Skip to main content

There is a hero on a mission to save the oceans. She has a credible plan and the international 'creds' to accomplish this long overdue and necessary component to preserving a vital piece of our biological home which must be saved if our species and the species with whom we share our environment are to survive.

Dr. Sylvia Earle has been on the leading edge of oceanic research for more than sixty years. She has spent almost a year underwater in the depths of the ocean for which she acquired the title: 'Her Deepness". Now she has a plan and a "Mission Blue" to get her plan to the powers that be.

Take a look at her plan from the new documentary "Mission Blue" which is being released and streamed by Netflix today.

Dr. Earle's optimism is infectious. It needs to be. Her mission is to save the largest living body on our planet and it's difficult to get people to focus when only the surface of the ocean is visible.

Earle: I’m greatly encouraged. Actually, just these last few months there’s been significant progress. Like President Obama announcing his intent to establish an area bigger than all the national parks put together, which he brought up at the state department ocean conference in June.

And other nations are stepping up right now. About two years ago the U.K. protected the waters surrounding the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. In the Pacific we’re seeing a lot of island nations realize they have jurisdiction over a lot of ocean – a little bit of land, but a lot of ocean. Just in the last few weeks, the president of Palau has reaffirmed what he said at a United Nations meeting in New York, that he intends to close all of his country’s exclusive economic zones to the industrial fishing that has taken a big bite out of the sharks, the tunas, and other ocean wildlife. So protecting our oceans is an idea that’s catching on. And I’m optimistic that once people see that it really works – like in Cabo Pulmo – it’s really going to begin to catch fire.

Most of us on this site know that the climate crisis is bad. Really really bad. It does no good to despair about the devastating time we live in. The only thing that will help is to focus on solutions and to actually take action in our own lives to make the changes necessary and to promote those solutions which will lead us to a safer future. Dr. Earle presents a solution which is doable and would have a great impact on protecting our oceans and our future.

Originally posted to Climate Change SOS on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:34 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kitchen Table Kibitzing.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Short summary of the plan (8+ / 0-)

    would be nice for those who don't want to watch the videos.

  •  Have you read ? (9+ / 0-)

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

    Heal the Ocean: Solutions for Saving Our Seas
    by Rod Fujita

    http://books.google.com/...

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:55:18 AM PDT

  •  Truly brilliant and inspired throughout her (5+ / 0-)

    stellar career.

    "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

    by LaFeminista on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 08:58:00 AM PDT

  •  Many thanks for this information. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MizC, VL Baker, Another Grizzle

    I knew about this woman's work, she's a gem. How many people even know about her work? That the oceans are dying is unfathomable, but true, so we all need to share this.

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:03:26 AM PDT

  •  It is the little things we do that make a (6+ / 0-)

    difference.  It is the big things we do that make a difference.  It is the things we do that make a difference.  The power of one and the powerlessness of one.  

    We have a choice in the things we do.  Indifference, apathy and defeatism are all choices I refuse to make.  

    Some people say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one...
    Thanks for the good news and optimism.  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:13:54 AM PDT

  •  The oceans are under a triple threat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, asym

    Overfishing, habitat loss, and climate change. And the greatest of these is climate change. If that isn't addressed, it's game over.

    But while that battle is being waged, these sanctuaries at least give the oceans - now, what was that Elizabeth Warren phrase? -  a fighting chance.

    The real USA Patriot Act was written in 1789. It's called the Bill of Rights.

    by nicteis on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:15:28 AM PDT

  •  This is very heartening and deserves our utmost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    ...support!

    #CampaignFinanceReform is the lynchpin of our democracy. #AIKIDOPROVERBMoveSoonerNotFaster ~

    by ArthurPoet on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 09:44:23 AM PDT

  •  While more details would be great, focusing on ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    While more details would be great, focusing on solutions rather than the problems. Is the best to tackle the environment, and all the other problem going on in the world

  •  Oh my goodness, I can't watch videos right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeterHug, VL Baker

    now, but this website is awesome! I love that they are also working to develop female role models for young girls:
    http://mission-blue.org/...

    Regardless of whether they go into scientific fields, those are girls that are going to grow up to care deeply about the environment!

  •  "Don't dispair" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dinclusin

    I've been beating my head against this wall since the first Club of Rome models and Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb.

    The underlying cause of all these problems is simply overpopulation. Only one nation has faced that fact squarely: China. The US like most other nations has chosen to ignore it.

    The limits to growth are here, now, and it's obvious that the Club of Rome models were wrong mainly in one respect: they underestimated how strongly limits would assert themselves, and how early in the 21st century the effects would become severe.

    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

    by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

    •  the population bomb was notoriously wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ozy, peregrine kate

      It got every prediction wrong, and Ehrlich still won't admit it. Birth rates drop naturally when people have access to health care, education, and employment, particularly women. Worrying about birth rates is getting the problem exactly backwards, and worse, it often leads to blaming poor people in developing nations for problems largely caused by wealthy lifestyles in developed nations, lifestyles we now export to those developing nations.

      There is no way to speak sensibly about the carrying capacity of the planet without also referring to standards of living, and that is where the work needs to be done. It almost every mainstream measure of standard of living, per capita GDP is a major factor. That needs to change.

      •  Yeah, this overpopulation meme (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HarryTurtledove

        at DKos has got to be challenged. It shows up everywhere, and like you say ignores the facts on the grounds.

        If you're lucky, the proponents will merely mix up cause and effect. If you're unlucky, you'll see them advocate for war or plague to 'fix' the problem.

        •  Let's hear someone who can afford scuba diving (0+ / 0-)

          as a hobby lecture humanity on overconsumption.

          (PS. I live on Social Security Disability and nothing else).

          American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

          by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 01:21:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  a charge of hypocrisy (0+ / 0-)

            is one of the weakest arguments there is, because it doesn't refute any of the facts at hand. Yes, wealthy westerners are overwhelmingly responsible for our environmental problems, as much as you'd like us to think it's all of the brown people breeding like rabbits.

            Once more, The Population Bomb has been past outdated for years and is now rightly treated social science as ridiculous bunkum.

          •  Oh, I'm so ashamed at my extravagant lifestyle. (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, please lecture me on taking a honeymoon to Hawaii, staying at a $95/night vacation rental owned by a divemaster who included free scuba trips, and enjoying the ocean that this whole fucking diary is talking about preserving!

            For fucks sake, I suppose next you're going to rail against someone who used gasoline to go visit a national park.

            Here's a suggestion. Turn off your computer. It's just consuming electricity.

            Jerk.

            •  people take this stuff too personally (0+ / 0-)

              But the real answer isn't personal choice, it's changing the culture and our perception of what quality of life really means. Which is why the "hypocrite!" response in this instance is particularly lame.

              •  Especially in a diary that promotes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HarryTurtledove

                preserving and appreciating marine ecosystems.

                SCUBA divers are much more likely to support measures to preserve the ocean's ecosystems, just like national park visitors are more likely to want to preserve the wilderness.

                That's part of the reason to create such sanctuaries in the first place, and part of the point of the diary.

                We need to drastically cut CO2 emissions, by like 50-90% by 2050 to meet the 2-3 degree C limit for temperature rise.

                Clearly this will not happen via population limits, unless one suggests the mass genocide of 50-90% of the earths population. We need combinations of lifestyle changes, efficiency improvements, but most importantly a worldwide shift to non-carbon energy usage that can be implemented everywhere including developing nations.

                •  the culture thing is key (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  peregrine kate

                  the article I linked mentions in the conclusion that the US's emissions would be three times lower if we lived more like Europeans do. Not to say that one culture fits all, of course, but there's lots we could do here.

                  I'm also not sure why a worldwide program of reforestation isn't taken more seriously as a robust geoengineering solution.

                  •  There's a limit (0+ / 0-)

                    to the additional biomass of the added forest. It just isn't enough to absorb the massive prehistoric carbon we've dug up and burned.

                    There are currently about 300GTonnes of carbon in forests around the world.

                    We've emitted about 1600GTonnes of carbon from fossil fuels.

                    •  how do we know what the limit is? (0+ / 0-)

                      permaculture can do amazing things these days...

                      •  One could probably calculate it (0+ / 0-)

                        using limits of photosynthesis and available water & nutrients.

                        You also have to preserve the additional biomass so it doesn't rot and outgass methane (thus defeating the purpose).

                        Dyson proposed such a solution which involved genetically engineering trees to sequester stable carbon in the soil, but it was pretty widely panned in the scientific community by those who bothered to look at it seriously.

                        Basically, you're talking about using plants to 'scrub' the atmosphere, and given the energy inefficiency of photosynthesis I would think that we could develop a faster artificial process.

                        Essentially, you're talking about increasing the forest biomass by a factor of 6, or a bit less if you don't need to scrub out all the additional CO2.

                        Seems like a stretch to me, but hey, if you can make it work, great!

      •  Still believing in magic cornucopias (0+ / 0-)

        as the oceans die and droughts become the norm....

        American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

        by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 01:08:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  While it's true that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana

        population responds to living standards, the fact is population has skyrocketed over the past 40 years and is expected to continue to skyrocket for the foreseeable future.  This massive overpopulation is what has caused climate change, overfishing, and all the rest.  

        We had the fortune/misfortune of having the green revolution occur at the same time that the population bomb was being predicted.  This staved off mass starvation for a few decades at the expense of poisoning the land, air, and sea with petroleum based fertilizers and leaching the nutrients out of the soil.  The temporary "solution" to the population bomb has actually aggravated the problem in a big way.

        A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

        by Dinclusin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 01:26:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A sane comment (0+ / 0-)

          Of course consumption plays a role, something Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren always emphasized. But the basic driver behind our predicament is population growth.

          And the denialism about it that is still the norm this far into the overwhelming evidence that the Club of Rome, Ehrlich, Holdren et al were essentially right tells me that we have very little chance of avoiding a massive human dieback.

          I beat my head against the brick wall of human stupidity for a lifetime. Here I am, doing it again -- and people as just as stupid as they were during the Reagan era.

          I give up. I've never owned a car and I had no children. That was my contribution to the effort to save humanity -- far more than most people ever gave or would be willing to give.

          American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

          by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 01:37:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HarryTurtledove
            I beat my head against the brick wall of human stupidity for a lifetime. Here I am, doing it again -- and people as just as stupid as they were during the Reagan era.

            I give up. I've never owned a car and I had no children. That was my contribution to the effort to save humanity -- far more than most people ever gave or would be willing to give.

            How magnanimous of you.

            What did you contribute to a solution?

            Research? My job is alternative, non-carbon energy research. I spent 12 years in school just to get started.

            Products? A few colleagues and I are starting a company to design and produce a low-cost, solar thermal/cooling system focusing first on commercial, and then hopefully smaller scale residential units.

            There are billions of people with a lower environmental footprint than you. Granted, many of them are in third-world nations. But in my view, if that's the limit of your contributions then your criticisms of others fall pretty damn short. So why don't you dial down your self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitudes and listen to what others are saying for a change.

            The facts that you thought you knew might just be wrong.

        •  nope! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ozy

          take a look at this article and scroll down to the graph labeled "Relationship between population change between now and 2050 and current per capita emissions." The trend is fairly obvious. Likewise, overfishing is largely due to nations with low population rates who prefer fish higher up the food chain. This kind of thing is true for "all the rest" as you say, as well.

          •  You are focusing on higher order effects (0+ / 0-)

            Look at the problem as a power spectrum and pay attention to the the main variable. You understand Fourier analysis, right?

            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 02:22:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This makes absolutely no sense. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HarryTurtledove

              What do you think a power spectral analysis would show?

              You essentially have a strongly peaked, narrow Gaussian centered around 0 population growth indicating the anti-correlation between population growth and CO2 emission.

              Of course, this makes sense as low population growth is strongly associated with higher standards of living and thus more consumption.

              That's not a 'higher order effect', that's the 0 order effect. And casting it as a spectral problem makes no sense, whatsoever.

              •  Wrong approach (0+ / 0-)

                You are looking for a way to estimate the causal importance of various drivers. You want a time series analysis.

                American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 02:53:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of what data? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HarryTurtledove

                  The two previous charts are time-history charts, and again don't show what you claim.

                  How about instead of beating around the bush, you provide the data and you provide the analysis to support your conclusions. Right now you seem to be throwing out a lot of terms you hope will scare people off instead of actually showing the work yourself.

                  •  Pft. As I said, I've done more than my bit for you (0+ / 0-)

                    If you cisfolk are determined to commit collective suicide, who am I to stop you.

                    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                    by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 03:11:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, that's what I thought. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      HarryTurtledove

                      All you have is self-righteous bullying and 'tech-sounding' smokescreens.

                      You haven't don't 'more than your bit', you've done literally nothing, and can't even be bothered to support your claims with the barest of efforts.

                      •  hetcis scum die (0+ / 0-)

                        American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                        by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 04:27:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  too bad you revert to this stuff (0+ / 0-)

                          although I am a hetcis man, I try to be as radical feminist as I can (or, a radical feminist supporter, if you prefer). I think gender is in many ways the oldest and most essential division, and therefore the key to many other forms of oppression.

                          I have a hard time understanding how your words here help the feminist or the environmentalist cause. Blaming birth rates for environmental degradation is both deeply antifeminist and contrary to fact. It seems to me your stubbornness outweighs your commitment to social justice.

                          •  Patriarchy is the root cause of overpopulation (0+ / 0-)

                            and hence climate change and the impending human dieback.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 05:16:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  sure (0+ / 0-)

                            As I said, I am very amenable to the idea that patriarchy is the root of other forms of oppression. But the most dominant cultures on the planet (namely, western ones) have seen declining birth rates and increasing per capita consumption. Is patriarchy therefore on the wane in those societies? Or has it achieved new and subtler forms? I'm not sure, but if women's liberation is tied up with western-style consumption, then we are in deep trouble, and that goes for women and the rest of the world, because that kind of consumption is not sustainable.

                            Have you really considered the fact that the countries with higher birth rates have lower per capita consumption? It seems to me that you haven't. It surprises me that you are not more understanding of victims who are blamed for their predicament.

                          •  You will see per capita consumption drop in the US (0+ / 0-)

                            as food, water and fuel prices rise due to scarcity and climate change.

                            You need to focus less on the noisy details and more on the causal connections.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 05:28:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW I don't think human prospects are controlled (0+ / 0-)

                            any longer by marginal decreases in either consumption or population. I think they are probably now controlled by methane clathrates breaking down in the Arctic ocean.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 05:41:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  again, i feel you are ignoring the data (0+ / 0-)

                            and the most relevant parts of my comment. I agree about your prediction about the US. Blaming peoples with high birth rates for climate change is both factually and morally wrong.

                          •  But I'm not (0+ / 0-)

                            I consider the US hugely overpopulated, when you take into account their carbon footprint. But you can't even get to that discussion in the US because of the scientific illiteracy here.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:10:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  a discussion of population (0+ / 0-)

                            only makes sense in the context of a discussion about consumption. Anything you can say about population limits necessarily relies on some assumptions about consumption rates and standard of living.

                            In focusing on birth rates you are very obviously blaming the victim, and that is contrary to the method and spirit of both feminism and environmentalism.

                            And sorry, but fans of Ehrlich are not credible speakers on scientific literacy. That book was the definition of middlebrow pop science, something you supposedly are against.

                          •  Then I guess you want Obama to fire John Holdren (0+ / 0-)

                            Why don't you start a Whitehouse.gov petition to get rid of the Obama's tainted Ehrlich coauthor?

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:19:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  selective reading (0+ / 0-)

                            is what you're doing here. You are only engaging with the peripheries of my argument. If you were genuinely engaged in this conversation, you would be able to respond in a straightforward way to the fact that high birth rates are correlated with low emission rates. But you can't.

                          •  It's a historical byproduct of colonialism (0+ / 0-)

                            and irrelevant to the basic ecology of a technological civilization.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:31:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's also likely to be a brief episode (0+ / 0-)

                            as mortality rates will rise first in the areas with the high birth rates.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:33:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  how are birth rates irrelevant? (0+ / 0-)

                            You are so pithy as to be almost cryptic, but I think that's what you meant.

                            From what I see, the more technological a civilization becomes, the more its birth rate drops and its emission rate increases. How does that jibe with what you say?

                          •  You are not looking at the problem as a system. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a global physiological system not a handful of correlations.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:40:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  sure I am (0+ / 0-)

                            and that your disagreement is becoming more and more abstract I think is a sign of its weakened position.

                            Just because the system is global doesn't mean we can't make important distinctions. The pressures opulent lifestyles put on that system can be distinguished from those high birth rates do. You are apparently refusing to consider the idea that the places with higher birth rates have lower emission rates, and the appeal to holism is unconvincing. Pretending that overpopulation is the main cause of global warming is blaming the victims of colonialism, which has been part of the colonialist script since forever. Why do you want to be a part of that?

                          •  High birth rates are very temporary (0+ / 0-)

                            And the emissions in wealthier areas will also decrease as those areas become poorer.

                            We are far into overshoot now, in both wealthy and poor areas. Populations will decrease and so will total consumption.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:51:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree (0+ / 0-)

                            but you are still evading my argument. You have blamed the victims of colonialism for global warming, and that is shameful.

                          •  I have not (0+ / 0-)

                            I blame the patriarchy.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 06:53:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  my favorite blog! (0+ / 0-)

                            seriously, though, weak sauce. Rich babies use vastly more carbon than poor babies, and the (slowing) number of poor babies doesn't make up for that, at all. Please, reconsider the pop science you read forty years ago.

                          •  The rising price of fuel, food and water (0+ / 0-)

                            will make up for it.

                            I notice rising food prices because I live on Social Security. But what we are seeing now is nothing to the rates of increase we will be seeing in the near future.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:03:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  once more, that's fine (0+ / 0-)

                            you still have not explained how peoples with high birth rates are mostly responsible for global warming.

                          •  I never said they were (0+ / 0-)

                            This isn't a moral argument to me, though I sense it is to you. To me its more like an exercise in pathology -- in trying to understand how ecological regulation of the planetary system broke down and lead to a mass extinction. As I've indicated, I think the answer is that patriarchy began to spread during the Bronze Age. When women became resources for men, birth rates were no longer regulated by women's assessment of how many children they could raise with the resources at hand. That I think was the key break in the ecological regulation of our species.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:09:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'm not sure of the historicity (0+ / 0-)

                            of your bronze age assessment. I'd guess (though I'm no archaeologist) it was much earlier.

                            But really, it seems to me you are conceiving of this too holistically. The idea that there is a single "patriarchy" or that all patriarchal cultures operate the same way, I think is mistaken. A big part of its insidiousness is its diversity.

                            And sure, the argument for me is always a moral one, but I try to make sure my morals are based in fact. And the fact remains that the places with higher birth rates in recent history have had lower carbon emissions, which directly contradicts your narrative.

                          •  I'm only interested in how things actually work (0+ / 0-)

                            not in how humans wish they worked.

                            Your data point about recent history of birth rates would look very different if key technological inventions of medicine and agriculture had not occurred. Population would have peaked a few decades ago but for the green revolution. It would never have risen to billions without the discoveries of medicine from the later 19th century on.

                            We have delayed the effects of ecological limits, but cannot do so any longer.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:27:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  relying on counterfactuals (0+ / 0-)

                            I think is a very tricky business indeed. What would have happened if we hadn't had the cold war? What if we had achieved syndicalist socialism all around the world? What if, instead of the green revolution, permaculture had developed to the point we could reforest any ecosystem? The carrying capacity of the earth might have been much greater than you conceive of it.

                            Because that's the point, your comment is oxymoronic - you are supposedly only interested in how things actually work, but then go on to imagine counterfactuals.

                            I, like you, am a pessimist. I don't think we'll meet these challenges. I do think they're largely derivative of patriarchy. But that doesn't mean I pretend high birth rates are the cause of our issues, as you seem to. And if that's not what you're doing, you haven't been very effective at communicating your point here.

                          •  Historically, population growth is the main driver (0+ / 0-)

                            of the effects humans have on their environment. That is true for any species, and we are no exception.

                            But that doesn't mean that every little twitch of every system variable is instantaneously due to a change in population levels. The system is complex and has many time delays built into it.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:44:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you might as well just say "domination" (0+ / 0-)

                            is the main driver. Or wealth inequality. They have both increased along with carbon emissions. But again, we understand that correlation is not causation. Environmental degradation is also correlated to the number of candy bars produced. But are candy bars the cause? Humans are uniquely social in the animal kingdom, and the rate of birth is more socially determined than anything else. And so is the way those births interact with the environment.

                            Would you care to cite a study that population growth is the main driver of the effect humans have on their environment? Because the rest of your social science is severely outdated.

                          •  You do realize (0+ / 0-)

                            that your link refutes your claim and supports Harry's claim, don't you?

                            Their population model peaks out under 10B and then declines slightly for the rest of their projection (Figure 6), while at the same time the modeled emissions are accelerating (Figure 5).

                            Why would you post a link that directly contradicts your claim and expect it to go unremarked?

                          •  No, it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                            That's a very simple model, not a serious prediction. Its purpose is to show how much of the behavior can be captured by basic predator-prey dynamics, i.e. by a classic population biology model.

                            I thought the remarks about Ehrlich and Holdren's I=PAT were also especially appropriate for Harry.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:00:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My basic "claim" BTW is that human interactions (0+ / 0-)

                            with the biosphere are fundamentally biology. This model is very much in that spirit.

                            But it is way too simplistic a model of the Earth's systems to be taken seriously as a predictive model. It doesn't incorporate the climate system at all. It is a nice way to show the power of simple concepts from population biology.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 11:11:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My point about "how things work" (0+ / 0-)

                            pertain the moral issues. I'm not interested in them, only in scientific understanding.

                            Of course "counterfactuals" are part of any dynamical understanding of a system.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:47:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i am very interested in moral issues (0+ / 0-)

                            but you are free to take "blamed" amorally, if you like, as "cause." My argument wouldn't change, which is what I meant about my morals being based in fact.

                          •  seriously, were you specifically referring (0+ / 0-)

                            to twisty faster? Because I love that blog!

                          •  One of many anti-TERF feminists I like (0+ / 0-)

                            though the phrase was around before the blog.

                            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                            by atana on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  of course it was (0+ / 0-)

                            but I think she's adopted it fairly iconically.

                        •  I would much prefer (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          HarryTurtledove

                          if you presented real arguments rather than HR-able bullshit.

                          You're a bully hiding behind the keyboard and your 'less privileged' status making bullshit claims and screaming about privilege when your so-called facts are challenged.

                          It's disgusting, mostly because it denigrates the real issues of privilege that challenge our society.

                          •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy

                            I try to be a rad fem as much as I can. So I think there are plenty of situations where "hetcis scum" is probably entirely appropriate. The non sequitur use of it here degrades the discourse and weakens the credibility of that charge in general.

  •  reforestation of the land and sea (0+ / 0-)

    is the only viable solution to conflict change.

  •  were running out of time...n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    The era of procrastination, half-measures, soothing & baffling expedients, & delays, is coming to a close. We are entering a period of consequences - Churchill

    by PrometheusUnbound on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 12:19:15 PM PDT

  •  I don't get it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

    What does designating oceanic wilderness areas do about acidification and oceanic warming?

    A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

    by Dinclusin on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 01:17:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site