I would add the topics of overpopulation and 'end of oil' as being of vital importance. I am perplexed as to why we do not engage the topic of overpopulation as that is the fundamental cause of the problems under discussion. People on this list have argued that we can continue population increase. As Joe indicated, is overpopulation also not trendy, is it too taboo, or are we all too steeped in denial? Why do we continue to discuss the bandaids rather than the root cause?
randy ======================================= RK Bangert, PhD P.O. Box 335 Mancos, CO 81328 On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:36 AM, joseph gathman wrote: > Speaking of denial, why does Global Warming always > generate so much response on this list, while Peak Oil > doesn't? To my mind, they are both profoundly > important, both are "ecological" in some way (PO may > be more so), and both are happening now. > > Maybe ecologists just don't know about PO, or haven't > considered what it really means (it's likely to be a > paradigm shift in human history with not-yet-explored > ramifications for the planet in general). Certainly > there has been MUCH more buzz (and funding) about GW, > while PO is under the radar. Is ecology really so > trend-driven that we can't see a huge issue in front > of our noses? > > Joe > > >> (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at >> least note that, with= >> a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, >> economic growth simp= >> ly =3D global warming. And also that, with economic >> growth - increasing= >> production and consumption of goods and services in >> the aggregate - pri= >> oritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with >> climate change means= >> not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale >> onlining of nuclear= >> , tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as >> Woolsey pointed out= >> , renewables such as solar and wind won=92t come >> anywhere near the level= >> s our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) >> = >> >> So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying >> on a spectrum, where = >> endpoints might be defined either in terms of >> hardness/softness of scien= >> ce (e.g., physics hard, climate change science >> medium, ecological econom= >> ics softish), or else in terms of political economy >> (e.g., from little t= >> o big money at stake). Denial would tend to be >> motivated pursuant to pr= >> incipals of political economy, and gotten away with >> in proportion to the= >> softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the >> science. >> = >> >> = >> >> Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor = >> >> Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University >> Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences >> National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center >> 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 >> Falls Church, VA 22043 = >> >> = > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com
