[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', 'T')his is to say absolutely nothing for the millions of species who have suffered anthropogenic extinction already anyway. They've had their die-off;

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou might also mention that 99% of those species were hyper-specialized insects.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou might also mention that 99% of those species were hyper-specialized insects.

[Ludi]

Turns out we need vast numbers of these critters just to survive, as they provide such things as fertile soil, air, clean water, etc. But we kill them indiscriminately.


Not that most people really care about the role of small critters in our survival as a species.



JD, you are a dumbass.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')In the minds of most people, yes. Are you an insect rights advocate?

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')In the minds of most people, yes. Are you an insect rights advocate?

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'C')hief Seattle didn't say that quote. They were written by a screenwriter named Ted Perry in 1971.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')urns out we need vast numbers of these critters just to survive, as they provide such things as fertile soil, air, clean water, etc.

[LoneSnark]

I have to side with JohnDenver here. The species we are losing do tend to be those that are already rare and thus statistically insignificant to the planet. Whatever holes they leave are readily filled by other far more plentiful species that are under no threat of extinction.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('namenick', 'T')hat's silly Tony and there's a very good probability that it will happen much more slowly than the doom and gloomers are hoping for. Almost for certain I would say because we're already supposed to be in PO and most people don't even know it yet. You people are much too wrapped up in listening to people like Simmons and you're in much to big of a hurry to see his and your predictions come true. So much so that it's taken over from any humanitarian conscience you ever did have. Have you ever considered that before tony? It's the same scenario at work here as what happens to people who support politicians who don't stand a chance in hell, such as Ron Paul. They get to believing that they are going to win.

Come back to earth Tony. You can still believe in PO the way I do and not lose your humanity on the whole thing.

[Concerned]

The scenario for why I think everything will be ok is because as demand and prices rise more oil will be made until supply reaches the new demand or demand drops. See no problem balance

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', 'T')his is to say absolutely nothing for the millions of species who have suffered anthropogenic extinction already anyway. They've had their die-off;

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')In fact, it's very likely that humans can continue to function indefinitely with a small complement of essential species like crops, livestock, essential microbes etc.

[Alcassin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'I') have to side with JohnDenver here. The species we are losing do tend to be those that are already rare and thus statistically insignificant to the planet. Whatever holes they leave are readily filled by other far more plentiful species that are under no threat of extinction.

[Duende]

JohnDenver wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ave you considered how many bacteria species you're sending to their doom every time you disinfect your toilet seat?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', '
')JohnDenver, this is so over the top, I can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate or the devil himself. But please go on, I'm fascinated by your... how should I say it... point of view.

[LoneSnark]

"phytoplancton is crucial in the ocean life food-chain and it's going to perish. [citation needed]"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our statement is dangerous, we are insignificant life in the universe, so when if aliens come here they should kill us... because they are more advanced.

[Duende]

LoneSnark wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut we are not killing off these species, merely not acting to prevent them.

[namenick]

Alcassin- I think we may be sort of on the same page but a few corrections are in order. First of all, it's of no value to cite history from WW11 for me. And you somehow assume that Hitler's conquests were to satisfy his own personal needs. That's natural you would say that because the leader of the losing side in any war will be demonized. In fact Hitler's actions were on behalf of Germany and there is no distinction to be drawn between Hitler, Stalin, or Bush 2. We need only look at the motivations for such actions and then the end result. I believe that the neocon agenda is just as surely aimed at world domination as any aggressor in history and perhaps moreso than WW11 Germany's. History of the war does give us some indications that Germany was intent on fulfilling it's present needs and certainly not intent on taking the whole world, including North America.

[LoneSnark]

Duende, so, tell me again, what is going to make you sell Cove A to the developer?

You have evidently never bothered to look at your own life from a third person perspective. I suspect you have a source of income; what do you spend that income on? Does 100% of it go towards earning more income? Fuck no, you spend it on total losses, such as housing, food, entertainment, family, and charity. You put a percentage of it towards earning more in the future, such as education or investments, but the vast majority of your income is spent on non-investments.

It just so happens that society is just like you: the vast majority of money is spent on non-investments that will never return a dime (with some exceptions, children can be considered an investment into their future wage income; a house to live in may sell for more than you paid, etc).

Similarly, it is not the case that protectors are in direct competition with developers: lots of options exist, and we as a species only have use for so many LNG ports. That is why after all these centuries we still have undeveloped coves: developing them all would be a waste of effort.

Similarly, the profits from development flow to society, not development. What the enriched individuals choose to do with their share is up to them. If I owned the developer I may take my share of the profits and preserve Cove C, if for no other reason that to prevent competitors from building their own LNG port

Society is rediculously complex; whether land gets developed or not is similarly complex. Some land is being held in trust to preserve it; some land is being held by people lacking the resources to develop it; and some is being held by corporations just to keep others from getting it; and lots of land has simply been forgotten because no one has use of it. It is this last reason why so much land is still untouched today, apathy.

And this apathy continues. From the developers perspective, other coves exist; so if you preserve this one you have cost them nothing. So, again, why are you throwing away your income on causes (such as entertainment, a big house, etc) when you could be putting it towards preserving natural wealth which, according to Alcassin, is priceless.

Now, I disagree; I don't think the species in question were of any value. They were seamlessly replaced with other heartier species and so I would not waste my money preserving them. But, again, you go right ahead.