That's a very clever little construct. If you say you have a problem, you have a problem. If you say you don't have a problem, you're in denial, and you have a problem.
Why not? I suppose if you define "natural" as "that which is not the product of sentient action", then it's not "natural". I don't understand the value of that distinction.
If you define "natural" as "the result of organisms interacting in a biosphere", then there's nothing that isn't natural.
I guess I don't understand what the value of being "natural" is. I have the same issue with the word "organic". Maybe it's my blind spot.
"you speak of is so arbitrary and dependent on a plethora of outside factors that what can be considered "fit" today may well become "completely unfit" tomorrow. Or today, but in a different climate."
Fitness is defined, identically, as survival. Them what survives are fit. Them what are fit survive. Nothing arbitrary about it.
It's pretty simple. The biggest player in any given space is the Microsoft (or GM) of that space. Having drawn the parallel, you can carry over all the preconceptions about the other space, and stop thinking right there.
"Then why is there only a single scientist who has published in a peer-reviewed journal (out of thousands) with a claim denying human involvement in global warming?"
Because that's an unprovable assertion? Because the system is far, far too complex to just do some sums, draw a big black line at the bottom, and say "Well, that's it for civilization. We're screwed!"
If anthropogenic global warming is 30% responsible for the global warming trend, how on Earth (heh, pun!) do you suppose that we're going to be able to reverse the trend? Should we destroy economies (particularly the third world economies that tend to pollute disproportionate to their economic output) to reduce the warming trend by less than 30%?
There are common sense approaches to conservation. Employing those would be a good idea. These moon-shot "Gotta stop global warming!" ideas are crazy talk.
"If you melt _only_ the sumbmerged ice, the water volume will decrease. If you melt _only_ the ice above the water, the water volume will increase"
Um,
There's less ice above the water than there is below the water, so I'm pretty sure that your contrived straw-grasping is both meaningless (in the first clause) and incorrect (in the second).
Slashdot Mirror
"the religion of Christianity"
Right, because it's a monolithic overmind-driven entity, like Slashdot.
"There are some that might say a religion that can be exploited in this manner has an inherent problem with it."
Um, the "inherent problem" is the fact that humans are clannish animals. That's not religion, that's biology.
Yeah, I'm sure he's dishonest because he doesn't hew to your preconceptions. That must be it.
Why would you expect that? Gibson has always been very up front about the fact that he's not a technophile.
That's a very clever little construct. If you say you have a problem, you have a problem. If you say you don't have a problem, you're in denial, and you have a problem.
Astounding.
The problem won't get solved unless people can put down their preconceptions and do good science, and that drives well-thought-out policy.
We're not going to get that from anybody who lives in Washington.
Heh. They're not worth my time. : )
"are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil"
OK, when was the world ever not in turmoil? Turmoil is the normal state of affairs for, well, everything.
Yes. So? Fitness is still fitness. Survival is still survival.
"It doesn't mean they were unfit, just unfit for such a different environment. "
That's what "fitness" is. Adapt or die.
"Doesn't sound all too natural to me."
Why not? I suppose if you define "natural" as "that which is not the product of sentient action", then it's not "natural". I don't understand the value of that distinction.
If you define "natural" as "the result of organisms interacting in a biosphere", then there's nothing that isn't natural.
I guess I don't understand what the value of being "natural" is. I have the same issue with the word "organic". Maybe it's my blind spot.
You can try. Better bring some friends.
"you speak of is so arbitrary and dependent on a plethora of outside factors that what can be considered "fit" today may well become "completely unfit" tomorrow. Or today, but in a different climate."
Fitness is defined, identically, as survival. Them what survives are fit. Them what are fit survive. Nothing arbitrary about it.
It's pretty simple. The biggest player in any given space is the Microsoft (or GM) of that space. Having drawn the parallel, you can carry over all the preconceptions about the other space, and stop thinking right there.
It's apparently very comforting.
Go read about MTBE and then tell me that environmentalists don't hurt anyone.
Why on Earth would you use clean potable water to fraction into hydrogen?
What do you suppose happens to the hydrogen after it reacts with oxygen and generates electricity (fuel cell) or movement of a piston?
That's not to say hydrogen is going to be a viable technology...there are about a million and six issues that would need to be resolved first.
Availability of water is not one of them.
Thank you, Captain Obvious! What WOULD we do without you?
Neither Antarctica nor Greenland are in your glass of water.
I'd say both of them.
No, I think that people blindly pulling triggers of guns is a rotten idea.
"since being shot by some psychopath with a gun or a crossbow"
And it's widely known that no psychopaths work in slaughterhouses.
Hunting need not be inhumane. Slaughterhouses need not be humane. The thing that makes an activity humane or not is the human performing the activity.
Ever heard of the Population Bomb?
"Then why is there only a single scientist who has published in a peer-reviewed journal (out of thousands) with a claim denying human involvement in global warming?"
Because that's an unprovable assertion? Because the system is far, far too complex to just do some sums, draw a big black line at the bottom, and say "Well, that's it for civilization. We're screwed!"
If anthropogenic global warming is 30% responsible for the global warming trend, how on Earth (heh, pun!) do you suppose that we're going to be able to reverse the trend? Should we destroy economies (particularly the third world economies that tend to pollute disproportionate to their economic output) to reduce the warming trend by less than 30%?
There are common sense approaches to conservation. Employing those would be a good idea. These moon-shot "Gotta stop global warming!" ideas are crazy talk.
If you can't treat a nosebleed, what makes you think you can treat a sucking chest wound?
"If you melt _only_ the sumbmerged ice, the water volume will decrease. If you melt _only_ the ice above the water, the water volume will increase"
Um,
There's less ice above the water than there is below the water, so I'm pretty sure that your contrived straw-grasping is both meaningless (in the first clause) and incorrect (in the second).