< 350ppm CO2 : Where we need to aim - Page 2 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

chuckm · 10-30-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Biological productivity = amount of living matter produced per unit area. You need to look at the oceans as well as the land.

I'm okay with that. But after googling for "high latitude biological productivity", I haven't seen anything thus far that supports the idea that "Biological productivity is highest in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans..." In fact, as pertinent to this discussion, I did find this abstract: SHIFTING OCEAN PRODUCTIVITY PATTERNS DURING THE INTENSIFICATION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE GLACIATION. In the abstract, it states that "We find that biological productivity in all high latitude regions declines precipitously in association with the intensification of (Northern Hemisphere Glaciation)." So that I might better understand, please point me to your source.

jamesqf · 10-30-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckm

If nomadism provides better life and health, why didn't that lifestyle come to dominate modern human populations?

Armies.

Big Dave · 10-30-2009, 08:35 PM

I Have no use for this Hansen dude. He cooks his data.

I thought we were supposed to stick to the cars.

chuckm · 10-30-2009, 09:41 PM

Big Dave - You're right. On both counts. Sorry for starting the debate.

NeilBlanchard · 10-31-2009, 12:29 AM

Hi,

How is it that a couple of guys on an Internet forum are better scientists than a head of NASA?

James Hansen is one of the most visible people on the global climate change, but he is certainly not the only one.

Get ready for some Fact Bombs:

ApteraForum.com - Aptera Car Forum - View Single Post - End of Global Warming

ApteraForum.com - Aptera Car Forum - View Single Post - End of Global Warming

ApteraForum.com - Aptera Car Forum - View Single Post - End of Global Warming

ApteraForum.com - Aptera Car Forum - View Single Post - End of Global Warming

chuckm · 10-31-2009, 05:08 PM

NeilBlanchard and jamesqf,
Because, as Big Dave pointed out, ecomodder is focused on cars, I've replied to you with a PM.

NeilBlanchard · 10-31-2009, 05:36 PM

Hi,

This thread probably should be moved to The Lounge? But I think it is perfectly legit to discuss this topic in "public".

jamesqf · 10-31-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckm

But why would cultural evolution favor urbanism over nomadism? If nomadism provides better life and health, why didn't that lifestyle come to dominate modern human populations?

Remember that we're talking about quality of life - or at least I am - and especially QOL for the average individual. The advantage of cities is that they allowed more specialization, but that came at a cost. For every Socrates or Plato, you had maybe ten thousand helots (and a thousand soldiers to keep them in line). So you had a few, up at the top of the pyramid, developing the arts of civilization and enjoying a pretty decent lifestyle. Average their QOL out with those down at the bottom, and it's not such a pretty picture at all.

When we get to dominance, it's those armies again. The top of the urban pyramid has those soldiers keeping the helots in check, so they might as well use them - and all the other arts - to go out and dominate some nomads. Besides, the helots tend to wear out rather quickly, so it helps to acquire a fresh supply every now & then.

chuckm · 10-31-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Remember that we're talking about quality of life - or at least I am - and especially QOL for the average individual. The advantage of cities is that they allowed more specialization, but that came at a cost. For every Socrates or Plato, you had maybe ten thousand helots (and a thousand soldiers to keep them in line). So you had a few, up at the top of the pyramid, developing the arts of civilization and enjoying a pretty decent lifestyle. Average their QOL out with those down at the bottom, and it's not such a pretty picture at all.

Okay, I still don't think living in tents and praying for a successful hunt at least once a week are better than an urban and agricultural life.

rmay635703 · 11-01-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckm

Okay, I still don't think living in tents and praying for a successful hunt at least once a week are better than an urban and agricultural life.

Actually traditional prehistoric hunter gatherers typically
1. Worked an average of 2 hours per day
2. Took an afternoon nap when climate allowed (we are designed to nap)
3. Lived as long as we do, oddly hunter folks always outlived the agricultural folks, they lived long enough into old age to get advanced arthritis. (assuming natural disaster, starvation or some form of blunt force death didn't occur)
4. Hunters rarely had heart disease, diabetes. cancer and most of the common modern ailments, whereas most agricultural societies had huge increases in heart disease, especially grain based societies. Look at Egypt, they had huge problems with obesity, heart disease and only lived to about 21 and they ate almost solely grain.

The above ONLY apply to those who were strictly hunter gatherer, not the hybreds like native americans who tended to also farm on the side. Usually they were restricted to favorable climate as well thus eliminating many of the weather related hardships.

You can find the facts I list above from more than one source and aren't speculation.

So although we have cool stuff we are paying for it in more than one way.