Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant and narrow-minded viewpoint. It is also just as arrogant as the belief that humans are somehow above and better than their counterparts in ecosystem.

We aren't the only species to cause extinctions. We aren't the only species to radically change the environment. We aren't the only species to enforce selective breeding on other species. We aren't the only species to "pollute." And, despite popular belief, we would be hard pressed to actually destroy life on Earth. Life as we know it, sure, but life, never.

The fact is, our ability to manipulate our environment as well as we do (our hands) is an EVOLVED trait. As is our ability to plan ahead; think of contingencies; create machinery more able than our bodies; imagine a world as it might exist; work cooperatively in order to maximize effect. Some might even argue that our brains/intelligence are the greatest evolved trait that we have.

I find I fall somewhere in the middle, between extreme environmentalists and those who feel we're not a threat.

It's true that we're not nearly the most damaging species in the history of the earth (read about the Permian–Triassic extinction event), and the climate has always been changing. I'm not concerned that we'll destroy life on earth, but I am concerned that we may make the earth rather inhospitable for ourselves.

I don't pretend to know what our long-term effects will be on the climate, but I'm absolutely certain we should be concerned with it.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I find I fall somewhere in the middle, between extreme environmentalists and those who feel we're not a threat.

It's true that we're not nearly the most damaging species in the history of the earth (read about the Permian–Triassic extinction event), and the climate has always been changing. I'm not concerned that we'll destroy life on earth, but I am concerned that we may make the earth rather inhospitable for ourselves.

I don't pretend to know what our long-term effects will be on the climate, but I'm absolutely certain we should be concerned with it.

Ahh, then I think you and I are definitely on the same page. Maybe that's why we're both on this forum.

[Olympiadis]

The level of concern is an individual right, and not a problem.
Forcing concern on your fellow inhabitants is another thing altogether, and has become quite disturbing.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Olympiadis

The level of concern is an individual right, and not a problem.
Forcing concern on your fellow inhabitants is another thing altogether, and has become quite disturbing.

I have really mixed feelings about this. While I certainly like to be left well enough alone too, it's hard to decide what I'm socially responsible for, and what I'm not. For example, I'm somewhat annoyed when evangelists come to my door attempting to save my soul, but I often invite them in and listen to their story anyway.

I wonder what the eco-minded man on Easter Island was thinking as his neighbor went out to cut down the last tree.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

The big difference is the issue of responsibility?

We are the only species that is concerned with responsibility. In fact, we invented the idea. How are we to be held to a moral code that no other species is held to?

An indisputable FACT is that humans are the top predator and the species most affecting the biosphere...except maybe for termites, etc?

Except that termites and all other species are acting in accordance within the limits of evolved characteristics that function as a PART of the overall biosphere and within the evolved limits of that biosphere.

Humans are acting OUTSIDE those limits as defined by the environmental destruction they cause...which is documented.

How can humans act outside the limits of their evolved characteristics? Every species is limited by their resources, and ours is no different. We either solve problems that limit our proliferation, or we are limited by them. If it is believed that we evolved from more primitive animals, then our actions are natural and justified by law of survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Olympiadis

The level of concern is an individual right, and not a problem. Forcing concern on your fellow inhabitants is another thing altogether, and has become quite disturbing.

I would like to agree with this statement, however, it seems the issue is more about magnitude than choice. If I could introduce a chemical into a river that kills all life, most people would say I have no right to that action. However, if I take 1 fish from a river and eat it, most would say I have that right. This is what I mean by magnitude. Our disagreements aren't about whether we have the right to impact "nature", rather it is to what degree. The other part of this disagreement is the extent to which we might be impacting "nature", and how "nature" will respond.

[NeilBlanchard]

What other species has had even a tiny fraction of the influence on the environment that humans have had?

What kind of a world are we humans leaving to the rest of life for the all the generations to come?

All of life has affected the earth -- there was no oxygen in the atmosphere before plants evolved and could split water through photosynthesis. They do this by making electricity at the molecular level, by the way.

There was no soil before the cycle of life was started. All this wonderful oil (and coal and natural gas) came from the earthly remains of millions of years of life. Each gallon of gasoline represents about 92 TONS of biological material.

And we humans have burned through a majority of this stored energy in less than 200 years. We have burned more than half of all the oil that has ever been burned since about 1980.

If all of life affects the earth, then how can we *not* have had a huge affect; by burning through over a million years worth of stored carbon per year? While that carbon was stored away slowly, the earth changed. So when we release it quickly, it is having a huge effect.

We need to take full responsibility for what we have done.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by Olympiadis

The level of concern is an individual right, and not a problem.
Forcing concern on your fellow inhabitants is another thing altogether, and has become quite disturbing.

No one can actually force concern...though if I's hit someone over the head with a 2x4...they might be concerned?

Actually the concerns of others IS a concern for me due to the fact that we live on the same planet?

I've had a little "say"...probably time to put it to rest...till the next time?

[slowmover]

Back to the price of fuel. Everyone will have a breaking point, thus, I assume, the interest around here of seeing how far one can go on a gallon. The predictability. However much one conserves it still doesn't matter in re the distances one must cover. Or to the transport of goods to a local retailer. Those fixed distances.

Price goes up, availabiity goes down, roads worsen, then the current high mpg numbers we all savor also decline. Imagine the sheeple trying to hypermile in a car they can't maintain, repair or decently insure on roads in terrible shape with permanent lane closures, etc.

The predictability of how far a gallon will take us goes out the window once traffic, roads and convenience disappears.

$4/gl fuel isn't that point, today. But there may be a point where $4/gl fuel is irrelevant -- as a high or a low -- to being able to operate a vehicle within ones own economy.

.

[Olympiadis]

I am a fan of the life-giving plant life of this planet.
Personally I am pleased at seeing the boost that this plant life has been given in recent years by the unraveling of Carbon from the long chain molecules, and freeing it from deep recesses within the earth.
Plants thrive from the extra available Carbon.

This sort of thing (release of Carbon) was eventually going to happen at some point anyway, with the only question being how?
Given the choices of impact event, period of extreme volcanism, or the industrial revolution of humans, I much prefer the latter.
Just as everything else, this period of our technology is of course temporary, and we will move on to newer methodology as things progress in good time.

I do not agree with a forced fast-forwarding of progress, because the cost is too high (on many levels), and it always ends badly as most knee-jerk over-reactions do.

Progress can be great, but when it is mixed with politics (vote whoring) and psychological trickery like scare tactics, then the possibility for bad results is greatly increased.
Practical examples of this abound.
It is easy to see such recent short-term reactions and their utter failure at achieving the desired goal. For example thousands of people have lazily (and irresponsibly I might add) pushed aside any thought of making the effort to take care of an maintaining their older vehicles, for the more glamorous (and politically correct) choice of going out and buying a hybrid such as a Prius. The Prius is very efficient, but the false economy of what these people have done can be mind-boggling.
There's also every chance that these people will take the same approach to caring for their Prius, and quickly trade up once again in a few years before any real maintenance is required.

Granted there are many people out there that bought a Prius under more reasonable circumstances where it is easier justified as a purchase. That's not the situation that I'm talking about above. My example just points out the sort of results you get from politically motivated psychological manipulation of "sheeple". And, what else could possibly expected? The fall-out is easily predictable through reason and experience, and it will no doubt get worse.

I find any suggestions to increase the artificial push on politically selected technology to be incredibly disturbing. This sort of popularized tunnel-vision can be compared to speeding right by a pile of free furniture so you can be the first one in the door of the furniture store to take advantage of a "spend more to save more" sale.

When progress is allowed to proceed unfettered, there is a natural selection of ideas and events that results in lasting success. This is the same pattern of natural selection that occurs in nature.

We have played the game with nature, picking winners and artificial selection to give us what we want in the short term. In each case, we have created something that cannot sustain itself and must be propped up (cared for) by us. We are seeing this today in the relationship between our government and our industry.

I know this was originally about gas prices, but price manipulation has been suggested, and this is all related.

Not mine, but some food for thought:
Individualism vs. Communitarianism - The Post Sustainability Institute

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What other species has had even a tiny fraction of the influence on the environment that humans have had?

What I think is really funny is that you make this claim, then refute it 2 lines further down your post with perhaps the greatest influence on Earths environment - ever

All of life has affected the earth -- there was no oxygen in the atmosphere before plants evolved and could split water through photosynthesis.

You do realize O2 made life unbearable for some organisms ?

We need to take full responsibility for what we have done.

But we won't, and we'll have to pay the price for it sooner or later.
Even the most minute and educed impact is blown over the top with 7 billion of us on the planet.


Just about all SF writers start with a planet devoid of resources and too many people.
Looks like it won't be SF after all, but reality.