FLYER Forums

eltonioni wrote:@johnm you're entitled to your opinions but I believe what I wrote stands up a fact except where I pointed out where it's just opinion.

How is it factually different now than at any time in human history, as per your opinion?

It isn't. The issue is the future not the past....

I’m kinda reminded of the result of (an apocryphal?) questionnaire at a convention attended by a mix of science academics.

Question was something like “name the key driver behind the growth of human innovation over the past 100 years”

Response was the “Haber-Bosch process”.

eltonioni wrote:@johnm you're entitled to your opinions but I believe what I wrote stands up a fact except where I pointed out where it's just opinion.

Sustainability. You may be correct in what you say about humans if you disregard all other species on the planet. I don't think we should do that.

eltonioni wrote:How is it factually different now than at any time in human history, as per your opinion?

Numbers. The fact that we now need wildlife reserves and conservation projects just to give a little habitat to some animals/plants to try to make sure they don't go extinct.

Paul_Sengupta wrote:

eltonioni wrote:@johnm you're entitled to your opinions but I believe what I wrote stands up a fact except where I pointed out where it's just opinion.

Sustainability. You may be correct in what you say about humans if you disregard all other species on the planet. I don't think we should do that.

eltonioni wrote:How is it factually different now than at any time in human history, as per your opinion?

Numbers. The fact that we now need wildlife reserves and conservation projects just to give a little habitat to some animals/plants to try to make sure they don't go extinct.

You forgot the fish. Everyone forgets the fish.

In fact, so long and thanks for all the fish....

Ottawa area has a number of excellent museums, including (and, obviously, first for Forumites) the aviation one at Rockcliffe. This one, easy to overlook, is also well worth a visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada_Museum

'borrowing' Yap rai stones must have been a challenge, and 'minting new ones took more than computer cycles

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rrency.jpg

Paul_Sengupta wrote:

eltonioni wrote:@johnm you're entitled to your opinions but I believe what I wrote stands up a fact except where I pointed out where it's just opinion.

Sustainability. You may be correct in what you say about humans if you disregard all other species on the planet. I don't think we should do that.

eltonioni wrote:How is it factually different now than at any time in human history, as per your opinion?

Numbers. The fact that we now need wildlife reserves and conservation projects just to give a little habitat to some animals/plants to try to make sure they don't go extinct.

I do agree with you Paul but John wasn't talking about saving Sumatran tigers or humpbacked whales. He was saying that humans are breeding to self-extinction, which is complete rubbish.

In a thoroughly analytical assessment would probably put those fauna into the nice to have "tat" category when it comes to their importance to human sustainability alone. We need pangolins like we need a hole in the head. We do like nice things though, so we generally try to acquire / look after them even if we don't need them. Quite right too!

In passing, is it still legal to keep a lion in the shed? Always willing to do my bit.

eltonioni wrote:..

In passing, is it still legal to keep a lion in the shed? Always willing to do my bit.

I suspect that both local authorities and RSPCA might have views on an appropriate size of shed .. but maybe not out of the question

eltonioni wrote:. We need pangolins like we need a hole in the head:lol:

Absolutely we need pangolins.

The logical end point of your argument is a planet populated solely by humans kept alive by its own technology. We are not clever enough to do that and never will be.

Gaia will chew us up and spit us out first.

lobstaboy wrote:

eltonioni wrote:. We need pangolins like we need a hole in the head:lol:

Absolutely we need pangolins.

The logical end point of your argument is a planet populated solely by humans kept alive by its own technology. We are not clever enough to do that and never will be.

Gaia will chew us up and spit us out first.

We need pangolins like we need any of the 99.99% of species that have ever existed which are now extinct, whether or not they made it through one of the three planetary mass extinction events.

Gaia will be fine though - absolutely agree with you there. Our conceit that Gaia exists for us will PROB99.9999 die out with us some day and the Earth will cope just fine.

John wasn't talking about saving Sumatran tigers or humpbacked whales. He was saying that humans are breeding to self-extinction, which is complete rubbish.

I don't think I said that. I merely explained that population growth inevitably unbalances the resource production/consumption position. I didn't suggest it couldn't be rebalanced and I also pointed out that infinite growth on a finite planet is viewed as impossible.

I certainly agree that the "save the planet" nonsense is just that, save the human species is a different issue, there was a lovely article and headline on the Daily Mash that covered the point very well as I recall.

Earth says "I'll be fine."

God says "Hmmm, I had hoped that evolution would have worked out better."

Do you remember that film - what doe sit say in ever dollar bill - "in God we trust".

It is almost the truth. It should say "in confidence we trust".

When it comes to Government's it actually isnt that different from you and I - you might lend me a million dollars, because you trust me to repay it. As soon as that trust starts to evaporate, the value of the loan changes, so the whole system is predicated on trust, trust America will pay its vast debt, trust the UK will, In the case of you and I when the trust fails, there are the Courts, in the case of Governments the market deals with the problem with exchange rates, the Government by printing money or, better still, other fiscal action to foster confidence it will repay the debt (fiscal tightening, more taxes etc).

Everyone can be a creditor, until the confidence in the main players falls apart and then we have a depression at the end of which the whole system recalibrates.

Government borrowing is essentially infinite, as long as they can pay the interest and interest rates are not high. As bonds become due the money to pay them back is raised by borrowing through issue of more bonds and so on and so on....

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for loan loses itself and friend, and dulls the edge of husbandry”
Never a more powerful piece of advice.

kanga wrote:

eltonioni wrote:..

In passing, is it still legal to keep a lion in the shed? Always willing to do my bit.

I suspect that both local authorities and RSPCA might have views on an appropriate size of shed .. but maybe not out of the question

some large feline clearly finding shed unsatisfactory

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52808138