I am reasonably sure that poverty has fallen, at least for most areas of the world, but this sort of presentation now makes me wonder if someone is being clever. Suppose the the source of the statistic is a UN anti-poverty agency--might not the bureaucrats want to make themselves look good even if the facts aren't?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Suz X:

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review.

You should not assume that everything posted is directed towards you. I wasn't speaking to you particularly with that post, and there's no reason to believe Eli was, either.

Most of what I posted was not directed at Suz X at all, but rather, was a response other posts. In particular, I felt it necessary to discuss what the science of ecology actually is because many folks just assume that ecologists are tree-hugging, get back to nature folks who would join Greenpeace if they could. I have been called an Eco-nazi a fair number of times.

Fact is, I get my living from the biosphere every bit as much as any other living organism does. Every organism changes the environment. The question is how does it do so and what effect does that have on the community or ecosystem? The oxygen revolution is just one example of a change created by aerobic bacteria that forever altered the environment and drove some species extinct but allowed for the diversification and evolution for others.

A question for humans, since we are a species that is aware of what we are doing, is how do the changes we are making going to make this planet less livable for our species? And then, what are we willing to do about it? The first is a scientific question and the second is a political question.

What I hear in the name-callers on talk radio is a reflexive denial that the environment is either important or valuable. This behavior strikes me as willful ignorance and also a disregard for the world outside themselves. They seem to be saying that if they don't already know something, then it is probably not worth knowing and at the same time they seem to hate the people who do know it. They seem to feel that
if knowledge is going to force them to make decisions that might make them give up something, well, then they'd rather not know it all.

Now to address Suz X and her tender feelings: You did ask for advice about how to learn something about ecology. I assumed you were talking about the science of ecology and it happens that my formal education is in that field. Formal education is a good way to learn a field in depth because you actually pay people who know that field to guide your learning. That guidance is very important because you are instructed in the basic background and vocabulary of the field. Also, by taking core courses in the field, you are guiding in your reading of the literature so that you read the seminal works in the field and you get to know the people and ideas behind them. This prepares you to ask your own questions and find your place in the field.

However. most of us can only study one of two areas in this kind of depth. Yet we are curious about many other areas. In that case, it still helpful to seek the guidance of others who have studied in depth. I do this all the time for areas that I am ignorant of and that I want to know more about. Learning from mentors takes a certain humility because we all know that our mentors are human and they have their own peculiar world views. However, mentors are willing to share themselves and their prejudices and their blind spots and we can thus, without paying thousands of dollars in tuition, get ourselves to a point where we have the background to ask our own questions with confidence and assurance.

Suz X, my advice to you if you were sincere in your desire to learn is:
1) Read a basic text on ecology--they are dull because they are not controversial but they do give you the necessary background and vocabulary. It really does help to crack the code
2)Get a good basic dictionary of biology to use when you read the literature. Heck, I have a Ph.D and I still use mine. I get a new one every few years, too. That is because I studied one area in depth but when I branch out, I still need to aquaint myself with the vocabulary of other fields. Mycologists don't talk like soil ecologists who do not talk like geneticists, etc.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Suz X:

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review.

You should not assume that everything posted is directed towards you. I wasn't speaking to you particularly with that post, and there's no reason to believe Eli was, either.

Most of what I posted was not directed at Suz X at all, but rather, was a response other posts. In particular, I felt it necessary to discuss what the science of ecology actually is because many folks just assume that ecologists are tree-hugging, get back to nature folks who would join Greenpeace if they could. I have been called an Eco-nazi a fair number of times.

Fact is, I get my living from the biosphere every bit as much as any other living organism does. Every organism changes the environment. The question is how does it do so and what effect does that have on the community or ecosystem? The oxygen revolution is just one example of a change created by aerobic bacteria that forever altered the environment and drove some species extinct but allowed for the diversification and evolution for others.

A question for humans, since we are a species that is aware of what we are doing, is how do the changes we are making going to make this planet less livable for our species? And then, what are we willing to do about it? The first is a scientific question and the second is a political question.

What I hear in the name-callers on talk radio is a reflexive denial that the environment is either important or valuable. This behavior strikes me as willful ignorance and also a disregard for the world outside themselves. They seem to be saying that if they don't already know something, then it is probably not worth knowing and at the same time they seem to hate the people who do know it. They seem to feel that
if knowledge is going to force them to make decisions that might make them give up something, well, then they'd rather not know it all.

Now to address Suz X and her tender feelings: You did ask for advice about how to learn something about ecology. I assumed you were talking about the science of ecology and it happens that my formal education is in that field. Formal education is a good way to learn a field in depth because you actually pay people who know that field to guide your learning. That guidance is very important because you are instructed in the basic background and vocabulary of the field. Also, by taking core courses in the field, you are guiding in your reading of the literature so that you read the seminal works in the field and you get to know the people and ideas behind them. This prepares you to ask your own questions and find your place in the field.

However. most of us can only study one of two areas in this kind of depth. Yet we are curious about many other areas. In that case, it still helpful to seek the guidance of others who have studied in depth. I do this all the time for areas that I am ignorant of and that I want to know more about. Learning from mentors takes a certain humility because we all know that our mentors are human and they have their own peculiar world views. However, mentors are willing to share themselves and their prejudices and their blind spots and we can thus, without paying thousands of dollars in tuition, get ourselves to a point where we have the background to ask our own questions with confidence and assurance.

Suz X, my advice to you if you were sincere in your desire to learn is:
1) Read a basic text on ecology--they are dull because they are not controversial but they do give you the necessary background and vocabulary. It really does help to crack the code
2)Get a good basic dictionary of biology to use when you read the literature. Heck, I have a Ph.D and I still use mine. I get a new one every few years, too. That is because I studied one area in depth but when I branch out, I still need to aquaint myself with the vocabulary of other fields. Mycologists don't talk like soil ecologists who do not talk like geneticists, etc.

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre

My, my! The Workers' World Party has certainly gained a lot of members!

In fact, if we take Dominic's logic a bit further, and assign everyone who disagrees with Bush's Iraq war (whether or not they take part in the protests) to the WWP, then it is now the majority party.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Croaker, didn't the first plane hit the WTC at around 8:35 am? If the lawyers were sitll alive, they sure as heck weren't discussing tort reform any more! :o

Jenny The Wonk--I do believe you're right.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Croaker, didn't the first plane hit the WTC at around 8:35 am? If the lawyers were sitll alive, they sure as heck weren't discussing tort reform any more! :o

Jenny The Wonk--I do believe you're right.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

You go, guy!

At least the demonstrations are having the hopefully beneficial effect of letting us know who the fifth columnists are in our midst, so they can be dealt with.