WWI

[TimG]

For most of human history, human impact on the environment was relatively insignificant.

Not really. The existing ecology was ripped up and replaced with cities and farms. The only difference from today is the scale because there are many more people than their ever were in the past. Industrialization actually reduces the need for environmental change because it allows more people to live in cities and more food to be grown on a single plot of land.

So no, environmental destruction of the industrial scale is not necessary for survival of the species, only for the current standard of living

You are resorting to political spin when you use the word "destruction" to describe changes made to the environment in order to make it better suit humans. Change is not necessarily bad nor is it necessarily "unsustainable".

Complete nonsense.

Nope. We need energy - lots of it. If it gets too expensive then the economy will first go into a recession and then a depression. If it becomes pricey then society will collapse and large numbers of people will starve. Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Not really. The existing ecology was ripped up and replaced with cities and farms.

Which had a much much much smaller ecological footprint in terms of land use, resources required etc etc. Plus the population was much much much smaller.

The only difference from today is the scale because there are many more people than their ever were in the past. Industrialization actually reduces the need for land because it allows more people to live in cities and more food to be grown on a single plot of land.

The only difference?

The cities are bigger. The farms are bigger and, whil ethey provid emore food, are much more intensive in term sof resources consumed/waste created and so on.

You are resorting to political spin when you use the word "destruction" to describe changes made to the environment in order to make it better suit humans. Change is not necessarily bad nor is it necessarily "unsustainable".

Nor is it necessarily good or sustainable. And let's not forget, we're long past the point of changing the environment to suit humans so we can survive. Now, we're altering the environment so we can have cheap gas and buy shit.

Nope. We need energy - lots of it. If it gets too expensive then the economic will first go into a recession and then a depression. If it becomes pricey then society will collapse and large numbers of people will starve.

And if the price of cheap energy is poisoned air, befouled water, ruined land, what do you suppose will happen to society at that point?

[TimG]

Which had a much much much smaller ecological footprint in terms of land use, resources required etc etc. Plus the population was much much much smaller.

Trying to sustain 7 billion people with pre-industrial technology would consume much more land and cause much more pollution. The net impact of humans has been reduced by technology.

Nor is it necessarily good or sustainable. And let's not forget, we're long past the point of changing the environment to suit humans so we can survive. Now, we're altering the environment so we can have cheap gas and buy shit.

You may romanticize substance living but few other people share your view. People want to have a comfortable life.

And if the price of cheap energy is poisoned air, befouled water, ruined land, what do you suppose will happen to society at that point?

And every industrialized economy went through the stage where direct pollution caused a lot of harm and figured out how to minimize those impacts. Vancouver is a cleaner place today than it was 60 years ago with a much smaller population. Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Trying to sustain 7 billion people with pre-industrial technology would consume much more land and cause much more pollution.

Pre-industrial technology wouldn't support a population of 7 billion. That's why the global population pre-industrial revolution was 750 million or so.

The net impact of humans has been reduced by technology.

Nope.

You may romanticize substance living but few other people share your view. People want to have a comfortable life.

First, I'm not romanticizing anything? Second, you claimed environmental alterations were necessary for survival, not comfort.

And every industrialized economy went through the stage where direct pollution caused a lot of harm and figured out how to minimize those impacts. Vancouver is a cleaner place today than it was 60 years ago with a much smaller population.

And Vancouver 160 years ago was cleaner still. What's your point?

I would also add that environmental impacts are cumulative, so the damage caused getting from there to here is often irrevocable and those impacts continue to be felt today. And let's not forget those places where they are far less concerned with the environment than we are in the west.

[Moonbox]

Trying to sustain 7 billion people with pre-industrial technology would consume much more land and cause much more pollution. The net impact of humans has been reduced by technology.

That's kind of screwy logic Tim. Industrial technology is the only thing that allowed the population to swell to 7 billion. Before that, populations grew much, much slower and were kept in check to an extent by crop failures and plagues etc. The idea that industrialization hasn't vastly accelerated changes to the environment is purely ridiculous.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's kind of screwy logic Tim. Industrial technology is the only thing that allowed the population to swell to 7 billion. Before that, populations grew much, much slower and were kept in check to an extent by crop failures and plagues etc. The idea that industrialization hasn't vastly accelerated changes to the environment is purely ridiculous.

Very screwy logic. Like when was the last time we had a billion automobiles various poisons into the atmosphere? I doubt a few horse and cow farts is any match for that.

[TimG]

The idea that industrialization hasn't vastly accelerated changes to the environment is purely ridiculous.

The premise being put forward is humans had a less of an impact prior to the use of industrial technology. In aggregate this may be the case but in terms of the impact required to support a single person it is lower.

So the fact that industrialization is what allowed to the population to grow is irrelevant unless you want argue that mass death by disease and starvation is a better than changing the environment to better suit humans.

Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Very screwy logic. Like when was the last time we had a billion automobiles various poisons into the atmosphere? I doubt a few horse and cow farts is any match for that.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

This 1880 New York Times article [pdf] on the challenges facing the Sanitation Department singles out a manure pile on East 92nd Street which was supposed to be cleared once a year before May 1, but had been left in place.

The manure piles attracted huge numbers of flies, and one journalist writing in Appleton Magazine in 1908, charged that each year 20,000 New Yorkers died from “maladies that fly in the dust, created mainly by horse manure.”

The horses posed another sanitation problem when they dropped dead — sometimes from overwork, sometimes from disease (like horse distemper and other maladies that caused horses to swell overnight). In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets. But sometimes a big carcass would simply be left to rot until it had disintegrated enough for someone to pick up the pieces.

In IMO, automobiles have made cities cleaner.

Imagine what New York would be like today with 8x the population and horses?

Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

In IMO, automobiles have made cities cleaner.

You've obviously never brethed the air in Hong Kong, Manilla, Bombay, Barcellona, Port aux Prince, Kabul...shall I go on?

[TimG]

You've obviously never brethed the air in Hong Kong, Manilla, Bombay, Barcellona, Port aux Prince, Kabul...shall I go on?

You obviously did not read the article I linked. What would those cities be like if transportation was horse based?

It would be much much worse than what it is today with autos - which is my point.

Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You obviously did not read the article I linked. What would those cities be like if transportation was horse based?

It would be much much worse than what it is today with autos - which is my point.

Here's my point. Global warming is hapenning and industrialization is a major contributing factor. We need cars for sure, but we need to clean up our act before we don't have an act to clean up.Like maybe electric cars, renewable energy sources etc., instead of putting our heads in the sand. Although what the hell, let the kids deal with it!

[TimG]

Here's my point. Global warming is hapenning and industrialization is a major contributing factor.

I never disputed this.

We need cars for sure, but we need to clean up our act before we don't have an act to clean up

Why? Where is the empirical evidence (i.e. not computer models) that a warmer world is necessarily a worse world? Sure adaptions are required but a wealthier society (meaning one with access to cheaper energy sources) is better able to adapt than a poor society. If we wanted to simply play the odds then a strong economy is the best protection we can give to our children. Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I never disputed this.

Why? Where is the empirical evidence (i.e. not computer models) that a warmer world is necessarily a worse world? Sure adaptions are required but a wealthier society (meaning one with access to cheaper energy sources) is better able to adapt than a poor society. If we wanted to simply play the odds then a strong economy is the best protection we can give to our children.

Rising sea levels, disappearing ice caps, temp. records smashed, all round changing weather patterns are not computer models. Wake up and smell the bacon. Or the CO2.

[TimG]

Rising sea levels, disappearing ice caps, temp. records smashed, all round changing weather patterns are not computer models.

None of these observations supports the assertion that a warmer world is a worse world. Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

And every industrialized economy went through the stage where direct pollution caused a lot of harm and figured out how to minimize those impacts. Vancouver is a cleaner place today than it was 60 years ago with a much smaller population.

Yes, what they did in Vancouver is elect politicians (authoritarian dictators according to you) who compelled industry and society to clean up their acts.

[TimG]

Yes, what they did in Vancouver is elect politicians (authoritarian dictators according to you) who compelled industry and society to clean up their acts.

Yes - but the difference is then people generally accepted that industry was necessary. i.e. things like pipelines, hydro dams, et. al. still got built. Now there are a large population of spoiled little rich kids who think that everything would be fine if they chased all of the "dirty" industry away. Edited August 14, 2014 by TimG

[Moonbox]

You obviously did not read the article I linked. What would those cities be like if transportation was horse based?

It would be much much worse than what it is today with autos - which is my point.

Don't bother posting links to blogs to support your arguments. You can find a blog that will say/support pretty much anything. I didn't bother reading it, nor do I need to because your logic is broken right from the start. The question your asking is ridiculous. Before industrialization, cities never grew much past 1,000,000 people. Beyond that point it became unmanageable and impractical. Do cars leave less manure on the road than horses? Sure, but that's about the only point you've made.

So the fact that industrialization is what allowed to the population to grow is irrelevant unless you want argue that mass death by disease and starvation is a better than changing the environment to better suit humans.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they'd rather live in 1600 AD-era London. Industrialization absolutely made life longer and safer and (arguably) better for the average person. It also vastly increased the scale of humanity's disruption of the natural environment.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Moonbox

[TimG]

I didn't bother reading it, nor do I need to because your logic is broken right from the start.

Nice to know you are a close minded zealot who is not interested in examining your preconceptions. BTW - the blog was on the New York Times site with numerous links to supporting documentation.

Do cars leave less manure on the road than horses? Sure, but that's about the only point you've made.

You seem to be missing the point. The argument made was pre-industrial technology had less of an impact on the environment. That is false. Pre-industrial technology did have a large effect on the environment but the number of people was less so the collective impact was smaller.

Whether you like it or not we have 7+ billion people on the planet. These people need industrialization to keep them fed and sheltered. That requires large scale changes to the environment.

The entire premise that "changing the environment" is inherently bad is the real flawed logic here. Some changes are bad for humans and some are good for humans. We should accept the good and seek to minimize the bad. People who suggest that it is desirable to return to some pristine "pre-human" environment are chasing rainbows.

Edited August 15, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Nice to know you are a close minded zealot who is not interested in examining your preconceptions. BTW - the blog was on the New York Times site with numerous links to supporting documentation.

You seem to be missing the point. The argument made was pre-industrial technology had less of an impact on the environment. That is false. Pre-industrial technology did have a large effect on the environment but the number of people was less so the collective impact was smaller.

Whether you like it or not we have 7+ billion people on the planet. These people need industrialization to keep them fed and sheltered. That requires large scale changes to the environment.

The entire premise that "changing the environment" is inherently bad is the real flawed logic here. Some changes are bad for humans and some are good for humans. We should accept the good and seek to minimize the bad. People who suggest that it is desirable to return to some pristine "pre-human" environment are chasing rainbows.

What about when these large scale changes to the environment flood the crops (like in the Canadian Prairies) or large scale drought never let's the crops get out of the ground (like in California) and we begin to starve to death? What will your all hallowed industrialization mean to us then?

[TimG]

What about when these large scale changes to the environment flood the crops (like in the Canadian Prairies) or large scale drought never let's the crops get out of the ground (like in California) and we begin to starve to death? What will your all hallowed industrialization mean to us then?

We know from historical records that the climate has changed much more in the past so blaming weather events on industrialization is as rational as blaming witches when cattle get sick.

That said, even if we accept the premise that industrialization is changing the weather then industrialization gives us the tools to adapt to the changes. Humans have never been in a better position to deal with the excesses of weather than they are now - something that should celebrated - not condemned.

Also, it is not as if we have an alternative unless you and another 5 billion people are going to volunteer to commit suicide.

Edited August 15, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

We know from historical records that the climate has changed much more in the past so blaming weather events on industrialization is as rational as blaming witches when cattle get sick.

That said, even if we accept the premise that industrialization is changing the weather then industrialization gives us the tools to adapt to the changes. Humans have never been in a better position to deal with the excesses of weather than they are now - something that should celebrated - not condemned.

Also, it is not as if we have an alternative unless you and another 5 billion people are going to volunteer to commit suicide.

There are 7 billion actually and we may be committing suicide as we speak.

[jbg]

Tim, you're insane. Get help.

What does the mental health of the holder of that screen name have to do with WW I?

[Moonbox]

Nice to know you are a close minded zealot who is not interested in examining your preconceptions. BTW - the blog was on the New York Times site with numerous links to supporting documentation.

A zealot, huh? What, pray tell, is my zealousness directed towards? Is that maybe just a stock word you use when someone disagrees with you on a topic?

You seem to be missing the point. The argument made was pre-industrial technology had less of an impact on the environment. That is false. Pre-industrial technology did have a large effect on the environment but the number of people was less so the collective impact was smaller.

Pre-industrial technology had a large effect, sure, but post-industrial technology has a far greater impact. Your argument that much of the increased impact we've seen is because of the larger populations is dumb, sorry. Industrialism was the catalyst for the population explosion of the 18 & 1900's, and the effect humanity has had on the environment increased exponentially as a result. We got better and more efficient at gathering/planting/building which allowed populations to grow who did more gathering/planting/building and so on.

Whether you like it or not we have 7+ billion people on the planet. These people need industrialization to keep them fed and sheltered. That requires large scale changes to the environment.

Well duh. I'm not sure why you're saying this though. I don't remember saying I wanted to dial the clock back 200 years.

The entire premise that "changing the environment" is inherently bad is the real flawed logic here. Some changes are bad for humans and some are good for humans. We should accept the good and seek to minimize the bad. People who suggest that it is desirable to return to some pristine "pre-human" environment are chasing rainbows.

I would agree with pretty much all of that. The big problem is that I don't really think we have a very good grasp of what we're changing, how we're changing it and what the effects will be. That should at least be worrying.

[TimG]

Pre-industrial technology had a large effect, sure, but post-industrial technology has a far greater impact.

You are claiming that because the aggregate impact is larger that the impact per person must also be larger. I disagree but it is difficult to prove either way but there is evidence supporting my thesis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17797222

Analysis of the Greenland ice core covering the period from 3000 to 500 years ago-the Greek, Roman, Medieval and Renaissance times-shows that lead is present at concentrations four times as great as natural values from about 2500 to 1700 years ago (500 B.C. to 300 A.D.). These results show that Greek and Roman lead and silver mining and smelting activities polluted the middle troposphere of the Northern Hemisphere on a hemispheric scale two millennia ago, long before the Industrial Revolution. Cumulative lead fallout to the Greenland Ice Sheet during these eight centuries was as high as 15 percent of that caused by the massive use of lead alkyl additives in gasoline since the 1930s. Pronounced lead pollution is also observed during Medieval and Renaissance times.

The population of Rome was maybe 60 million at its peak yet the lead pollution from 2 billion+ people with cars is ONLY 6 times more. Are you still so sure my argument is "silly"?

I would agree with pretty much all of that. The big problem is that I don't really think we have a very good grasp of what we're changing, how we're changing it and what the effects will be. That should at least be worrying.

Potentially - but if you are afraid that you might have cancer you take precautions - you don't amputate your leg "just in case". Given the uncertainties a strong economy is the best defend against the unknown - even if that means continuing to do things that may be causing the problem. Edited August 15, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You are claiming that because the aggregate impact is larger that the impact per person must also be larger. I disagree but it is difficult to prove either way but there is evidence supporting my thesis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17797222

The population of Rome was maybe 30 million at its peak yet the lead pollution from 1 billion+ people with cars is ONLY 6 times more. Are you still so sure my argument is "silly"?

Potentially - but if you are afraid that you might have cancer you take precautions - you don't amputate your leg "just in case". Given the uncertainties a strong economy is the best defend against the unknown - even if that means continuing to do things that may be causing the problem.

What a strange concept. You keep doing the things that will eventually lead to you having to amputate your leg! Not for me thanks.