Originally Posted by Mikebert

In each crisis, reality collides with conceptions that are outmoded, based on habits of thought adopted by policy makers in their youth, two turnings ago. This collision causes the crisis zeitgest. This zeitgeist aids in the development of new conceptions that are adopted by the rising civic generation. When youthful holders of the new conceptions begin to match the numbers of their elders that hold the old, outdated conceptions, then policy can change to address the new reality, and the 4T comes to an end.

I believe the central problem we face in this 4T is not global warming, or economic crisis, or terrorism or any of the real-world problems that faces us. That is, none of these problems will be addresses during this 4T. if they are addressed at all, it will be in the 1T.

It's not that I don't believe these are problems, but that I strongly believe that nothing will be done about them during this 4T because nothing can be done about them politically. Since nothing can be done, the problems will get worse. Eventually it will become possible to do something about them, at which point the 4T will be over. The action that is taken will be the work of the 1T.

So when might we begin to address these problems? Here the S&H model is useful. According to their model, the problems will start to be addressed once those in power at the beginning of the 4T have aged out of their leadership role, and the next generation fully replaced them. Depending on just when this 4T began and what the currently generational length is, this will likely be sometime in the 2020's.

If that is too late, then it will be too late. To have a response any earlier you would have to do things that seem to me, at least, to be impossible. For example, is there any way you could convince Justin 77 or James Glick that AGW is real, or Bob Butler or me that it is not real? Speaking only for myself, I would say it is close to impossible to convince me. You can ask the others for their take.

On the whole I would agree with this. I can only add that one problem I have with Generational Dynamics is a tendancy to seek a crispness that I don't feel is there, except maybe in hindsight. I agree with Mikebert that the solutions will begin spilling forth at the close of the 4T, yet I think much of that will be because of serious elbow grease, experimenting, argumenting and learing through failure that goes on throughout the 4T, and even finds seeds in 3T unravling activities. I don't like the magic numbers often attached to generational start-end points. As a 1961 Joneser I find comfortable space between Boom and Xer, with a definite leaning toward X. Similarly, with end 4T solutions taking successful shape in the 1T, there must be significant work in 2010, 2011, etc.

Originally Posted by Tone70

I might point out that we currently have a global population of about 7 billion. When we were primitive hunter gathers the earth supported about 10 million. Granted I said semi-primitive in my post, so put the sustainable population much higher, say at 1 billion. What happens to the other 6 billion?

In short, I believe we have too many people to go backwards without major population reduction. This reduction would likely happen in a catastrophic fashion. The deaths of even a billion people is a horror the likes of which we have never seen. Hopefully we never will.

I disagree. We have seen billions of organisms die just over the course of our lifetime (trillions if you count the bacteria you kill each time you wash your hands). You just find a few billion people dying horrific because, well, you are a person.

If limited resources for too many people are the problem then nature already has the solution. Resources aren't going to spontaneously regenerate. The answer is fewer people. Death is not horrific or tragic in the rational sense. Everything that has ever lived, including us, will eventually die. It's only a matter of when, where and why. Could be 40 years from now, or it could be a few minutes from now. But these are silly details that only we care about. The earth doesn't really care when or how we die. Death is good for evolution and good for a species as a whole (can you imagine if people didn't die?).

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Only if it happens all at once! But yes, a mess it would be. However, a mass population reduction spread over several decades would be an ecological adjustment that would work in favor of carrying capacity. As heartbreaking as that might be, we really aren't any more special than yeast, bats or other organisms. Peaking and crashing is a commonplace function and we should not consider ourselves as above it. That is in large part man's problem: considering himself next to god and apart from the world. We're not.

To answer the question before it comes, no, I don't want me and mine to be subject to the mass die off. It is only natural that I wouldnt, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt happen -- because I don't want to be a part of it.

If truly don't want to be a part of it, I must recognize the evidence before me and act in a manner that would work to ensure me and mine avoid the mass die off (or other calamity) if at all possible.

Ska wins a cookie. He is on the right track here.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Only if it happens all at once! But yes, a mess it would be. However, a mass population reduction spread over several decades would be an ecological adjustment that would work in favor of carrying capacity. As heartbreaking as that might be, we really aren't any more special than yeast, bats or other organisms. Peaking and crashing is a commonplace function and we should not consider ourselves as above it. That is in large part man's problem: considering himself next to god and apart from the world. We're not.

To answer the question before it comes, no, I don't want me and mine to be subject to the mass die off. It is only natural that I wouldnt, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt happen -- because I don't want to be a part of it.

If truly don't want to be a part of it, I must recognize the evidence before me and act in a manner that would work to ensure me and mine avoid the mass die off (or other calamity) if at all possible.

Yes, this is the rub.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

What I believe is useful in S&H's theory is understanding why it is difficult for society to get past the culture wars, the AGW denial arguments and so on, and how and when the opportunity to get past these issues is presenting itself. There is a reason right now that people prefer to argue and deny. There is also a reason why, in the very near term future, there will be clear opportunities to reshape the future of society to adapt to climate change, work effectively to prevent it and strive to reverse it. Within S&H's crisis era lies the opportunity to change directions.

Yes again. S&H's theories, for me have been about confirmation of pre-seasonal thinking and hope due to the timing of opportunity in crisis.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In each crisis, reality collides with conceptions that are outmoded, based on habits of thought adopted by policy makers in their youth, two turnings ago. This collision causes the crisis zeitgest. This zeitgeist aids in the development of new conceptions that are adopted by the rising civic generation. When youthful holders of the new conceptions begin to match the numbers of their elders that hold the old, outdated conceptions, then policy can change to address the new reality, and the 4T comes to an end.

I believe the central problem we face in this 4T is not global warming, or economic crisis, or terrorism or any of the real-world problems that faces us. That is, none of these problems will be addresses during this 4T. if they are addressed at all, it will be in the 1T.

It's not that I don't believe these are problems, but that I strongly believe that nothing will be done about them during this 4T because nothing can be done about them politically. Since nothing can be done, the problems will get worse. Eventually it will become possible to do something about them, at which point the 4T will be over. The action that is taken will be the work of the 1T.

So when might we begin to address these problems? Here the S&H model is useful. According to their model, the problems will start to be addressed once those in power at the beginning of the 4T have aged out of their leadership role, and the next generation fully replaced them. Depending on just when this 4T began and what the currently generational length is, this will likely be sometime in the 2020's.

If that is too late, then it will be too late. To have a response any earlier you would have to do things that seem to me, at least, to be impossible. For example, is there any way you could convince Justin 77 or James Glick that AGW is real, or Bob Butler or me that it is not real? Speaking only for myself, I would say it is close to impossible to convince me. You can ask the others for their take.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

On the whole I would agree with this. I can only add that one problem I have with Generational Dynamics is a tendancy to seek a crispness that I don't feel is there, except maybe in hindsight. I agree with Mikebert that the solutions will begin spilling forth at the close of the 4T, yet I think much of that will be because of serious elbow grease, experimenting, argumenting and learing through failure that goes on throughout the 4T, and even finds seeds in 3T unravling activities. I don't like the magic numbers often attached to generational start-end points. As a 1961 Joneser I find comfortable space between Boom and Xer, with a definite leaning toward X. Similarly, with end 4T solutions taking successful shape in the 1T, there must be significant work in 2010, 2011, etc.

I tend to think that the 4T is a time of first values shifts and then experimentation. It is clear that something is wrong, that new stuff must be tried, but there is a lot of push and shove before one gets a broad pattern of that might work.

The 1T is a time when values are locked down again, and new infrastructure is built that implements the values and policies created in the 4T.


I have always thought September 11, the Afghanistan invasion and the Iraq invasion reflected values shift and new doctrine. Before September 11th, the US was not willing to commit forces to the Middle East or Third World. Foreign terrorism was not viewed as a threat and US forces could not be put at risk. Since September 11th, we have become engaged in Third World problems, have become aware of limits as to what we can do, and have rough doctrines available for handling such situations.

I see that as the security half of the crisis, though energy and economics aspects are not totally unrelated to security.

There is no resolution yet on the economic side. We had a double awakening. We have no united Prophet generation. There is no consensus set of values that can be applied yet. One needs a consensus to act before one can do crisis style trial and error experimentation. Only after one has done enough trial and error that the errors have been worked out can one lock down the values and have a high.

Of course, the above paragraphs say more about how does one define a crisis or a high than they say about the forces that shape history.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I disagree. We have seen billions of organisms die just over the course of our lifetime (trillions if you count the bacteria you kill each time you wash your hands). You just find a few billion people dying horrific because, well, you are a person.

If limited resources for too many people are the problem then nature already has the solution. Resources aren't going to spontaneously regenerate. The answer is fewer people. Death is not horrific or tragic in the rational sense. Everything that has ever lived, including us, will eventually die. It's only a matter of when, where and why. Could be 40 years from now, or it could be a few minutes from now. But these are silly details that only we care about. The earth doesn't really care when or how we die. Death is good for evolution and good for a species as a whole (can you imagine if people didn't die?).

Humanity is an evolutionary dead end. Bigger brains inside a womb are a biological impossibility because a bigger brain would prevent childbirth. If some land animal ever supersedes us as a smart, tool-handling creature, then it will evolve from something like a pig or a chimpanzee.

Death, though, is an essential part of the generational cycle. Sure, that may mean that an Euler, Cezanne, Sibelius, Forster, or Einstein is denied to us -- but we are denied some really-nasty old farts, too. Who needs a Rudolf Hess? It's a good thing that such likes as Francisco Franco and Mao Zedong are gone.

Much of progress in the sciences, arts, and politics results from the departure of people tied to old habits and old ways of thought. Few people remain intellectual revolutionaries all their lives; they get control of universities, research institutes, governments, religious bodies, and museums and become defenders of the "status whoa".

Scientific progress results in part from young scientists who have no stake in the old controversies are able to discover for themselves what is settled among the older scientists through rhetoric. Younger ones who have less cause to defend institutions in which they don't yet feel comfortable decide for themselves.

Just imagine what the artistic world is like if this artist is as far as anyone dares progress. Sure, he has his defenders, but he lived into the nineteenth century despite having an esthetic from the sixteenth.

Worse, consider politics. Think of how slow the progress of civil rights was when some people still acted as if they had a stake in defending the racial ideals of the post-Civil War South -- and how quickly things changed after people who still had second-hand memories of the Civil War were no longer around to influence the youth.

Skabungus writes:

Where S&H comes into play is in understanding what it is that motivates the actors in society. Our western society is not a monolith. The generations that move through it (and move it) are not single minded either with their worldviews and motivations changing over time. Understanding why I as a Joneser with strong xer leanings seek to work for here and now practical solutions would be easier with a sound understanding of the theory. I've been this way most of my adult life and I find myself changing society (at the micro level) in a practical, pragmatic way. My worldview is very different from my 16 year old son. His is the typical Millie perspective. What motivates him bears some similarity to what motivates me, but getting through to him takes a completely different set of language tools, symbolic imagery etc. To get both of us on the same ship for the same mission will take two different sales pitches.

All of this is true, but personally if I'm looking to tailor the message to the messenger, I find traditional sociological concepts to be far more useful than what I've seen of the S&H material so far. I work at a place where there are a majority of African Americans employed, and a majority of other ethnic groups, whites included, are of working class origins. For me to have the kinds of discussions I'm interested in, talking about generational jargon hardly gets me to the door, let alone opens it. The real distinctions that get traction around here in terms of tailoring the message so folks will hear it?

-What ethnic group do you belong to? Latino, African American, Native American, White. Yes there are generational differences, but you ignore that, you ignore your chances of communicating very far. And more important than generational differences are:

-What social class are you a part of? How much education have you received? HS drop-out? Grad? Community College? University? This are huge around here still--much more important than generational labels. Directly tied to that: How much money do you make? Folks the same age and ethnic groups could be from a different world if their income levels are drastically different, like it or not. Other factors that are hugely important:

-Urban vs. rural upbringing

-Regional differences: NE, South, Plains states, West, California, Northwest come with a set of experiences that are at least as important as the generational components

-Religion still plays a huge role in what you believe and what you listen to, here in the central part of the country, or the lack of religion. I'd say its influence in increasing, not decreasing over the past few decades.

-Finally, each one of these factors has a male and a female component, which changes over time, not so much as a generational thing, rather as a role that changes as you get older and your responsibilities shift.

For my dime, these are much more useful tools than the archetypes that have been generated by S&H, if I'm interested in dialoguing with a diverse audience. I think the S&H material appeals to a certain social class subset, and can be useful in engaging that subset, but really brings much less to the table than the factors that I have mentioned above. This is namely because they are quantifiable and identifiable by the individuals who are a member of that social class.

Our ability to utilize these sociological factors to great effect is evidenced by the advertising industry. This has been largely exploitative in nature, in my estimation; it's time that we put these powerful tools to much better use! And once again, I'm not saying that S&H tools can't be useful, particularly to certain sociological subsets, but combine them with the traditional class categories if you really want traction.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

Skabungus writes:


All of this is true, but personally if I'm looking to tailor the message to the messenger, I find traditional sociological concepts to be far more useful than what I've seen of the S&H material so far. I work at a place where there are a majority of African Americans employed, and a majority of other ethnic groups, whites included, are of working class origins. For me to have the kinds of discussions I'm interested in, talking about generational jargon hardly gets me to the door, let alone opens it. The real distinctions that get traction around here in terms of tailoring the message so folks will hear it?

-What ethnic group do you belong to? Latino, African American, Native American, White. Yes there are generational differences, but you ignore that, you ignore your chances of communicating very far. And more important than generational differences are:

-What social class are you a part of? How much education have you received? HS drop-out? Grad? Community College? University? This are huge around here still--much more important than generational labels. Directly tied to that: How much money do you make? Folks the same age and ethnic groups could be from a different world if their income levels are drastically different, like it or not. Other factors that are hugely important:

-Urban vs. rural upbringing

-Regional differences: NE, South, Plains states, West, California, Northwest come with a set of experiences that are at least as important as the generational components

-Religion still plays a huge role in what you believe and what you listen to, here in the central part of the country, or the lack of religion. I'd say its influence in increasing, not decreasing over the past few decades.

-Finally, each one of these factors has a male and a female component, which changes over time, not so much as a generational thing, rather as a role that changes as you get older and your responsibilities shift.

For my dime, these are much more useful tools than the archetypes that have been generated by S&H, if I'm interested in dialoguing with a diverse audience. I think the S&H material appeals to a certain social class subset, and can be useful in engaging that subset, but really brings much less to the table than the factors that I have mentioned above. This is namely because they are quantifiable and identifiable by the individuals who are a member of that social class.

Our ability to utilize these sociological factors to great effect is evidenced by the advertising industry. This has been largely exploitative in nature, in my estimation; it's time that we put these powerful tools to much better use! And once again, I'm not saying that S&H tools can't be useful, particularly to certain sociological subsets, but combine them with the traditional class categories if you really want traction.

Not to be a smart ass, but I think you may be missing the forest for the trees in it.

The generational archetypes apply to everyone. Everybody has a grandpa, a boss, a neighbor, or a daughter they must relate to. Everyone is familiar with the concept of generational differences in worldview no matter who the audience is. A place that makes that perfectly clear is this forum where we find christians, pagans, jews, agnostics, secular humanists, blacks, asians, canadians, swedes, brits, people from the east coast, west coast, midwest, south, upper class, middle class, working class, skilled trades, unskilled workers, academic professionals, jar heads, grunts, and just about everything else. We're all discussing the theory, applying it to numerous social, political, environmental and economic problems of the day and for the large part getting our point across to one another. Note, I didn't saying agreeing like one big happy family.

I am certain that I take a far different approach to introducing Generational Theory to people than say Odin does. I certainly tailor my approach to individuals differently. Discussing it with the railroad worker up the road from me is a very different discussion than I might have with legislative aid. We all tailor our messages as best we can to have maximum impact. Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. A good read and spot on with what you are asking here. I strongly recommend this to anyone. Goffman explains how to do it........using traditional sociological concepts as the foundation of his analysis.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

For my dime, these are much more useful tools than the archetypes that have been generated by S&H, if I'm interested in dialoguing with a diverse audience. I think the S&H material appeals to a certain social class subset, and can be useful in engaging that subset, but really brings much less to the table than the factors that I have mentioned above. This is namely because they are quantifiable and identifiable by the individuals who are a member of that social class.

Our ability to utilize these sociological factors to great effect is evidenced by the advertising industry. This has been largely exploitative in nature, in my estimation; it's time that we put these powerful tools to much better use! And once again, I'm not saying that S&H tools can't be useful, particularly to certain sociological subsets, but combine them with the traditional class categories if you really want traction.

Now you're on track! Just because a new demographic paradigm is identified doesn't mean we throw out all the previously useful & more obvious ones. There's going to be socio-cultural differences between poor rural and rich urban groups of different national/religious heritage, but every one of those distinct groups can be further broken down in to generational components.

As an extra bonus, you get a blank template for social responses to future economic, political, & natural events. I can't say when a supervolcano will blow up or when the next 10-year-cycle recession begins, but I can take a good guess at how the response to it will be carried out socially based on the decade it occurs in - or what products I need to focus on advertising for next year. I went all in on education & web servers when everyone said 401ks and real estate, but anyone who had read of S&H before the 2002-2006 "recovery" should have been extremely skeptical about housing & stock prices.. So, for an ~80 year cycle to predict these things within +/- 3 years is as accurate percentage-wise as any poll the newspapers invest big money in researching.

Interesting news from CA:

"August is turning out to be a critical month for concentrating solar thermal developers. The California Energy Commission’s siting committee has issued recommendations for not one, but three projects over the past week, for a whopping total of 1.6 GW. These are decisions that could pave the way for final approvals by the commission before the year’s over......

The sizes of the three projects combined will dwarf just about any solar project (either PV or thermal) that has ever come on line in the country."

http://bit.ly/aqI1yX

Now, will someone in CA (Eric the Green I mean you ) please track this down and find out how they are going to handle the coolant water issue in these installations? If they are not using water, how will they cool the units?

James50

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I tend to think that the 4T is a time of first values shifts and then experimentation.

Before the values shift there is first a struggle, with a victor, who then has a big hand in shaping the new values. Only after this is there implementation, during which there is experimentation. Sometimes almost all of this happens during the 4T, for example the Revolutionary and Depression crisis. In both of these there was a period of struggle shortly after the beginning of the 4T, in which a clear victor emerged. This early resolution of the struggle left lots of time in the 4T for experimentation and implementation.

In other 4T's, the struggle takes most of the 4T, leaving implementation to occur in the 1T. Examples include the Armada and Civil War 4Ts.

Other times a lot of the implementation gets done in the following 1T, the Armada and Civil War crisis are examples. This 4T seems to fall in the latter category.

It is clear that something is wrong, that new stuff must be tried, but there is a lot of push and shove before one gets a broad pattern of that might work.

Yes new stuff has to be tried, but first the old stuff has to be defeated. And when the old stuff is still pretty strong, like King Phillip II, Southern agrarian culture, or movement conservatism, that can take most of the 4T to happen. In that case implementation happens in the 1T.

Mass Die-off at Coral Reef Triggered by 93-Degree Ocean

Russian Heat, Asian Floods May Be Linked
By Brandon Keim August 10, 2010 | 3:59 pm | Categories: Earth Science


Russia’s killer heat wave and monster South Asian monsoon floods could be more than isolated examples of extreme weather. Though separated by a continent, they could be linked.

Monsoon rains drive air upward, and that air has to come down somewhere. It usually comes down over the Mediterranean, producing the region’s hot, dry climate. This year, some of that air seems to have gone north to Russia.

“We haven’t done the studies, but there’s very good reason to suspect that there’s a relationship,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “It’s simply related to the idea that there is a monsoon with very large circulation. There’s an upwards branch of it. There has to be a downwards branch somewhere else.”


The Russian heat wave has persisted since late June, with daytime temperatures at least 12 Fahrenheit degrees above normal — and often much more — for over a month. In Moscow alone, an estimated 300 people a day have died. The temperatures threaten wheat harvests and have sent global prices rising in a manner reminiscent of the lead-up to 2008’s global food riots.

Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters called it “one of the most remarkable weather events of my lifetime,” which is probably an understatement. Russian meteorologists say it’s the most intense heat wave in a millennium.

Meanwhile, in South Asia and China, seasonal monsoons have been exceptionally intense, setting off the worst flooding in 80 years. Pakistan has been especially hard-hit, with 1,600 people dead and 2 million homeless in what’s been dubbed “Pakistan’s Katrina.”

Events like these fit with general forecasts of weather trends in a warming climate. But some observers have wondered whether Russia’s heat wave and Asia’s floods are linked not just by a vague trend, but by specific cause-and-effect meteorological dynamics. They will undoubtedly be studied in detail for years to come, but according to Trenberth, there’s good reason to think the extremes are connected.

“The two things are connected on a very large scale, through what we call an overturning or monsoonal circulation,” he said. “There is a monsoon where upwards motion is being fed by the very moist air that’s going onshore, and there are exceptionally heavy rains. That drives rising air. That air has to come down somewhere. Some of it comes down over the north.”

Fueling the monsoons’ intensity are warmer-than-usual temperatures in and above the Indian Ocean. At 2 Fahrenheit degrees above late-20th century levels, the air can hold about 8 percent more water. At higher temperatures, the air is also more buoyant, and “invigorates the storms,” said Trenberth.

“Air rises faster than before. It sucks more air in. It changes moisture flow onto land even more. You can almost double the effect,” he said. “From that 8 percent more water, there can be 16 percent more rainfall.”

As for why some of that surging monsoon air may have fallen to Earth over Russia this year, Trenberth declined to speculate. Historical weather patterns do, however, suggest linkages across the Northern Hemisphere’s middle latitudes, intermittently coupled in turn to India’s summer monsoon cycles.

Russia’s heat wave could simply be part of that pattern, exacerbated this year by heat absorbed in Russia’s Arctic — where sunlight-reflecting sea ice is reaching all-time lows — and by heat-trapping soot particles from wildfires raging in western Russia. Trenberth added that large-scale rainfall events “tend to create more persistent weather patterns elsewhere,” creating heating patterns that lock atmospheric flows into place.

Vladimir Petoukhov, a climate modeler at Germany’s Potsdam Institute, agreed that a link is possible. “Different geographic locations of the Northern Hemisphere could be simultaneously subjected to drought-like and flood-like conditions,” he said. “These phenomena cannot be regarded as solitary local structures.”

As regional temperatures continue to rise, “the frequency of such events could markedly increase,” said Petoukhov.

Images: 1) Heat anomaly map of Eurasia in late July. The darkest red areas are 22 Fahrenheit degrees warmer than usual, and the darkest blue areas are 22 degrees cooler./NASA. 2) The Indus river floodplain in Pakistan as photographed July 18 (top) and Aug. 8 (bottom)./NASA.

See Also:

7 Tipping Points That Could Transform Earth
Channeling Earth: Rivers Seen From Space
Enormous Ice Block Breaks Off Greenland Glacier
Brandon Keim’s Twitter stream and reportorial outtakes; Wired Science on Twitter. Brandon is currently working on a book about ecological tipping points.



Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...#ixzz0wuwg5DL1

New peer reviewed article questions "hockey stick". I know there are several people on this forum who have studied climate change in depth. What do you make of these:

Abstract:

"We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago."

Conclusion:

"On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. ....

Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models... "

What's up with that: http://bit.ly/92OQMj

Real Climate (after week of silence) : http://bit.ly/9wBXvm

My question: the "hockey stick" is obviously the visual and emotional center to "Inconvenient Truth". If its authenticity is damaged, what does that do to the climate change movement in general?

James50

Actually, I ran into an article a couple months ago that said that the Hockey Stick has been vindicated. I think I posted it in either this thread or the "Climate-Email-gate" thread.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Mass Die-off at Coral Reef Triggered by 93-Degree Ocean

93F seas? Such waters would be catastrophic not only for corals, fish, and other valuable creatures, but also people who would be obliged to endure the extreme heat and humidity -- and the severe tropical storms that such hot water would foster.

You have to love some of these doomsday predictions... although I do remember reading that the Earth sheds 50% of its DNA once every 200-400 million years. I haven't been able to find any record of that recently, until this.

Mass Extinction Threat: Earth on Verge of Huge Reset Button?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

If limited resources for too many people are the problem then nature already has the solution. Resources aren't going to spontaneously regenerate. The answer is fewer people. Death is not horrific or tragic in the rational sense. Everything that has ever lived, including us, will eventually die. It's only a matter of when, where and why.

I feel like that's easier to say for someone like you that is old and has already pretty much done everything they've wanted.
Letting go of life isn't easy for me at all, especially since I've been a child for much of it and therefore pretty much unable to stop the direction the world is going into ecologically.
That's why I want a job in an environmental field, because I told myself all those years I stayed up at night worrying about it that I was going to have to fight it.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I feel like that's easier to say for someone like you that is old and has already pretty much done everything they've wanted.
Letting go of life isn't easy for me at all, especially since I've been a child for much of it and therefore pretty much unable to stop the direction the world is going into ecologically.
That's why I want a job in an environmental field, because I told myself all those years I stayed up at night worrying about it that I was going to have to fight it.

What if the people who made you stay up at night worrying about it were lying to you?

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I feel like that's easier to say for someone like you that is old and has already pretty much done everything they've wanted.
Letting go of life isn't easy for me at all, especially since I've been a child for much of it and therefore pretty much unable to stop the direction the world is going into ecologically.
That's why I want a job in an environmental field, because I told myself all those years I stayed up at night worrying about it that I was going to have to fight it.

35 is old now?

I mean, there are certainly some aches and pains when I wake up in the morning that were not there 10 years ago, but I hardly think I qualify for over the hill yet.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What if the people who made you stay up at night worrying about it were lying to you?

Need I explain to you why scientists are the most respected of all occupational groups? Do you realize how rigorous the educational preparation is for a scientific career? Do you recognize the significance of double-blind testing and peer review? Do you see scientists as a rapacious elite out to enrich themselves? Far easier ways exist for getting a high income, like being a traveling salesman, a chiropractor, an ambulance-chasing attorney, or even forming a rock group. Or, yes, a shill for special interests.

If one is a lying bastard or a crank, one might have a career as a politician, a business executive, or even a clergyman. A scientist? It is incredibly easy to detect scientific fraud and even bad lab work (such as dirty labware or low-quality reagents). Cranks out to prove something might find that their pseudoscience doesn't lead to reproducible results.

Hurricane Earl gives people in Long Island and Greater Boston -- unlikely landfalls for storms of the scale of Katrina -- plenty of cause for restless nights. Neither Boston nor Long Island is quite as ill-prepared for a Katrina-like storm as was New Orleans, but the prospect of hurricane-force winds is hardly something to sleep well with.

Does global warming have a role in Hurricane Earl? Maybe, and maybe not.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

35 is old now?

I mean, there are certainly some aches and pains when I wake up in the morning that were not there 10 years ago, but I hardly think I qualify for over the hill yet.

When I was about 26, my saying was "You know you're getting old when 35 no longer seems old." Now I'm a few months short of 38, and I feel more left behind than old.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What if the people who made you stay up at night worrying about it were lying to you?

What if they're right?

Of the two questions, the second is a lot scarier ... and it's also the one supported by the data.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

When I was about 26, my saying was "You know you're getting old when 35 no longer seems old." Now I'm a few months short of 38, and I feel more left behind than old.

Awe, you're just a baby!

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I feel like that's easier to say for someone like you that is old and has already pretty much done everything they've wanted.
Letting go of life isn't easy for me at all, especially since I've been a child for much of it and therefore pretty much unable to stop the direction the world is going into ecologically.
That's why I want a job in an environmental field, because I told myself all those years I stayed up at night worrying about it that I was going to have to fight it.

Rose, some perhaps philosophical thoughts on life from an old guy.

I haul really old timers in my ambulance every day that don't want to let it go. We old timers get to the point where we don't fear death as much, but life is still a wonderful adventure. Life can get to the point where it is unbearable because of disease and pain, etc., but still, it's pretty darn good otherwise.

NONE of us has any choice as to when or where we are born, or to whom. We get what we get. Your comment smacks just a bit of self-pity, and that's never a very flattering feature.

Acceptance of our place in the world is a good place to start. That doesn't mean that we just flop down and take whatever comes along, but it means acceptance of the world the way it works.

I've recently read a great book that I recommend. It's called The Barbaric Heart, by Curtis White. He touches on some of these philosophical issues that affect all of us, and I think does it very well. And he's a bit of a radical environmentalist, which I think you might appreciate.

Rose, we are ALL in this together. It's impossible to predict the detail of how things are going to play out. All we can do is to do the work that we are best at doing, and live in joyous fellowship with those we enjoy being around the most.

And ... I apologize if I seem to be talking down to you, because I don't mean to do that. I don't have "the answers", I only wish you well.