In a message dated 9/18/2006 12:26:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They also took to wearing kilts, those naughty Scots . . .
More room for the sheep.
Vilyehm
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 11:57 AM Monday 9/18/2006, Klaus Stock wrote:
The people in Scotland also cut down most of the trees in order to have more
room for sheep.
They also took to wearing kilts, those naughty Scots . . .
Baa! Maru
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccm
> Think of Mesopotamia. When it was the cradle of civilization it was the
> fertile
> crescent. Now it is mostly desert (that is it is Iraq). How did this
happen?
I guess Bush has the answer to that :-)
> Over time the people living in the region degraded the environment (cut
down
> the tre
Dan wrote:
Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery
channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such
matters.
We're discussing Diamond's book Collapse, as is indicated in the subject
header, and while I have no objection whatsoever to your participat
In a message dated 9/17/2006 3:29:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population
lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took
place. This fits well with people who are in touch wit
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
>
> Dan wrote:
>
JDG said:
Additionally, if my memory serves me correctly, Egypt went on to
become
one of the most important and productive provinces in the Roman
Empire.
Thus, it hardly seems to have been "depleted."
In fact, Egypt was so productive that there were people who argued
against its annexati
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't think the downfall of Egypt (and WHICH downfalln too?) would
be due to resource depletion neccessarily, since the downfall was due to
conquest by external forces (with vastly superior organization,
resources, etc) at a time when monum
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume
that
> > warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number
of
> > storms.
>
> I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article
>
On 14/09/2006, at 8:58 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Of course, under th
At 04:53 PM Thursday 9/14/2006, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hmm. That didn't work. Lemme try something else:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: A National Geographic Presentation
The Haves and Have-nots
10
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
> >> may be onto something here.
> >
> > When the choices of others are involved?
>
> That's a good answer.
Of course, under this definition, the Easter Islande
Dan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Gary Denton
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I'll just make a brief interjection that a new
> Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study
> suggests that
> Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest
> deprivation was more
> likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who
> also arrived much
> later then previously thought.
Diamond
> Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >Japan was also cited for its
> >"top-down" approach to reforestation
> I really would like to see them growing trees from
> the top down . . .
:)
>From the central government at the time (Tokagawa
IIRC), as opposed to the New Guinians "
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gary Denton
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
>
> I'll just make a brief
Damon said:
IRC, thinking back to my college classes, the downfall of both the
Old and Middle kingdoms came during times of political unrest...
It's quite hard at this distance to determine the causes of the end
of the Old and Middle kingdoms when we can only barely discern even
the sympt
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:10:41
To:Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
> jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...You mention that
> "it was critical that they conserve these resources"
> - and perhaps I am
> being a bit of a
I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that
Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more
likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much
later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by
slave traders and diseases
On 9/11/06, Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..
No. Anytime a culture squanders its resources, it
runs the risk of destroying itself; it may be made
worse by the natural environment (like Greenland) or
climatic change (frex the little ice age).
An aside: has anyone prop
At 04:10 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Japan was also cited for its
"top-down" approach to reforestation
I really would like to see them growing trees from the top down . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinf
> jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...You mention that
> "it was critical that they conserve these resources"
> - and perhaps I am
> being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask "why"?
> So that they would be
> able to continue to build moai into the future?
> O.k. obviously the
> loss
On 08/09/2006, at 2:53 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Charlie
___
http://www.mcc
Charlie Bell wrote:
> Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
> may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
Ritu
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 08/09/2006, at 2:20 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about
this post for some time, the recent thread on "religion" makes this
post
somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to
get involved in an atheism vs.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that
collapse
> >> and
> >> civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily
> >> ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You may
>
JDG wrote:
I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to
directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever
conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a
while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the
building of m
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:25:36 -, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that
warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of
storms.
I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article
http:/
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is
not a
> catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an
asteroid hit
> is far higher than from global warming.
And the recent discovery of th
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for
> the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone
up
> for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have
something
> by
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that
> > advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no
> > favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments
connecting
> > specific w
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
>
>
> In a message dated 9/
At 12:59 PM Monday 9/4/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a
catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid
In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a
catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit
is far higher than from global warming.
Glob
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:01 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
>
>
> > As another example
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
>
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -
In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect
upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever
intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. T
Richard wrote:
JDG said:
I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse
and
civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily
ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You may
be
offended, but is it any more offensive than aski
It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but
ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions.
...somewhat like the current US administration?
Charlie
GCU Or The ID "Movement"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailm
Richard Baker wrote:
>It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but
>ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing
conditions.
That's precisely the point Diamond makes in later chapters regarding
the Greenland Norse.
I had plenty of time to read ahead while I was
JDG said:
I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that
collapse and
civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily
ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You
may be
offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion wa
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that
advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no
favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting
specific weathe
JDG wrote:
Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for
the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up
for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something
by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter fo
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red-
> > footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you
> > can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another
> > species is a Bad Th
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did they know what they were doing to their island? Did they try to do
> anything about it? I can just imagine an Island conference to discuss
the
> preservation of the trees. Would the attendees have come to the
> conclusion t
On Bob wrote:
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich
people.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the >world and is most
vulnerable to rising sea >levels. Do you think that they’ll be
shouting "Jobs, not dry land?"
In a sense ecology is for the rich; it
Alberto wrote:
I can compare Bangladesh with the poorest areas in my hometown,
Rio de Janeiro, who is "located between sea and mountain[*]".
_If_ rising sea waters is not a myth [**], then the coastal areas
would be the first to sink. But no poor guys worry about ecology,
and keep doing disastro
> Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's certainly hard to convince people without food
> that the red-
> footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their
> own. Even if you
> can convince them in the abstract that the
> extinction of another
> species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing
>I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people.
>Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the >world and is most vulnerable
>to rising sea >levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting "Jobs, not dry
>land?"
In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is u
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> [*] take mountain with a grain of salt. About 500 meters is the highest
>> it gets.
>
> If I'm taking a 500-meter mountain, I'm going to want more than just
> one grain of salt with it. :)
>
Ok, but what I am trying to say is that, despite being the
size of Continent
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
[*] take mountain with a grain of salt. About 500 meters is the highest
it gets.
If I'm taking a 500-meter mountain, I'm going to want more than just one
grain of salt with it. :)
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich
> people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and
> is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that
> [UTF-8?]theyâll be shouting "Jobs, not dry land?"
>
I can compare B
At 12:38 AM Wednesday 8/16/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I am generally a "believer" in global warming, but you're citing a
city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose
commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided,
as a counterargumen
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I am generally a "believer" in global warming, but you're citing a
city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose
commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided,
as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned
about ea
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
The wedding dress I could have danced in all day, but the shoes were
not at all kind to my feet.
I was amazed at how Charlene wore hers for over 10 hours without
complaining. Her only complaint that whole day was her brothers -
who are prone to *seri
Doug wrote:
>That may be true but how many low income people in New Orleans do you
>think need convincing that there _might_ be a problem?
I am generally a "believer" in global warming, but you're citing a
city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose
commerce lifeblood erod
Jim Sharkey wrote:
> It's certainly hard to convince people without food that the red-
> footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their own. Even if you
> can convince them in the abstract that the extinction of another
> species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the "real" when
> their
Julia Thompson wrote:
>The wedding dress I could have danced in all day, but the shoes were
>not at all kind to my feet.
I was amazed at how Charlene wore hers for over 10 hours without
complaining. Her only complaint that whole day was her brothers -
who are prone to *serious* flop sweat - w
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Jim
Off like a prom dress tomorrow Maru
I always found it something of a relief to remove the prom dress
Bridesmaids dresses were somehow worse. (Maybe it was the shoes the
brides forced me to wear with them, I got to wear very flat but very
pretty sandals with the p
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>So was any part of this post serious? 8^)
Probably this part:
>People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about the environment.
>Ecology is for rich people, poor people want to get fed, and if they
>must kill the last whale or the last cockroach to get food, the Hell
Alberto wrote:
You fail to mention something in this dichotomy: an economical
disaster will trigger an ecological disaster, much worse than
the ecological disaster that may come if we "do nothing";
People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about
the environment. Ecology is for rich people, p
Quick note:
I'm off for vacation shortly, so I'll be AFK for the next chapter or
two. Just wanted to make sure you take my silence for the absence
that it will be, not apathy. :-)
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> My worry has always been not that the experts on warming are
> alarmist, but that they are too conservative in their estimates. If
> we acted quickly and an economic disaster followed, the world would
> be impacted for a generation or less. If, however, we triggered
64 matches
Mail list logo
